Global Research

On Saturday, March 21 the ANSWER Coalition is taking a lead role, as part of a broader coalition, in organizing a National March in Washington, D.C., to oppose the policy of “endless war” in Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East. The March 21 National March will gather at the White House at 12:00 Noon and will be the culmination of four days of actions in the Capitol. The events are being organized under the banner of Spring Rising.

This is a critical moment as the Obama administration seeks Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in the Middle East and perhaps beyond.

I hope you will participate in these actions, spread the word and show your support.

This message is written to explain why we consider the situation now to be of critical importance.

A grave moment

We are on the eve of what is being planned as a decades-long war — a war that will expand and grow. Although there was a promise by the President to “limit” the war, that should be understood as merely a talking point to soothe a skeptical public. If Obama had said that he was ordering a new “surge” of tens of thousands of troops to Iraq there would be massive anti-war protests in the streets of this country.

The President couldn’t risk that. Neither could the chest-thumping Republicans who always depict Obama as a weak leader. They too are afraid to tell the public that this is just the start and that the commitment will lead to a huge number of troops in Iraq — that military advisers and trainers will not succeed in defeating the Islamic State and that their failure will result in a steady expansion of U.S. troops to the battlefield.

Despite the initial promise of “No Boots on the Ground” we now see several thousand more U.S. troops in Iraq. On February 14, the Pentagon announced that it is sending a 4,000-strong brigade equipped with heavy weaponry to Kuwait. Massive U.S. airpower is deployed on bases and ships in the region. Iraqi cities and towns will be bombed again but the “limited war” will not succeed any more than it did in Vietnam and thus there will be a call for more and then more troops.

The U.S. Army has set up a Division Headquarters in Iraq. The only reason to establish such a Headquarters is for it to lead a Division. The Division hasn’t arrived yet but it will. A Division consists of 20,000 troops.

The problems in Iraq and Syria today are the consequences of U.S. military action. More U.S. military action now will strengthen the Islamic State, not weaken it. The catastrophe of an open-ended U.S. war will impact not only the people of the region, but the entire globe. To say that the stakes are high does not capture the magnitude of the possible disaster.

Now is the time for people to go into the streets to say NO to Congressional authorization for endless war.

U.S. military action broke up Iraq, Syria and Libya

There is a great deal of confusion about what the Obama administration is doing and why they are doing it. The confusion is caused by the deceptive presentation about the U.S. military struggle against the so-called Islamic State.

The Islamic State has established a formidable military presence in Iraq, Syria and Libya, and its influence is growing in other countries as well.

We must tell the truth, expose the lies and help the people of this country understand how they are being deceived by the Pentagon and the leadership of both the Republicans and Democrats.

The U.S. military strategy in the Middle East has been and is the primary catalyst for the growth of the Islamic State. Now, fighting the Islamic State is the public rationale for authorization for an open ended war by the Pentagon in the Middle East. That will require military bases, thousands of troops, fighter jets and hundreds of billions of dollars in military expenditures.

The Pentagon destroyed the secular governments and state apparatus in Iraq and Libya that created the political space for the rise of the Islamic State and other right-wing Islamic militias. The CIA, through Jordan and Turkey, coordinated the massive foreign arms flow into Syria to those the State Department and the mainstream media labeled “freedom fighters” from 2011 to 2014. Flush with arms and funding from abroad, and their victory in Libya, these armed units successfully captured large areas of Syrian territory from the government. These spaces have been used to create the so-called Islamic State Caliphate.

In August/September 2013, Secretary of State Kerry and his neo-conservative friends in Congress were demanding that the United States start the massive bombing of the Syrian Army. That was prevented only by the grassroots anti-war opposition in the United States, Britain and elsewhere. Kerry and McCain led the charge for the bombing of the Syrian Arab Army at that time and not once during that entire episode did they call for military action against the Islamic State. By then (August/September 2013) the Islamic State and the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra were the dominant military force in the armed opposition in Syria and would have been the prime beneficiary of U.S. military action.

The rise of the Islamic State is the direct outcome of U.S. military policies

Without the criminally destructive actions of U.S. politicians and the Pentagon high command, the Islamic State would not exist today except perhaps as a very small entity.

Under the direction of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon invaded Iraq. U.S. authorities immediately dissolved the national government and the national army. Since the UN would not authorize this action, the Bush White House premised the “legality” of its actions on the spineless Congressional Authorization of October 2002.

As a direct result of this premeditated act of aggression, the nation of Iraq fragmented along ethnic and sectarian lines. Bush and Cheney, after ordering the dissolution of the Iraqi government, established their own military dictatorship in Iraq under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Led by an American, L. Paul Bremer, who did not even speak Arabic, the CPA tore up Iraq’s Constitution and set about to re-create Iraq under the tutelage of American military occupation. From the beginning, the U.S. occupation, both wittingly and unwittingly, fragmented Iraq along ethnic and religious lines.

In response to the Iraqi armed resistance – unanticipated by Washington – against the occupation that began in the summer of 2003, U.S. officials consciously re-organized and funded Iraqi political life and the government on a strictly sectarian basis: A Shiite would be Prime Minister, a Kurd would be President, a Sunni would be the Speaker of the National Assembly. And then, starting in 2004, in an effort prevent the emergence of unified, nationwide Iraqi resistance front, U.S. occupation officials and the Pentagon and CIA started funding militias whose identity was anchored in religion or ethnicity. It was a classic divide-and-conquer tool that British colonialism had employed in the Indian sub-continent and throughout its far-flung empire.

It was precisely U.S. policies that fragmented Iraq. And today, Iraq as it existed up until 13 years ago is no more. That is why the Islamic State exists as a force in Iraq.

The areas that the Islamic State now control are the population centers that were bombed and occupied by U.S. military forces, marginalized and brutalized by the U.S.-created central Iraqi government and the sectarian militias who supported the government.

The urgent task of the anti-war movement in the United States

As we know — and knew then — the invasion of Iraq was based entirely on lies. It was an aggression based on power alone.

The criminals who ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq were not arrested nor are they demonized in the U.S. media. In fact, both Bush and Cheney are making large sums of money giving speeches, engaged in partisan fundraising, and writing and selling books while they appear on television talk shows to render their opinion on this or that issue.

For those who argue that the “United States must do something” in Iraq, it must be pointed out that the “something” is the bombing of the very cities and towns in Iraq that the U.S. military bombed and brutally occupied during the Bush years. The “something” is the arming and directing of sectarian militias and the national Iraqi army that for the past years has carried out a reign of terror against the population centers that are now under the control of the Islamic State.

It is important to think through the contradictory public positions adopted by the U.S. government — again, including both its Democratic and Republican wings.

U.S. foreign policy is an imperialist policy. Having wreaked so much destruction and suffering on the peoples of the Middle East, it is either crudely naive or an act of unabashed cynicism to assert that the Pentagon can be the agency to bring justice in the same countries it violently destroyed. The growing strength of the Islamic State and other such reactionary political forces is a dominant problem for progressive people in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world. For the past half century, the U.S. foreign policy and military strategy has been to destroy leftist and secular anti-imperialist movements and governments that constituted the leadership of the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements in the region. Having fulfilled that agenda, the officialdom in United States should not act surprised that loathsome organizations like the Islamic State have risen to fill the void.

Progressive forces in the Middle East are locked in a life-and-death struggle for the leadership of society against brutal reactionaries like the Islamic State. U.S. military action is not designed to nor can it help them. We, in the West, can offer political support and solidarity for their struggle to rescue the region from imperialism, the reactionary monarchies, the Israeli military machine and the revanchist reactionaries like the Islamic State.

For our part, progressive people in the United States have to mobilize now against the policies of our “own” government that has created a firestorm of destruction in the Middle East and now seeks “authorization” for decades more of war in the same countries and against the same peoples. Authorized by an imperial establishment, the policy of endless war that will be carried out by the Pentagon military machine can only lead to more suffering – neither peace nor liberation for the targeted peoples.

It is urgent that we revive the broad anti-war movement. Let’s start with the March 21 National March gathering at 12:00 Noon at the White House and by joining in the other actions scheduled in the days before in Washington, D.C.

Click here for a detailed list of the March 18-21 Spring Rising events.

Statement of Brian Becker, Director of the ANSWER Coalition

For more info go to: http://www.ANSWERCoalition.org.
Click this link to make an urgently needed donation to build the anti-war movement.

From street hustler to powerful orator, Malcolm X’s life was cut short when he was brutally murdered in front of family, friends and supporters. Fifty years on he is still at the forefront of political debate, but his legacy as a towering revolutionary pan-Africanist with important messages for our time is not in doubt.

Many people are aware that 21 February 2015 will commemorate 50 years since the brutal assassination of El Hajj Malik El Shabazz – Malcolm X – in front of hundreds of supporters, including his wife and children. There has certainly been much said and written about Malcolm over the last 50 years. There is the several-hundred-page controversial biography from Manning Marable that spawned two counter-position books as well as a number of other biopic works, which focused on Malcolm’s ideas, actions and influences on the activism that developed after his murder.

In the course of this dialogue, many from other ideological and political frameworks have worked to proclaim Malcolm as their own. The white Left, starting with the Socialist Workers Party in the 1960s, claim Malcolm as a Marxist/Leninist and even Trotskyist. Elements within the Nation of Islam have suggested for years that Malcolm’s true desire was to re-join their organisation. And, within recent years there’s even been a push to reframe Malcolm as a Barack Obama supporter. In fact, even his daughter IIyasah Shabazz has stated as much, although she has also admitted her very limited understanding of her father’s actual political work.

A cursory study of Malcolm’s life quickly illustrates the reasons behind his popularity and the desire of so many to move him into their political camps. Malcolm’s well-documented journey from street hustler to world renowned spokesperson and organiser for African liberation reflects the hard work and determination that many of us can only dream about. His fearlessness in articulating the problems of white supremacy and capitalism and his unique ability to take difficult political and economic concepts and break them down for common consumption and understanding were skills that motivated millions since Malcolm first joined the Nation in the 1950s.

His organising skills are often overlooked; however, he built two organisations after leaving the Nation of Islam – the Muslim Mosque Inc. and the Organisation of Afro-American Unity (OAAU). Most of us have a difficult enough time just belonging to and participating in one organisation. Even with including discussions about Malcolm’s personal shortcomings, such as his occasional ruthlessness towards some Mosque persons when he was a leader within the Nation of Islam and his patriarchal attitudes towards his wife Dr. Betty Shabazz, we are still impressed with Malcolm’s ability to acknowledge those shortcomings and to grow from them.

So it’s easy to understand why and how Malcolm was so attractive to so many people. His sincerity and honesty were qualities that all of us who are just loving people strive to reach in our own work and lives. His commitment, discipline, and determination were all characteristics that define the level of greatness required in order for our people to be propelled forward. Of course, the only proper way to pay homage to those qualities within Malcolm is to properly acknowledge who he was as a person and what ideals he dedicated his life towards. This is important because we believe it was his dedication to those particular ideals that ultimately cost him his life.

We believe that understanding Malcolm X means understanding his growing commitment to and relationship with Africa. The book The Final Speeches of Malcolm X (not to be confused with The Last Speeches of Malcolm X) provides a vision of where Malcolm’s head was. Those last twelve speeches were those he gave leading up to that Sunday meeting on February 21st, 1965 where his life came to an abrupt end. In all of those final speeches Malcolm’s focus was specifically on Africa. Much of what Malcolm had to say about Africa in those last two weeks of his life has been edited out and eliminated from the public discourse on what drove Malcolm’s evolving thinking but those final speeches give much insight into this question.

It was during those last two weeks that Malcolm began to clearly spell out his developing understanding that the struggle for African freedom and self-determination within the US was only part and parcel of the worldwide struggle for African liberation, freedom and socialism and that this struggle was in fact the struggle for Pan-Africanism, which was properly defined as one unified, socialist Africa.

Malcolm’s final speeches are filled with invectives for Africans in the US to stop expecting freedom in the US, while Africa was subjugated because Africa’s freedom was dependent upon releasing the very same forces that keep Africans in the US oppressed. Malcolm characterised this reality with his statements that Africa “is at the centre of our liberation” and that socialism is “the system all people in the world seem to be coming around to”.

The writing on the wall had been provided to Malcolm by his meeting Pan-Africanists like Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Toure. For anyone who doubts the impact these meetings had on Malcolm’s thinking all one has to do is read his own words in his autobiography. Malcolm described his meetings with Nkrumah as “the highlight of my travels” and “the highest honour of my life”. These words are true despite those meetings being ignored in Spike Lee’s 1992 biopic film and in pretty much everything else portrayed about Malcolm’s life.

Still, Malcolm illustrated his commitment to those statements by returning to the US and starting the OAAU, which was to be patterned after the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which Nkrumah started in Africa the previous year. In Malcolm’s mind, as he articulated in speeches during those last two weeks, the OAAU was to be the US branch to the OAU since the ideas both men were developing were focused on organising the African masses worldwide towards the Pan-Africanist objective.

Also, it should be understood that Malcolm and Nkrumah’s relationship extended far beyond a few meetings. Nkrumah had designs on building a political relationship with Malcolm around doing Pan-Africanist work and if one knows anything about Nkrumah’s history in Ghana, this shouldn’t be difficult to fathom. With Ghana’s independence came Nkrumah’s call for Africans all over the world to come to Ghana to help build Africa (Pan-Africanism).

George Padmore, the Pan-Africanist from Trinidad, heeded the call and moved to Ghana to become Nkrumah’s advisor. Both Shirley Graham DuBois and her more famous husband, W. E. B. DuBois also heeded that call along with many other noteworthy Africans (Louie Armstrong and Maya Angelou). Nkrumah’s book of letters The Conakry Years, which consisted of all of Nkrumah’s personal letters written and received while he was in Guinea after the Central Intelligence Agency’s sponsored coup that overthrew his government on February 24, 1966 (almost a year to the day after Malcolm was assassinated) contains letters Nkrumah wrote to Malcolm and to others about Malcolm, detailing Nkrumah’s efforts to persuade Malcolm to stay in Ghana and become a part of Nkrumah’s staff to work on their Pan-Africanist objective. Nkrumah’s letters to others indicate that Malcolm weighed the offer before indicating he could not just pick up and leave his work in the US and that it was unlikely that his wife would be willing to suddenly move to Africa anyway. Nkrumah’s letters mention that he confided in Malcolm that Ghanaian intelligence forces had revealed that Malcolm would be killed within months if he returned to the US but according to Nkrumah, that revelation seemed to spark Malcolm’s desire to return to the fire-hot situation against him in the US. Still, Malcolm collaborated in his recently published diary his intense desire to become a part of this network of Pan-Africanists in West Africa.

Malcolm’s personal notes point to a dinner discussion he had with Sekou Toure in Guinea-Conakry where Toure praised his work and told him that Africans need dignity, not money. The way Malcolm recalls that conversation in his diary entry indicates great affection and respect for Sekou Toure’s commitment to African self-determination as well as the extent to which Malcolm was being continually influenced and broadened by the thinking of revolutionaries like Nkrumah and Toure.

It’s also worth noting that three short years later another African revolutionary from the US ended up accepting Nkrumah’s offer to move to Guinea-Conakry and become his political secretary. Kwame Ture – then known as Stokely Carmichael – left the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and the Black Panther Party and agreed to accept the task of building the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party (A-APRP). The A-APRP is the political formation that Nkrumah birthed in his Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare in 1968, a book Nkrumah wrote as a response to his developed understanding of the role neo-colonialism played in Africa and the reasons why the OAU, a government top-down organisation, would never bring about any true liberation in Africa. The thesis of the handbook was that the A-APRP would be the mass revolutionary alternative to the OAU.

Before Kwame Ture emerged and decided to dedicate himself to Nkrumah’s Pan-Africanist vision, it’s clear that Nkrumah had designs on Malcolm X as the person to step into that role and the writings of Nkrumah and Malcolm confirm that. Perhaps, if Malcolm had been in the same situation that Kwame Ture i.e. was younger, single and childless history would have taken us in a completely different direction but either way, the point is that Malcolm clearly had developed a commitment to African unity, the primacy to Africa in our fight and an understanding that there is no freedom for African people in the Western world as long as Africa is not free, liberated and socialist.

Finally, it is necessary to talk about the assassination of Malcolm X. Recently, a white writer wrote an article about Malcolm X’s influence on US politics. In that essay the writer casually mentions that the Nation of Islam killed Malcolm X. Although this theory is widely accepted by white scholars, even the ones supposedly on the Left, within Pan-Africanist and African/Black nationalist circles, it has been repudiated ever since the day Malcolm was murdered.

There’s little question that people within the Nation had some involvement. The antagonism between Malcolm and the hierarchy of the Nation of Islam at the time, including National Secretary John Ali, Elijah Muhammad Jr. (son of Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad), Minister James Shabazz from New Jersey, Clarence X Gill the Fruit of Islam Captain from New Jersey and others, is well documented.

The troublesome statements against Malcolm made at the time by Minister Louis Farrakhan (then Louis X) are also well documented. Still, writing that the Nation of Islam killed Malcolm X is no different than writing that James Earl Ray killed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing John F. Kennedy when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The same is true of the murder of Malcolm X. It may be easier for white scholars and activists to casually write that the Nation killed Malcolm because they had no affection for an organisation that had historically been known to refer to white people as a race of grafted devils but that doesn’t change history.

There’s no refuting that Malcolm was diagnosed as being poisoned in Egypt and his recollection of the experience in his diary will make your own stomach tighten up. There’s also no doubt that the French Government, which had no policy of rejecting entry to persons, refused Malcolm entry into their country shortly before his murder while the rumours swirled that their decision was based on their desire to not permit Malcolm to be killed on French soil.

This is especially triggering when remembering Nkrumah’s harrowing admonition to Malcolm. The US Government had the same interest in neutralizing Malcolm that Nkrumah had in recruiting him. Imagine a respected and articulate African revolutionary who came from the streets of the America being on the world stage criticising US racism. Then think about it in the context of the relationships being forged at the time between African revolutionaries like Nkrumah and Toure and other revolutionaries like Nguyen Al Thoc (Ho Chi Minh) from Vietnam, Fidel Castro and Ernesto Che Guevara from Cuba and Mao Tse Tung in China.

Malcolm was to become a central player in that alliance. He was to be the African voice from the belly of the beast. Something the US certainly could not risk happening. Thus, it comes as no surprise that files released under the Freedom of Information Act provide proof. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report indicates a still un-named top-level informant for the FBI was paid a “bonus” of $300.00 USD and congratulated “for a job well done” immediately after Malcolm was murdered.

So, in quoting an often stated comment within the African liberation movement: “they (the Nation) may have pulled the trigger but they didn’t buy the bullets!” And, to write that they did without putting all of that in context does no service to African people or our movement for liberation.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that we have to explain these things about Malcolm; we have spent the last 50 years dispelling half-truths and miss-representations about Malcolm. Even his daughter’s comments about her dad and Obama are not surprising despite the fact nothing in Malcolm’s history would suggest he would even consider supporting any candidate for US president. My own daughter loves me as her father. She’s a conscientious young woman but she doesn’t possess a deep understanding of my Pan-Africanist work because she’s not involved in it. So although Malcolm’s daughter would be a great person to ask about how he was around the house (if she remembers), she isn’t the best person to ask about his political ideology.

Malcolm X was without question at the point where he was a Pan-Africanist and being so means he understood that the total liberation of Africa under scientific socialism is the solution to the problems facing Africans everywhere. Nothing about anything he said, did or suggested indicated that he felt the capitalist system could be reformed or that anything short of revolutionary struggle could bring us what we need.

And nothing indicated that he was confused about the primary, not secondary, not cursory but primary role Africa will always play in our liberation struggle. We are completely aware that it is the job of our enemies to confuse people about whom we are and who our leaders are, so the Malcolm X postage stamp and every other way the capitalism system makes a concession to recognising the revolutionary Malcolm is only happening because they want to frame his image before we do.

It won’t work. Sekou Toure was correct when he said “truth crushed to Earth shall rise a thousand times”. Malcolm was a Pan-Africanist, that’s why there are as many, if not more, tributes to him outside of the US as there are inside. The people of Ghana expressed their understanding of this phenomenon in 1964 when they named him Omawale – “the son who has returned home”.

Ahjamu Umi is an organiser for the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party. He’s the author of The Courage Equation and the soon to be released ‘Mass Incarceration; It’s about Profit, Not Justice’.

Initially it seemed surprising that on the first day of the negotiations marathon in Minsk a bill to “provide lethal weapons to the Government of Ukraine in order to defend itself against Russian-backed rebel separatists in eastern Ukraine” would be introduced in the US Congress. However, it soon became clear that its sponsor, Sen. James Inhofe (left), simply harbors no illusions about his Ukrainian partners’ competence or ability to comply with their obligations. He understands that Kiev will inevitably violate the cease-fire and that Washington will soon have to explain why the militias in the devastated region of what is known as the “Debaltsevo cauldron” are in possession of such a vast number of captured weapons originating from NATO countries.

And there can be no doubts whatsoever that this will happen. The militia continues to provide documented evidence of Kiev’s use of NATO-standard weapons, such as Paladin M109 self-propelled howitzers, portable Javelin anti-tank weapons systems, and small arms (M16 rifles and much more).

Video taken in Gorlovka on Feb.1, 2015. Life News reports that the Christian cathedral in the centre of town was shelled by 155mm cannons of a US-made Paladin howitzer.

Video taken at Donetsk airport on Jan 18, 2015 presenting piles of NATO light weapons left by the Ukrainian soldiers.

Ukrainian TV report (Sept 2014) on Western military assistance to Ukraine. Javelin anti-tank weapons and other systems presented.

The age and condition of these weapons suggests that the West is simply selling Ukraine military equipment that was already destined for the recycling bin. For example, Britain first produced its Saxon armored personnel carriers in 1983, and they were removed from service in 2008. Now they are being shipped through the port of Odessa to the company Ukroboronprom, which will adapt them to the needs of the Ukrainian army. The Ukrainian government is spending about $51,000 on each Saxon AT-105. It is worth noting that due to the all-out crisis situation there, the Ukrainians have vetoed the idea of producing their own Dozor-B armored carrier.

Image: Ukrainian Pres. Petro Poroschenko touches the Saxon’s thin armor. Photo via Accidents News

According to official statistics, before 2007 the German army possessed 570 M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzers. But not a single one remains. Where do you think those tanks went? The answer is simple – in December 2014, Ukrainian officials suddenly closed the airports in Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kharkov because of the ostensible threat of Russian paratroopers (!), while several of NATO’s C-17B Globemaster and C-130 Hercules military transport planes landed there. Eyewitnesses in Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk saw four self-propelled Paladin howitzers (and boxes of their ammunition) being unloaded. Witnesses in Kharkov claim two RomanianLAROM MLRS and a Spanish Teruel-3 were transported there.

Military convoys that have been regularly crossing the Polish-Ukrainian border since the summer of 2014 are arriving at the 169th Training Center of the Ukrainian ground forces in the Chernihiv region, where instructors from NATO countries are conducting workshops with soldiers serving in Ukraine’s security forces, in order to train them on NATO weapons and equipment.

Polish General Bogusław Pacek is leading the group of NATO advisers in Ukraine since September 2014.

The incompetence of the Ukrainian army, as well as the question of provisioning them, is a very serious problem. NATO weapons systems are difficult to operate and require large quantities of the proper ammunition, which is not manufactured in Ukraine. But channels for delivering such ammunition to Ukraine have already been established. For example, in early February the cargo ship Yasar Abi sailed from Burgas (Bulgaria) to the port of Oktyabrsk (the Mykolaiv region, Ukraine) carrying a load of 680 tons of NATO and old Soviet ammunition.

So Senator Inhofe’s bill is not about rendering military assistance to the puppet government in Kiev, but is rather a way to legitimize the shipments that are already being sent. As usual, only the most aged, decrepit weapons are ending up in the region where the anti-terror operation is underway – meaning that Ukrainian officials are re-exporting everything that is worthy of resale to third countries, including Syria. No one can guarantee that the weapons that will pass to Ukraine legally will not soon be used against America’s interests in global hot spots. However, it seems that this threat is the last thing on the minds of US senators.

 Update #1 Feb 20, 2015; 4pm msk:

Militias in Debaltsevo after liberation of the city. DNR and LNR fighters came upon a large number of weapons left by retreating Ukrainian military, American armored Humvee vehicle among them.

Why Does America Keep “Losing” Its Wars?

Below, we demonstrate that the U.S. keeps “losing” war after war.

There are 3 potential reasons this might be happening:

• Is this chaos an intentional way to implement regime change and grab resources?

• Or is this a sign of the decline of the American empire … and we just can’t win a war anymore?

• Or do those in charge just not really give a damn about winning … and are they just focusing on one short-term goal after another?

We’ll let you decide why you think this keeps happening. But if you don’t believe that the U.S. has been losing its recent wars, read on …

U.S. Keeps Messing Up

We noted last year:

Since 2001, the U.S. has undertaken regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

All 3 countries are now in chaos … and extremists are more in control than ever.

Iraq

In Iraq, hardcore Islamic jihadis known as ISIS have taken over much of the country – shown in red as the new “Islamic State” or self-described caliphate – using captured American weapons:

USA Today notes: “Iraq is already splitting into three states“.

Christians are being rounded up and killed, and Christian leaders in Iraq say the end of Christianity in Iraq is “very near”. But as we documented in 2012, Saddam Hussein – for all his faults – was a secular leader who tolerated Christians.

Libya

Libya has also descended into absolute chaos. We reported in 2012:

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.

(This is – again – in contrast to toleration of Christians under Gadaffi.)

The Guardian noted in March:

According to Amnesty International, the “mounting curbs on freedom of expression are threatening the rights Libyans sought to gain“. A repressive Gaddafi-era law has been amended to criminalise any insults to officials or the general national congress (the interim parliament). One journalist, Amara al-Khattabi, was put on trial for alleging corruption among judges. Satellite television stations deemed critical of the authorities have been banned, one station has been attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, and journalists have been assassinated.

***

Ever since the fall of [Gadaffi’s] dictatorship, there have been stories of black Libyans being treated en masse as Gaddafi loyalists and attacked. In a savage act of collective punishment, 35,000 people were driven out of Tawergha in retaliation for the brutal siege of the anti-Gaddafi stronghold of Misrata. The town was trashed and its inhabitants have been left in what human rights organisations are calling “deplorable conditions” in a Tripoli refugee camp. Such forced removals continue elsewhere. Thousands have been arbitrarily detained without any pretence of due process; and judges, prosecutors, lawyers and witnesses have been attacked or even killed. Libya’s first post-Gaddafi prosecutor general, Abdulaziz Al-Hassadi, was assassinated in the town of Derna last month.

***

When residents of Benghazi – the heartland of the revolution – protested against militia rule in June last year, 32 people were killed in what became known as “Black Saturday”. In another protest in Tripoli last November, 46 died and 500 were injured.

Under militia rule, Libya is beginning to disintegrate. Last summer forces under the command of the warlord Ibrahim Jadran took control of eastern oil terminals …. These forces which hijacked a oil tanker this month, prompting threats from Libya’s prime minister that it would be bombed until US forces captured it this weekend. Clashes have broken out in Jadran’s home town of Ajdabiya. In painful echoes of Iraq’s nightmare, a car bomb exploded at a Benghazi military base last week and killed at least eight soldiers, and Libya’s main airport was shut on Friday after a bomb exploded on its runway.

One of the great perversities of the so-called war on terror is that fundamentalist Islamist forces have flourished as a direct consequence of it. Libya is no exception, even though such movements often have little popular support. The Muslim Brotherhood and other elements are better organised than many of their rivals, helping to remove the prime minister, push through legislation, and establish alliances with opportunistic militias.

Ominously, Libya’s chaos is spilling across the region. The country is awash with up to 15 million rifles and other weapons, and a report by the UN panel of experts this month found that “Libya has become a primary source of illicit weapons“. These arms are fuelling chaos in 14 countries, including Somalia, the Central African Republic, Nigeria and Niger.

***

There is a real prospect of the country collapsing into civil war or even breaking up. Unless there are negotiated settlements to its multiple problems, Libya will surely continue its descent into mayhem, and the region could be dragged into the mire with it.

No wonder western governments and journalists who hailed the success of this intervention are so silent. But here are the consequences of their war, and they must take responsibility for them.

28-year CIA veteran Paul Pillar – who rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts – wrote in May:

Just when one might have thought the mess in Libya could not have gotten worse, it has.

***

Saudi Arabia and several other Arab states have evacuated their diplomats from Libya, the United States is preparing for possible evacuation of U.S. personnel, and the country appears on the brink of a larger civil war.

***

Those in Libya closest to being called secular liberals seem to be associated with military officers of the old regime.

***

The intervention already has negatively affected U.S. interests, particularly in providing a disincentive to other regimes to do what Gaddafi did in negotiating an end to involvement in terrorism and an end to production of unconventional weapons.

And things have only gotten worse since then … and Benghazi has fallen to the jihadis.

(It should be remembered that the U.S. helped sew the seeds of chaos in several ways. Not only did we engage in direct military intervention against Gadafi, but also – as confirmed by a group of CIA officers – armed Al Qaeda so that they would help topple Gaddafi.)

Afghanistan

Opium production is at an all-time high under the American occupation of Afghanistan.

And the New York Times reports this week that the Taliban are currently making huge gains in Afghanistan … in some cases expanding even beyond their traditional areas of influence prior to 2001:

The Taliban have found success beyond their traditional strongholds in the rural south and are now dominating territory near crucial highways and cities that surround Kabul, the capital, in strategic provinces like Kapisa and Nangarhar.

U.S. troops are just now leaving, and so the worst may be still to come. In addition – as we discuss below – the U.S. previously imposed regime change on Afghanistan … and the results were bad.

History repeats

The U.S. carried out regime change in Iran in 1953 … which led to radicalization in the country. Specifically, the CIA admits that the U.S. overthrew the moderate, suit-and-tie-wearing, Democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. (He was overthrown because he had nationalized Iran’s oil, which had previously been controlled by BP and other Western oil companies). As part of that action, the CIA admits that it hired Iranians to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its prime minister.

If the U.S. hadn’t overthrown the moderate Iranian government, the fundamentalist Mullahs would have never taken over. Iran has been known for thousands of years for tolerating Christians and other religious minorities.

Hawks in the U.S. government been pushing for another round of regime change in Iran for decades.

Hillary Clinton and then-president Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser have both admitted on the record that the U.S. previously carried out regime change in Afghanistan in the 1970s by backing Bin Laden and the Mujahadin … the precursor to Al Qaeda.

And look how that turned out.

Syria

The U.S. has heavily backed the Islamic rebels in Syria in an attempt to implement regime change in that country. The result?

As shown by the map above, they’ve taken a third of the country as part of their “caliphate”

And the jihadis are now busily crucifying, beheading and slitting the throats of Christians. (Yup, Syria was previously known for tolerating Christians.)

***

We can probably add Ukraine to the list of regime changed countries falling into chaos and murderous extremism, given that:

• The U.S. State Department spent more than $5 billion dollars in pushing Ukraine away from Russia

• The U.S. ambassador to Ukraine (Geoffrey Pyatt) and assistant Secretary of State (Victoria Nuland) were recorded plotting the downfall of the former Ukraine government in a leaked recording

• Top-level U.S. officials literally handed out cookies to the protesters who overthrew the Ukrainian government

• The U.S. has been backing – militarily as well as monetarily – the Neo-Nazis who have plunged the country into chaos

Since then, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Ukraine have descended into still more hellish levels of chaos.

The U.S.-backed government in Ukraine is starting to lose the civil war.

Many of the U.S.–backed rebels in Syria have joined ISIS. And most of the weapons given to the “moderate” rebels have ended up in ISIS and Al Qaeda’s hands.

Mother Jones adds Yemen to the list:

So here’s my scorecard for American military interventions since 2000:

• Afghanistan: A disaster. It’s arguable that Afghanistan is no worse off than it was in 2001, but after losing thousands of American lives and spending a trillion American dollars, it’s no better off either. [Since the government has put a gag order on all military information, it’s hard to know what’s really going on.]
• Iraq: An even bigger disaster. Saddam Hussein was a uniquely vicious dictator, but even at that there’s not much question that Iraq is worse off than it was in 2003. We got rid of Saddam, but got a dysfunctional sectarian government and ISIS in return.
• Libya: Another disaster. We got rid of Muammar Qaddafi, but got a Somalia-level failed state in return.
• Yemen: Yet another disaster. After years of drone warfare, Houthi rebels have taken over the government. This appears to be simultaneously a win for Iran, which backs the rebels, and al-Qaeda, which may benefit from the resulting chaos. That’s quite a twofer.

What a sorry track record …

Within the space of a few hours, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) rejected outright written requests by the Greek government on Thursday for an extension of its previous credit agreement with the EU. Schäuble wants to create a precedent for all of Europe by completely humiliating the Syriza government.

“The letter from Athens is not a substantial proposal towards a solution,” declared Schäuble’s spokesman Martin Jäger in Berlin on Thursday, adding that the application took the form of a request for a bridge loan and did not meet the requirements of the program. “The letter does not meet the criteria agreed upon in the Euro group on Monday.”

In fact, Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis has made far-reaching concessions in his letter to the head of the euro group of euro zone finance ministers, Jeroen Dijsselbloem. The letter describes the European Union’s (EU) brutal austerity program as “remarkable efforts in economic adjustment” that had to be brought to a “successful conclusion.”

Varoufakis recognized the “financial and administrative terms” of the loan agreement with the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and applied for its six-month extension. The so-called Memorandum is part of this agreement, but is not explicitly mentioned in the letter.

The letter expressly welcomes the monitoring of measures by the institutions of the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Commission and the IMF, i.e. the “troika” which is so deeply hated by the Greek population. Following its election, Syriza had declared it would not work with this body.

Finally, Varoufakis said he was ready to work “closely with our European and international partners” and refrain “from unilateral action that would undermine the fiscal targets, economic recovery and financial stability” of Greece.

The letter’s far-reaching relinquishing of national sovereignty was masked only by a few vague formulations, such as proposing “flexibility in the existing arrangement” and avoiding any direct reference to the “troika” and the “memorandum”.

But for Schäuble, even these concessions by Syriza are not enough. He is demanding unconditional surrender. Already on Tuesday, Schäuble had demanded that Athens explicitly recognize the Memorandum and pledge not to reverse any of the cuts and mass layoffs previously imposed under its terms. Schäuble believes that concessions to Greece will serve to legitimize demands from other European countries—especially Italy and Spain—for a moderation of EU austerity policies.

At this point, as he negotiates the terms of surrender, Varoufakis is not being allowed even the mildest verbal concessions that are desperately needed by Syriza to maintain some small degree of political credibility. The situation confronted by Varoufakis and Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras resembles that once faced by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. In 1988, after having already repudiated his organization’s core principles, Arafat was pressured by the US to make still more humiliating concessions to Israel. He asked, “Do you want me to striptease?”

There remains some possibility that Germany may decide to pull back slightly from its ultimatum. Schäuble’s demands on Athens had been unanimously supported by the representatives of the Euro group at its Monday meeting. On Thursday, however, some representatives urged more negotiations with the Greek government.

Germany’s social-democratic Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel criticized his cabinet colleagues, demanding that Varoufakis’ letter “be used as a starting point for negotiations and not publicly rejected out of hand.” At the same time, he agreed with Schäuble “that what was in the letter was insufficient to reach an agreement.”

EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the letter from Athens could pave the way for a “reasonable compromise in the interest of financial stability in the euro area as a whole.” However, he was not prepared to comment further on the proposals.

Italian Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan said Athens’ proposals must be “taken seriously.”

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls called Syriza’s plans “very encouraging” and indicated that a solution could be reached quickly. Schäuble’s own stance was supported by the Finnish and Latvian governments.

Greek government sources said that Tsipras and the German chancellor Angela Merkel spoke on the phone on Thursday for 50 minutes. The telephone conversation took place in a positive atmosphere, German television channel n-tv reported.

On Friday, the euro group is due to meet to discuss the Greek application. A Greek government spokesman announced on Thursday that the finance ministers could “accept or reject” Greece’s request, but no other option was on the table. He said the meeting would show “who wants a solution and who does not.”

But these are words without substance. Even if the euro group engages in further negotiations on Friday, the only issue will be how to phrase the terms of Syriza’s capitulation. Less than four weeks after its election victory, Syriza’s strategy of petty maneuvers with the EU lies in tatters.

Syriza hoped to exploit differences between the European powers and policy differences between Germany and the United States to obtain some political leeway.

In another development, Syriza’s subordination to the ruling elite within Greece was confirmed, with the election of the new President.

The government nominated right-winger Prokopis Pavlopoulos, who received the votes of 233 of the 300 seats in the Greek parliament. This vast majority was not necessary to secure Pavlopoulos’ election; just 151 votes would have been enough in the final round of voting.

The 64-year-old Pavlopoulos sits on ND’s central committee. He has repeatedly held high state and government posts, including most recently that of Minister of the Interior from 2004 to 2009.

In this latter position, Pavlopoulos in 2008 sent in police to brutally attack protesters after the police shooting of 15-year-old Alexandros Grigoropoulos. Hundreds of people were arrested in the ensuing police crackdown.

Pavlopoulos’ election has already sparked off conflicts inside Syriza. European MP Manolis Glezos described the election as blatant disregard for the will of the people. One member of parliament refused to vote for Pavlopoulos. The adoption of a deal with the EU on the terms demanded by Schäuble could rapidly provoke a major government crisis.

Stars and Stripes reports that NATO’s Allied Land Command is using techniques used against the Taliban in Afghanistan to prepare its ground forces for a war with Russia in Europe.

Citing “Russian aggression in Ukraine and concerns along NATO’s southern flank.” Stars and Stripes says the alliance is enacting “improvements to readiness and responsiveness” and dispatching combat evaluators.

“The political guidance has lined up. The military structure is lined up, and the focus and energy is all lined up,” Lt. Gen. John W. Nicholson, commander Allied Land Command, told the newspaper. “These threats to the stability of the world around us, especially to the east and the south, have clearly energized the political and military leadership of the alliance to enact these improvements to readiness and responsiveness of the alliance.”

A Bold New Plan: Sending Weapons to Ukraine

Roll Call, a newspaper covering legislative and political developments on Capitol Hill, reports that “security in Europe requires a bold new plan: accelerating NATO force modernization initiatives in Eastern Europe and immediately delivering its surplus Cold War equipment to Ukraine.”

Benjamin Jensen, a scholar-in-residence at American University’s School of International Service and runs the Advanced Studies Program for the USMC Command and Staff College, writes that the “next National Defense Authorization Act should include language that fast tracks foreign military sales for Eastern European members of NATO. These countries need firm guarantees the United States is committed to NATO and willing to replenish weapons stockpiles they send to defend Ukrainian sovereignty.”

Defense Establishment: Russia a Threat to Baltic States

On Thursday, the UK defense secretary Michael Fallon said he believes Russia presents a “real and present danger” to the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Fallon said it is imperative NATO be prepared for aggression from Russia “in whatever form it takes.” He said Russia will use what the BBC describes as “covert tactics” top undermine the sovereignty of the Baltic states.

On February 24 NATO will use Estonia’s independence celebration to parade troops 300 meters from Russian territory, a move the Russians consider a provocation.

Russian General: We Are at War

Earlier this month Gen. Leonid Ivashov, the former foreign relations head of the Russian Ministry of Defense and current president of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies, said Russia is at war with NATO and the West.

“Apparently they officials of the European Union and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have dedicated themselves, and continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels… They present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda employed most successfully… They accuse the party that is defending itself, of aggression. What we are seeing in Ukraine and in Syria is a western project, a new kind of war: in both places you see a clear anti-Russian approach, and as is well known, wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations.”

“I assume that the Foreign Ministry understands that we are at war,” Ivashov said.

President Barack Obama, on both Wednesday and Thursday, addressed sessions of a summit on “countering violent extremism” convened in Washington and attended by representatives of 65 countries.

While repeatedly insisting on the need to talk “squarely and honestly” about “root causes” of terrorism, the American president’s remarks amounted to a string of barely coherent banalities—including quotations from a Valentine’s Day card from a 12-year-old—all aimed at covering up the incontrovertible causal connection between terrorism and the chain of catastrophes unleashed by US wars of aggression over the past decade.

The three-day talk shop involved no decisions, commitments or changes in policy. Threadbare rhetoric about religious inclusion was joined with laughable tips on how to recognize a young person being swung to “radical extremism” that seemed to have been cribbed from a Drug Enforcement Administration brochure on warning signs that your child may be using marijuana.

To the extent that the gathering had a discernible purpose, it was to bolster propaganda justifications for continuing war abroad and police state measures at home.

Obama vowed that the US would remain “unwavering in our fight against terrorist organizations,” outlining plans to continue and expand US military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria and beyond.

He argued that the crusade against “violent extremism” was to be waged not just against “terrorists who are killing innocent people,” but also at the “ideologies, the infrastructure of extremists—the propagandists, recruiters, the funders who radicalize and recruit or incite people to violence,” a category so broad and ill-defined as to potentially include virtually anyone who condemns the supposedly “moderate” policies of US imperialism.

The contradictions underlying the propaganda exercise were beyond glaring. Obama proclaimed in his speech that the struggle against terrorism required “more democracy” and “security forces and police that respect human rights and treat people with dignity.” Yet Washington counts as its closest allies in this struggle the tyrannical monarchy in Saudi Arabia and the military-controlled regime that rules Egypt, infamous for their repression, beheadings and mass killings.

Obama absurdly attempted to present terrorism as the product of “twisted ideologies” of groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS along with mistaken “ideas,” “notions,” and “strains of thought” among broader sections of the Muslim world.

“The notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie,” Obama insisted in his remarks. Indeed, Washington is an equal opportunity aggressor. It is preparing even bigger wars against non-Muslims from Eastern Europe to East Asia.

This “notion” may have arisen from the fact that the populations residing in countries containing some of the world’s greatest energy reserves as well as pipeline routes for their extraction happen to be majority Muslim, and therefore have borne the tragic brunt of Washington’s drive to militarily assert hegemony over these lands.

The struggle against terrorism, Obama stated, requires confronting the fact that too many people

“buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historical grievances—sometimes that’s accurate—… buy into the the belief that so many of the ills in the Middle East flow from a history of colonialism or conspiracy …”

Historical grievances? Who does Obama think he’s kidding? Millions throughout the Arab world do not have to harken back to French and British colonialists in pith helmets when it comes to grievances. In recent decades, US imperialism has laid waste to one predominantly Muslim country after another.

It thrust Afghanistan into never-ending carnage that has killed millions since the US-sponsored mujahideen war of the 1980s. In Iraq, it carried out an illegal war of aggression that claimed over a million lives. In Libya it backed a war for regime change that left the society in ruins and ravaged by armed conflict between rival militias. And in Syria, it has stoked a civil war that has killed nearly 200,000 and turned millions into refugees.

In Iraq, Libya and Syria, Washington has carried out interventions to overthrow secular Arab regimes, acting as the catalyst for the growth of Islamist forces like Al Qaeda and ISIS. In the last two countries, it actually armed and supported these elements, using them as proxy forces.

If the top officials in the Bush and Obama administration had been paid agents of Osama bin Laden, they could not have done a better job at promoting the rise of those ostensibly targeted by the US-sponsored summit against “violent extremism.”

All of the hypocrisy, deceit and self-delusion on display at this week’s summit could not mask the fact that the policies pursued by Washington over more than a decade have resulted in a debacle.

In the wake of the Soviet Union’s dissolution, US imperialism embarked on a series of escalating interventions based on the conception that it could use its military superiority to offset its economic decline. The end result has been havoc and destruction.

This extends now to Ukraine which has been plunged into a civil war that has torn the country in two as its economy implodes and its army disintegrates, and which threatens to draw the US and nuclear-armed Russia into military confrontation. Washington’s fostering of a fascist-led coup to effect regime change in Kiev, portrayed as a master stroke a year ago, has only produced another disaster.

In any functioning democracy, there would be consequences for global catastrophes on the order of those produced by the last two US administrations. They would not only be the subject of public debate and congressional hearings, but the cause of forced resignations and criminal prosecutions.

In the US, there is nothing. There is no mechanism for any criticism of a government that only continues lying to the public and lying to itself. No one takes responsibility, and no one is held accountable.

With next year’s presidential campaign taking shape, the front-runners are Republican Jeb Bush, whose brother oversaw the criminal war in Iraq, and Democrat Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state hailed the savage lynch-mob murder of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi by an Islamist militia, declaring amid gales of laughter, “We came, we saw, he died.” There could be no clearer measure of the sclerotic character of the US political system.

Responsibility extends beyond the White House, Congress and the two major parties to the media, whose “terrorism experts” continuously churn out lies and drivel justifying US militarism, and to academia, which remains either directly complicit or silent.

That every section of the US ruling establishment is deeply implicated in these crimes and catastrophes is symptomatic of profound economic, social and political crises gripping a capitalist system that is fully subordinated to the enrichment of a tiny minority engaged in financial parasitism at the expense of working people, the vast majority of the population.

With no progressive solution to these crises, the American ruling class is driven toward even more bloody military adventures, posing the increasing threat of the ultimate act of “violent extremism,” a Third World War.

The terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo has resulted in a huge wave of sympathy and opposition to terrorist attacks. These just actions are positions of principle, as are the demonstrations of Muslim peoples demanding that the Prophet Muhammad not be caricatured. Blasphemy is a social act – an act directed toward someone else and their beliefs, which all persons whether religious, atheist or agnostic must respect. Without this respect, there is no discussion possible.

As with any event, the ruling elite advances its pawns. It presents itself as democratic, defending of freedom of speech, for peace, etc. In reality, it is doing the exact opposite. It muzzles scientists, cuts subsidies to organizations critical of its policies, militarizes the police against its own people, engages more and more in military adventures, etc.

The bourgeoisie is presented as the successor of the Enlightenment and Voltaire who reportedly said, “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Philosophers, who claim to have grown up on a diet of Voltaire, have come forward to support this assertion. But this sentence was never uttered by Voltaire. It is Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who falsely attributed it to Voltaire in an article, as she herself admits.[1]

Voltaire wrote his 1763 “Treatise on Tolerance” about the case of the death sentence and execution of Jean Calas, father of a Huguenot family, on March 10, 1762, to oppose the religious massacres of the time, especially those carried out by the Jesuits against the Huguenots. In Toulouse especially, this story caused all sorts of slanders and insults against the family, including calls for the death of the mother, the son, the parents and even the servant of the Calas family. After a lengthy analysis of religions throughout history and civilizations, he concluded that intolerance is not the fruit of religion, but of property. He said, among other things, “Seek not to vex the hearts of men, and they are yours.”[2] He also wrote other books that dealt with blasphemy as a social act.

This is a far cry from the way the bourgeoisie uses Voltaire in the present and today’s reality.

Another thing that the elites say to justify the existence of a magazine like Charlie Hebdois that cartoons are the means of expression of the people, that they have existed forever in France, during the French Revolution, etc. As always, the bourgeoisie presents things as absolute, beyond classes and the future of society. During the French Revolution, there were cartoonists on both sides. The monarchy had its own, such as James Gillray or Boyer de Nimes.

One of the finest examples of the class character of caricature is the newspaper Der Stürmer, a Nazi weekly newspaper published by Julius Streicher starting in 1923. Der Stürmerused very entertaining content, pornography, cartoons and anti-capitalist appeals. In addition, in each paper and in each of its editions, Der Stürmer included in large letters at the bottom of the first page: “Die Juden sind unser Unglück” meaning “The Jews are our misfortune.” He worked on building what Jeffrey Herf calls an anti-Semitic consensus.

Although Julius Streicher was not involved in the Nazi government apparatus or in the German armed forces, he was tried by the Nuremberg Tribunal where he was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death on October 1, 1946. The judgment reads in part,

“In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German people to active persecution. […]

“Streicher’s incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in the context of war crimes, such as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a crime against humanity.”

Can we then mock anything? Jokes against minorities, those who are persecuted (such as Muslims today), the downtrodden, desperate, destitute and the homeless are barbarism, not satire. The same goes for jokes against women, which seek to drag society back to a time when women were not equal to men.

To mock everything, as Charlie Hebdo claims it does today, amounts to sowing divisions amongst the peoples of the world. Such activity gives credibility to the bourgeois theory of the “clash of civilizations” promoted during the U.S. imperialist aggression against the peoples of the Middle East launched under Bush that has done so much harm to humanity.

Notes

1. See: http://rue89.nouvelobs.com

2. Toleration and Other Essays 1775, Chapter “Whether Toleration Is Dangerous, and Among What Peoples It Is Found.”

Translated from original French by TML Weekly Information Project, January 31, 214, in which this article first appeared in English.

The U.S. and Turkey have signed an agreement to openly train and arm Syrian rebels, the majority of whom have ties to ISIS.

The deal was signed Thursday by U.S. ambassador John Bass and a senior Turkish official, according to the Associated Press, and the support could begin as early as next month.

But moderate rebel groups in Syria which are independent of ISIS are practically extinct and the main belligerents in the ongoing Syrian Civil War are ISIS affiliates and the Syrian government.

“Armed groups qualified as ‘moderate’ are closely coordinating their activities with terrorist groups,” Alexey Borodavkin, the Russian Federation ambassador to the U.N., said to a Human Rights Council, adding that Syria is facing a “huge army of trained, armed terrorists.”

A “moderate” rebel commander confirmed Borodavkin’s statement back in Sept.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in… Qalamoun [in Syria],” Bassel Idriss, the commander of a Free Syrian Army rebel brigade, told the Lebanese Daily Star.

Idriss also mentioned the FSA’s dwindling power as many of his U.S.-backed fighters continue to “pledge allegiance” to ISIS.

“ISIS wanted to enhance its presence in the Western Qalamoun area,” Idriss said. “After the fall of Yabroud and the FSA’s retreat into the hills, many units pledged allegiance to ISIS.”

Another rebel, Abu Khaled, also said they were willing to collaborate with ISIS and its affiliates.

“Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra [an ISIS affiliate] because that means power and influence,” Abu Ahmed, the commander of an FSA brigade near Aleppo, told the Guardian.

He later told the Daily Star that al-Nusra “is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun” and that the FSA would collaborate on any mission al-Nusra launches as long as it “coincides with their values.”

Recently Turkey’s prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, was caught shipping arms to al-Qaeda and ISIS via Syria-bound trucks operated by the country’s intelligence agency, according to Turkish military officials.

“The trucks were carrying weapons and supplies to the al-Qaeda terror organization,” a report by the Gendarmerie General Command stated.

The centuries-old conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims and the trillions of dollars in potential oil and gas revenue in Syria are both key factors motivating the Sunni Turkish government to support ISIS and its allies in a proxy war to overthrow the Shia Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, and the U.S. State Dept. admitted last year it also wants to overthrow Assad.

Follow on Twitter:
@RealAlexJones | @KitDaniels1776

War party bigotry and hate may be enough to drive neo-Nazis leading Kiev in the Ukraine civil war. But the reverse blame of Putin and Russia by corporate media and states has a deeper interest. It propels the geostrategic economic and military war of movement through East Europe to Russia. It is the indispensible big lie to mask their set up for foreign financial predation. A big pay-off matrix looms in Ukraine for US-led arms corporations and military services, agribusiness and GMO’s, speculator funds on debts and currency, monopoly providers of privatized social services, Big Oil frackers for newly discovered rich deposits, junk food suppliers like Poroshenko in US-frankenfood alliance, and – last but not least – the IMF money party waging a war of dispossession by financial means. 

The IMF enforces the global money-sequence cancer system by its defining policy commands on debt-impoverished countries to open them up to foreign feeding on their domestic markets and fire-sale enterprises, drastically reduced workers’ wages and benefits, stripped public pensions, healthcare and education, sell-off of historic infrastructures to pay ever more bank-created debts, and – in general- multiplying transnational money demand and profit invading their life functions at all levels. The IMF and Wall Street have been cumulatively hollowing out Africa, Latin America, South-East Asia, South Europe and the US itself in these ways over 35 years. Now it is the turn of the once social democratic Europe, state by state, beginning with the most indebted and helpless. Ukraine on the outskirts of Europe next to Russia is where the military option has been required to strip it and its former Slavic economic union with Russia. This historic relationship has been the last line of life defence in the way, a conservative but sharing ethos of resource-rich societies with Putin as a superior leader facing the US-EU’s many-times more powerful economic levers and lethal arms to bully him and Russia into submission.

To take the naturally rich Ukraine for transnational bank and corporate looting, the public must be sold the story of Putin as the villain. Only then can debt screws be applied and the country opened to long-term and full-spectrum financial, foreign and oligarch control beneath the people’s notice. The IMF is already in motion to ensure that the Kiev coup state provides all of this. Few observe the underlying fact that the crushing bank debt eating societies alive across the world is all debt money created by big private banks with no legal tender to back 97% of it. Ukraine is the latest nation to fall into the deadly trap without a sound. Here public money for public need is ended, although it created the US itself. As Ben Franklin has testified, to regain public money issue was the prime reason for the American Revolution. Public banking was also what made modern Canada from 1938 to 1974 by public investment money without private debt-servicing loaned by the public Bank of Canada for construction of Canada’s material and social infrastructures from the St Lawrence Seaway to public pensions and universal healthcare.

The same is true of almost every society that has economically succeeded in the modern world. . The Depression and the War especially taught the world’s real leaders something about public banking as the only thing that works for real social development. Germany in peace, China, India, Japan in their most prosperous periods have all relied on public investment banking in some form. But the Wall Street counter-revolution happened invisibly in 1974 by Bank of International Settlements policy to stop governments from lending their own money for their public investments – the BIS being a coterie of bank heads meeting in Switzerland led by Wall Street bankers and with no accountability to any public interest or body. On the contrary, against their constitutional rights, all governments have been made accountable to the Wall Street system which runs the US Treasury and the IMF by the revolving door method.  This silent BIS policy destroyed public investment free of the self-multiplying debt charges now eating away at every level of the Western economy including sovereign public investment. Ukraine, with few noticing, has just been privatized at the bank debt and investment level by the US-led coup state. Its arrangements with the IMF now loaning money on Wall Street permanent debt-servicing terms have replaced the $20 billion it had from Russia on payable public terms along with 30% cut-rate oil and gas.

This most far-reaching change of all has been erased from view by the official story – the delivery of Ukraine by the US-led coup into the ever-devouring funnels of the Wall-Street-and-company private banking system. With all the permanent new debt servicing of an already broken country spending its future debt on fighting a US-manufactured civil war fueled by neo-Nazi war thugs, Ukraine will be bled dry. A revealing example of how IMF debt bondage leverages transnational corporate control of Ukraine’s greatest resources is the new IMF $17 billion loan on the condition that Ukraine opens up its peerless vast stretches of black soil and fertile lands to the biotech cycles of Monsanto, Dupont, Deere and factory looting of the earth. Similar plans are also in motion for Big Oil racking of Ukraine’s large newly discovered gas deposits (fracking is prohibited in Russia).

The transnational corporate and bank looting of Ukraine is the shadow reason for the US  block against any reasonable truce in the civil war that it has created. This is why a jackal government like Canada’s Harper’s refuses to respond to any diplomatic correspondence from Russia, blocking information flows, and proclaiming inflammatory falsehoods. The profound common life interests at stake are exactly what the war party is out to make impossible to act on. Ukraine is a prime agricultural land source of the world and Europe’s biggest landmass, and it is set for US-EU financial and corporate takeover. Ukraine is also facing the same ultimate crisis as every country and people – its government being mutated into a corporate satrap to ensure the country as an unlimited profit site at least costs and accountability for foreign corporate and local oligarch profit. It is a paradigm case of the carcinomic global dispossession that knows no growth but its own. But it is also the leading current case of armed resistance against this takeover. Donbas, Putin and Russia are alone in stopping the life-devouring system’s advance East, with Syriza in Greece the newly elected resistance within Europe.

All face the same stripping of collective life capital bases to grow the global money sequences of the apical few with no life function. Ukraine is the new major feeding zone opening towards Russia. Here as much as Greece, public assets are on the privatization block. Slash-and-burn budgets are set to service new unpayable debts to foreign banks, with far more rich natural and soil wealth to marketize and expropriate for debt servicing. Ukraine also has large and untapped fossil-fuel deposits, and it provides new strategic military control up to Russia’s main border and colossally rich natural resources on the other side.

Yet the operation of reverse blame goes from Iraq to Libya to Syria to Ukraine to Russia in one society destruction to the next.  With one-way pervasive media abuse, cumulatively destructive sanctions, and incremental arming of neo-fascist-led Ukrainian forces, vast global power, treasure and most of all direction are at stake which affect all humanity. The line is drawn on the global disorder’s runaway aggression and trail of social ruin. Or it is stopped by intelligent mass resistance that does not let up.

This resistance has grown stronger. A new truce was formed for February 15 by the EU, Kiev-Ukraine and Russia for this reason. Predictably all voices of the official story warn that “Russia and the separatists” will not obey its terms. Yet when we examine the record of international law and agreements, life-protective promises and agreements, who always overrides them at will?  The track record tells us very plainly, but the record is always excluded from the ruling story. What is presupposed instead is the most inane of all moral equations unconsciously assumed as first principle of judgement in international affairs: the US = Good and its Enemy = Evil. Search for any exception to this inner logic of the official narrative in any major conflict across the globe in 50 years. What is never stated are the actual facts of “lawless aggression”, “gross violations of international law” and “innocent civilians terrorized and murdered”.  That the US is by far the knock-down leader on all counts of war crime, killing, terror and, in general, violence against human life of every kind is taboo to understand. While always accusing others of violating “the international laws and norms of the community of nations”, it repudiates and sabotages them without evident exception.

Consider the systemic violations and subversions across the spectrum. The US government has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court to uphold the law against war crimes and crimes against humanity, and it has publicly repudiated the Court’s right to investigate US criminal violations including the “supreme crime” of initiating a war of aggression. While it perpetually invokes international laws to accuse others, it repudiates any life-protective law whatever in its actions. In truth, the US (and its  key ally Israel) has systematically undermined virtually all international laws to protect human life – treaties and conventions against landmines, against biological weapons, against international ballistic missiles, against small arms, against torture, against racism, against arbitrary seizure and imprisonment, against military weather distortions, against biodiversity loss, against climate destabilization, and even international agreements on the rights of children and of women.

The big-lie system runs to the moral DNA of the US state. Its record of continual war crimes and crimes against humanity by direct or proxy violation should be foremost in the minds of those observing what happens next in Ukraine. It can only continue if NATO-country public opinion does not join the dots in the ultimate failure of Western civilization.

Over the past several years a conspiracy of silence has surrounded the implementation of the Smart Grid across the United States, perhaps with good reason. If the public were aware of what lay behind this agenda there would likely be considerable outcry and resistance.

“Smart meters”–the principal nodes of the Smart Grid network–are being installed on homes and businesses by power utilities across the United States under the legal and fiscal direction of the United States government. In December 2007 both houses of the US Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).

This 310-page piece of legislation employs the dubious science of anthropogenic CO2-based climate change science to mandate an array of policies, such as fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and “green” energy initiatives. Tucked away in the final pages of this law is the description and de facto mandate for national implementation of the Smart Grid that the Bush administration promised would result in “some of the largest CO2 emission cuts in our nation’s history.”[1]

The bill unambiguously lays out the design and intent behind the Smart Grid, including surveillance, tiered energy pricing, and energy rationing for all US households and businesses through round-the-clock monitoring of RFID-chipped “Energy Star” appliances.[2] Congress and “other stakeholders” (presumably for-profit utilities and an array of Smart Grid technology patent holders[3] whose lobbyists co-wrote the legislation) describe the Smart Grid’s characteristics and goals via ten provisions.

(1) Increased use of digital information and controls technology to improve reliability, security, and efficiency of the electric grid.
(2) Dynamic optimization of grid operations and resources with full cyber-security.
(3) Deployment[4] and integration of distributed resources and generation, including renewable resources.
(4) Development and incorporation of demand response, demand-side resources, and energy efficiency resources.
(5) Deployment of “smart” technologies (real-time, automated, interactive technologies that optimize the physical operation of appliances and consumer devices) for metering, communications concerning grid operations and status, and distribution automation.
(6) Integration of “smart” appliances and consumer devices.
(7) Deployment and integration of advanced electricity storage and peak-shaving technologies, including plug-in electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and thermal-storage air conditioning.
(8) Provision to consumers of timely information and control operations.
(9) Development of standards for communication and interoperability of appliances and equipment connected to the electric grid, including the infrastructure serving the grid.
(10) Identification and lowering of unreasonable or unnecessary barriers to adoption of smart grid technologies, practices, and services [emphases added].[5]

Less than two years after EISA’s enactment President Barack Obama directed $3.4 billion of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to Smart Grid development. Matching funds from the energy industry brought the total initial Smart Grid investment to $8 billion.[6] The overall completion of the Smart Grid will cost another $330 billion.[7] Today a majority of energy delivery throughout the US is routed to homes equipped with smart meters that monitor power consumption on a minute-to-minute basis.

As noted, the American public remains largely unaware of the numerous designs and monied interests behind the Smart Grid–not to mention how smart meters themselves pose substantial dangers to human health and privacy. This is because the plan for tiered energy pricing via wireless monitoring of household appliances has been almost entirely excluded from news media coverage since the EISA became law on December 19, 2007.

A LexisNexis search of US print news outlets for “Energy Independence and Security Act” and “Smart Grid” between the dates December 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008 yields virtually no results.

An identical LexisNexis search of such media for the dates December 1, 2007 to February 18, 2015 retrieves a total 11 print news items appearing in US dailies (seven in McClatchey Tribune papers; one article appearing in each of the following: New York Times 8/14/08, Santa Fe New Mexican, 5/12/09, Providence Journal, 2/24/11, Tampa Bay Times, 12/13/12).[8]

Even this scant reportage scarcely begins to examine the implications of the EISA’s Smart Grid plan. The New York Times chose to confine its coverage to a 364-word article, “The 8th Annual Year in Ideas; Smart Grids.” “It’s a response to what economists would call a tragedy of the commons,” the Times explains.

[P]eople use as much energy as they are willing to pay for, without giving any thought to how their use affects the overall amount of energy available … Enter Xcel’s $100 million initiative, called SmartGridCity, a set of technologies that give both energy providers and their customers more control over power consumption … Consumers, through a Web-enabled control panel in their homes, are able to regulate their energy consumption more closely — for example, setting their A.C. system to automatically reduce power use during peak hours.[9]

News in far more modest papers likewise resembles the promotional materials distributed by the utilities themselves. “There will soon be a time when homeowners can save electricity by having appliances automatically adjust power for peak-demand times and other periods of inactivity by a signal sent through the electrical outlet,” an article in Sunbury Pennsylvania’s Daily Item reads. “‘Right now, it’s at the infant stage,'” a power company executive observes. “‘We didn’t worry about this until two years ago. Nobody cared when electricity was five cents per kilowatt hour. People just bit the bullet and paid the bill.'”[10]

Along these lines, the Department of Energy’s Assistant Secretary for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Patricia Hoffman, is charged under the EISA with federal oversight of nationwide Smart Grid implementation. In other words, Hoffman is America’s “Smart Grid Czar.” Yet despite heading up such a dubious program since 2010, she has almost entirely escaped journalistic scrutiny, having been referenced or quoted in only four US daily papers (Washington Post, 2/8/12, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 4/26/12, Palm Beach Post, 5/12/13, Pittsburgh Tribune Review 11/13/13) since her tenure began.

In an era where news media wax rhapsodic over new technologies and fall over each other to report consumer-oriented “news you can use,” the Smart Grid’s pending debut should be a major story. It’s not. Indeed, almost the entire US population remains in the dark about this major technological development that will profoundly impact their lives.

When one more closely examines the implications and realities of the federally-approved Smart Grid scheme—from the adverse health effects of electromagnetic radiation to surveillance and energy rationing—there should be little wonder why this degree of silence surrounds its implementation. Such a technocratic system would never be freely accepted if subject to an open exchange and referendum.

 

Notes

[1] “Fact Sheet: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,” whitehouse.gov, December 19, 2007.

[2] “ENERGY STAR is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) voluntary program that helps businesses and individuals save money and protect our climate through superior energy efficiency. The ENERGY STAR program was established by EPA in 1992, under the authority of the Clean Air Act Section 103(g).” http://www.energystar.gov/about

[3] Jeff St. John, “Who’s Got the Most Smart Grid Patents?” greentechmedia.com, August 5, 2014.

[4] The word “deployment,” commonly used in government and technical plans for the Smart Grid’s launch, is a military term. From the Latin displicāre, “to scatter,” the modern definition is “[t]o distribute (persons or forces) systematically or strategically.”

[5] Public Law 110-140, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Title XIII, Section 1301, Washington DC: United States Congress, December 19,2007.

[6] “President Obama Announces $3.4 Billion Investment to Spur Transition to Smart Energy Grid,” energy.gov, October 27, 2009.

[7] Jon Chavez, “Expert Sees $2 Trillion Benefit For Country in Smart Grid,” Toledo Blade, January 16 2013.

[8] In contrast, seven times as many articles (78) appeared in law journals over the same seven year period.

[9] Clay Risen, “”The 8th Annual Year in Ideas; Smart Grids,” New York Times, December 14, 2008.

[10] Jaime North, “Devices Will Soon Monitor Themselves,” Daily Item, October 4, 2008.

In the annals of obscene legal history, that of David Hicks, whose terrorism conviction was just quashed by the United States Court of Military Commission Review, must rank highly.[1]  It is also instructive on various levels: what is says about his treatment by the US legal system; and what it reveals about the attitudes of the Australian government. 

Australians tend to demonise or sanctify their legal villains, casting a social net around them that either protects, or asphyxiates them.  If one is an Irish scribbling horse thief with murderous tendencies and eccentric battle dress sense, then one is bound to get a spot in the hero’s pantheon.  The book collecting, education promoting judge who sentenced him to death receives the opposite treatment: snubbed by the juggernaut of historical folklore.

Hicks, from the start, was not quite that horse thief, Ned Kelly.  But he did engage in the mischief that would earn him demerit points after September 11, 2001.  He travelled to Pakistan. He spent time at al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.  He drank of that radicalisation soup that has gotten Europe, Australasia and the United States worried.

In the scheme of grand power politics, he found himself involved with an organisation that did not always have the official designation of terrorism – after all, elements of al Qaeda, and their hosts, the Taliban, had been recipients of US-funding during and in the aftermath of the Cold War.  The Taliban’s opponents, the Northern Alliance, captured Hicks, and surrendered him to the US in late 2001.

In confinement within the Guantánamo camp system, subject to around the clock artificial light, inedible food, forced drugging, beatings and a range of other indignities, Hicks received the brunt of juridical inventiveness.  The US Military Commissions, designed to specifically target non-US citizens, was born.  Being neither courts-martial nor civilian courts, they amputated due process and merged the role of jury and judge.  The rule on hearsay was thrown out.  The commissions restricted the accused’s right to hear all the evidence. Appeals to any other court, foreign or US, would be cut. And the death penalty might well be applied.

In 2006, the US Supreme Court in Hamdan v Rumsfeld held that the Bush administration did not have the power to create such commissions without Congressional authorisation, a feature that ran foul of such instruments as the Geneva Conventions.[2]  Not to be deterred, the then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard kept insisting that “I do not want [Hicks] to come back to Australia without first facing trial in the United States.”  Let the Americans do it, “because if he comes back to Australia he can’t be tried”. Hicks, in other words, was already guilty in the minds of Australia’s top officials.  “Of what?” posed his military defense lawyer Michael Mori. “Howard didn’t know.  How should he be tried?  Howard did not know.”

Hicks became the first, and most dubious scalp, of the reconstituted commission system.  Much of the account of his defence is discussed by Mori, a freshly recruited defence lawyer who was rapidly blooded in the byzantine legal labyrinth being constructed around his client.  His account, discussed in In the Company of Cowards (2014) reflects, not merely on Hicks defence, but the atrophying of a legal system.

Two vital issues came up in Hicks’s attempt to seek his ultimately successful appeal.  The first central legal disfigurement here lay in the pre-trial machinations that placed Hicks on the road to conceding guilt for a lesser sentence.  In accepting this “Alford plea”, the hope was to insulate the entire treatment of his plight, and by implication those in similar cases, from further legal scrutiny.

On March 30, 2007, Hicks pleaded guilty to the dubious charge of providing material support “from in or about December 2000 through in or about December 2001,… to an international terrorist organisation engaged in hostilities against the United States, namely al Qaeda, which the accused knew to be such an organization that engaged, or engages in terrorism”. The rather inventive, and retrospective charges, had been brought in February 2007, with the attempted murder charge subsequently dropped.

He was then sentenced to confinement for seven years, with the question on what would count to time already served. (The latter point is important: the prosecutors were reluctant to budge on the issue, but conceded to the balance of nine months.)   On May 20, 2007, Hicks returned to Australia, serving time at Adelaide’s Yatala prison, and was out by December.

What was significant in this case was that Hicks, his defense counsel and the convening authority had signed a pre-trial agreement indicating that the appellant had offered to plead guilty to the first charge provided he “voluntarily and expressly waive all rights to appeal or collaterally attack my conviction, sentence, or any other matter relating to this prosecution whether such a right to appeal or collateral attack arises under the Military Commission Act of 2006, or any other provision of the United States or Australian law.”

Then comes a good deal of legal stumbling.  The review commission, after accepting it had jurisdiction over the appeal, attacked the verdict in a very specific way.  The first waiver was deemed to have been made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.  Hicks’s pre-trial agreement was deemed favourable.  He was granted concessions.  But failure to resubmit “his appellate waiver within 10 days after the convening authority provide notice of action invalidated his appellate waiver.”

“There is insufficient indication… that the appellant reiterated his desire to not appeal within 10 days.”  In other words, Hicks had not given sufficient grounds to show that he had waived his right of appeal. “Thus we hold the waiver is invalid and unenforceable.”  The result: “The findings of guilty are set aside and dismissed and the appellant’s sentence is vacated.”

The second point noted by the review commission, citing the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case of Al Bahlul (2014) was that “it was a plain ex post facto violation” to try a person for the offense of providing material support to terrorism after the fact.  It was a “prejudicial error” that required a vacation of the conviction.  While Al Bahlul’s plea was different from Hicks, “those differences do not dictate a different result.”  Hicks, in other words, had been bludgeoned by unlawful retrospective punishment.

In a most conspicuous way, the treatment offered to Hicks did not merely violate every sacred canon of presumed innocence, it suggested a new legal order, one stacked with ghastly, Kafka-like qualifications.  In the sinister legal purgatory of Guantánamo, Hicks could suffer Washington’s own version of a disappearance, with connivance from a subservient Canberra.

Australia’s political authorities continue that line, trumpeting a view that validates outsourcing torture, detention and confinement of its own citizens.  (They can’t even be patriotically indecent enough to inflict cruelties on their own people.)  Showing a continuing tendency to ignore evidence placed before him, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was resolute about the quashed sentence.  “David Hicks was up to no good and I’m not in the business of apologising for the actions the Australian government takes to protect our country.”  (The statement would better read “inaction” in the name of Australian security.)

Others have preferred to ignore the procedure as a trifle.  Commercial radio stations such as Sydney’s 2UE suggested that the quashing of terrorism convictions did not imply he was a “saint”.[3]  “He may be legally innocent, but not absolved of the guilt he did [sic].”  Guilt has many shades, and such arguments fittingly ignore the one critical issue in all of this: that of the law.  In the realms of such debate, a sober middle ground is nigh impossible.

The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, proved surprisingly qualified in his statements.  “There is no doubt on one hand David  Hicks was probably foolish to get caught up in that Afghanistan conflict, but clearly there has been an injustice done to him” (The Daily Telegraph, Feb 19).

The troubling feature of the findings by the review commission is that, at its heart, little is made of the plea bargain system itself.  Nor is the entire military commission process examined in its crude corrosion of judicial protections.  The conviction was quashed because it violated a procedural requirement, and a judicial requirement.  Invalidating a badly understood waiver is one thing; invalidating the entire process of how he was dealt with, quite another.  We can at least take heart from the fact that the judges were aware of ex-post facto nastiness.

For that reason, the fate of Hicks remains the greatest affirmation of fiendish legal inventiveness, the sort of cleverness that threw the law book out in favour of gossip, arbitrariness and political judgment. It is one the US legal system has, and continues, to pay dearly for.  The Australian citizen, on the other hand, can always rely on his or her own government to surrender liberties at the drop of the judicial hat, an anaemic form of patriotism if ever there was one.  Washington, right or wrong, will have its day.

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

The guns in Ukraine have not cooled down yet but the Minsk 2 peace accord is already being predictably assailed in Washington by liberal and conservative hawks alike.

Headlines like “Vlad Putin Wins Again,” “The new Ukrainian peace deal may be worse than no deal at all,” or “Why Is Putin Smiling About Ukraine?” and the likes are all over the US media.

Never mind that the Minsk Agreement offers at least a brief, fragile window of opportunity for the world to step back from the brink of a nuclear confrontation that would destroy the entire northern hemisphere of the earth. If nothing else, at least it could save some Ukrainian lives. But who cares?

Such negative reactions from US policymakers and media are understandable since the whole Ukrainian mess was concocted to fulfill the ultimate goal of Russia’s geopolitical weakening and Putin’s regime change under the noble banner of spreading freedom and democracy. So far this goal is far from an achievement so why give peace a chance?

The saddest part of this story is that such a policy totally contradicts US long-term strategic security interests by turning a potential important ally into adversary.

It did not have to be that way. After the collapse of Communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, both Russian elites and the overwhelming majority of the Russian people were ready to join the family of the Western alliance. It was President George Herbert Walker Bush who talked in 1990 about a “Europe whole and free,” and the new “security arch from Vancouver to Vladivostok.”

Yes, there is no written document confirming his often-quoted pledge to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the East but there are many credible and trustworthy witnesses who present compelling evidence testifying to Washington’s reneging on key oral commitments to Moscow.

According to then-US Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, who took part in both the Bush-Gorbachev early-December 1989 summit in Malta and the Shevardnadze-Baker discussions in early February 1990:

 “The language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no ‘taking advantage’ by the US … I don’t see how anybody could view the subsequent expansion of NATO as anything but ‘taking advantage,’ particularly since, by then, Russia was hardly a credible threat.”

There are other reliable witnesses to these historical events. And there is no doubt that it was Bill Clinton and his administration that made the sharp turn from the movement, albeit slow, towards an US – Russia alliance, to deep division and the current dangerous state of affairs.

George Kennan, one of the most distinguished of American diplomats, later told the New York Times he believed the expansion of NATO was “the beginning of a new cold war…I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves.”

Some 19 US Senators, including John Ashcroft (R-MO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Harry Reid (D-NV), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and John Warner (R-VA) voted against the bill permitting the expansion of NATO. Some of them said the expansion would “dilute NATO’s self-defense mission, antagonize Russia, jeopardize several Russian-American arms-control negotiations and draw a new dividing line – a new Iron Curtain – across Europe.”

”We’ll be back on a hair-trigger,” said Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat, warning that enlargement would threaten much worse than a new cold war. ”We’re talking about nuclear war.”

This relentless record of broken promises continued when Russia was ravaged by economic crisis through the 1990s. This was a direct result of the catastrophic crash privatization urged on it by the Clinton team when Russia’s population shrank disastrously and the hardship of ordinary folks was comparable to what they had experienced during World War II.

Russia’s unexpected recovery in the 2000s from this total devastation caught its antagonists by surprise, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama followed the same failed Clinton policies by continuing NATO expansion, unleashing “color revolutions” on former Soviet republics from Ukraine and Georgia to Kyrgyzstan. Under their reckless leads, the United States pressed to break historical and economic ties between Russia and Ukraine going back many centuries using the same slogans of promoting Western values.

Joint press conference by Soviet Communist Party leader, Soviet Supreme Council Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev (right) and US President George Bush in Malta.(RIA Novosti / Yuryi Abramochkin)

The Ukrainian people have not benefited from this policy which the February 2014 violent coup in Kiev and the openly manipulated sham of a democratic election then imposed upon them. The new rump government of President Petro Poroshenko first accepted an association agreement with the European Union under terms certain to impoverish scores of millions of Ukrainians. It has nothing to do with helping Ukraine’s economic development but only dangles mythical carrots of unlimited Western aid that neither the US nor the EU in reality have the resources to provide.

Finally, some European leaders are slowly coming to their senses. Merkel and Hollande rightly want to retreat from the brink and such conservative-right leaders like former President Nicolas Sarkozy and National Front leader Marine Le Pen have both made clear their own determination to reestablish good ties with Moscow.

Yet in Washington, the only voices allowed to be heard in the mainstream media unanimously call for the rapid arming of Ukraine as quickly and recklessly as possible. Arch-hawk Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) is predictably in the forefront of this pack, yet incredibly President Obama has allowed senior figures in his own administration and the top US generals to encourage such madness too.

During the most dangerous periods of the Cold War, the dangers were fully realized by the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan administrations. However, there is not the slightest hint of such awareness and responsibility among US policymakers today, either among the incumbent Democrats or the opposition Republicans, who are trying to outdo each other by competing who is more hawkish on Russia. Needless to say that America needs a drastic change in its foreign policy.

There are a few wise men who can make a significant contribution to this cause; one is former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who did more than any other single person to end the Cold War. He must come to Washington and meet with the surviving veterans of the Reagan and George Bush, Sr. administrations he worked so courageously and constructively with back in the 1980s. Together, their voices desperately need to be heard to revive the severed lines of communication between Washington and Moscow and start the process of bringing the world back from the brink of nuclear destruction.

The huge experience and unmatched diplomatic skills of such Americans as George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker III, Brent Scowcroft, Jack Matlock, Pat Buchanan, David Stockman, Dana Rohrabacher and some others make them the obvious partners to take seats at the round table with Gorby.

It is not too late for the voices of reason and sanity to be heard. But the alarms on the Doomsday Clock are already ringing.

Edward Lozansky and Martin Sieff for RT.

Edward Lozansky is President of the American University in Moscow and head of the US-Russia Forum. He is a former Soviet nuclear scientist.

Martin Sieff is a senior fellow of the American University in Moscow. He is the former Chief Foreign Correspondent for The Washington Times.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Greece’s new finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, has been mandated by the leftist Syriza government to negotiate new conditions with the “troika” (the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) for the continuation of Greece’s desperately needed bailout. He has just written a smashing op-ed forThe New York Times that forcefully outlines his government’s approach to the negotiations. It deserves a standing ovation.

Currently Greece has been receiving a bailout in stages, but only on the condition that it imposes brutal austerity measures on the Greek working class and poor, including laying off state workers, lowering the minimum wage, imposing regressive taxes, and weakening labor union rights. These measures have produced what Varoufakis has called a “humanitarian crisis” in Greece with hunger spreading and many losing such basic amenities as electricity. One might think that the bailout would bring money into Greece that could then be used to help the most desperate. But in fact, the bailout money never stops in Greece; it goes directly to Greece’s creditors at the expense of the Greek people. It has amounted to a massive transference of wealth from those who are struggling to get by to those who are rich. Now the troika wants even more severe austerity as a condition for continuing the bailout.

The new Syriza government has announced that enough is enough. It campaigned and won the elections on the clear platform that the austerity measures must stop, not only because of the humanitarian crisis, but they simply do not work. They have caused Greece’s economy to slide into a depression. The economy has shrunk 25 percent, and unemployment has spiked to 25 percent – 50 percent for young people. More austerity will simply cause further shrinking of the Greek economy with seemingly no hope for an exit. If Syriza were to betray its mandate to stop the austerity, it would amount to political suicide because the Greek working class is prepared to fight to end austerity.

Yanis Varoufakis wrote his op-ed to assure everyone concerned, including Greece’s creditors, that while the Syriza government is prepared to pay back its debts, although not on the same scale as before, it will not bend on its rejection of austerity. He put it unambiguously:

“I am often asked: What if the only way you can secure funding is to cross your red lines and accept measures that you consider to be part of the problem, rather than of its solution? Faithful to the principle that I have no right to bluff, my answer is: The lines that we have presented as red will not be crossed.”

Convinced that the Europeans and Greece can find a win-win compromise where both can emerge victoriously, although creditors will suffer some form of a “haircut,” Varoufakis argued that Syriza is not motivated by some “radical-left agenda,” but invoked the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, perhaps as a sop to the Germans, to explain the Greek government’s concern for everyone’s welfare:

“One may think that this retreat from game theory is motivated by some radical-left agenda. Not so. The major influence here is Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher who taught us that the rational and the free escape the empire of expediency by doing what is right.”

Kant’s ethics were dazzling in their simplicity. His fundamental contention was that doing the right thing coincided with doing the rational thing, which was the same as acting freely, as opposed to being driven by selfish passions. For example, if we wanted to know if stealing could ever be ethically justified, Kant counseled that we pose this question: What if everyone stole? In other words, would it make sense for someone to want stealing to become a universal code of conduct? And, of course, people who steal certainly do not want others to follow their example, for they do not want to become victims of stealing themselves. Hence, they adopt a rationally flawed, self-contradictory code: everyone should abstain from stealing except them.

But Kant’s abstract ethical doctrine does not do justice to Mr. Varoufakis’ political philosophy. Elsewhere in his op-ed he put it this way:

“The great difference between this government [the new Syriza government] and previous Greek governments is twofold: We are determined to clash with mighty vested interests in order to reboot Greece and gain our partners’ trust. We are also determined not to be treated as a debt colony that should suffer what it must.”

This is not the philosophy of Kant where all are treated as equal, atomized individuals, it is the philosophy of Marx. It is raw class war. The Syriza government is out to defend the working class majority at the expense of the rich, who have been shirking on paying their taxes and are waist-deep in corruption. “No more ‘reform’ programs that target poor pensioners and family-owned pharmacies while leaving large-scale corruption untouched,” Varoufakis insisted in his op-ed. In an interview with the BBC he put it this way: “We are going to destroy the basis upon which they [the Greek oligarchy] have built, for decade after decade, a system and network that viciously sucks the energy and the economic power from everybody else in society.”

Marx argued that in class societies, there is no single ethics that can bridge class divisions. Rather, our ethical outlook is deeply defined by our class position. Many in the working class, for example, are convinced of the ethical imperative that the rich pay higher taxes, that their businesses be tightly regulated, that people who fall on hard times through no fault of their own be helped, etc. But many who are rich are equally convinced that such policies are examples of “the politics of envy” and that nothing could be more morally depraved than to transfer money from the good, hard-working wealthy people to the lazy poor.

And because this is a class war, it becomes all the more significant that leaders of major German unions have courageously come out in opposition to their own government to support Syriza’s anti-austerity platform. This is the real reason why European leaders, who represent their respective capitalist classes, refuse to budge on Greece’s debt. They are perfectly aware that in war one must not display weakness; it will only embolden and strengthen “the enemy.” But success also breeds success. Thanks to Syriza’s electoral victory in Greece, Podemos, which also rejects austerity, has surged in Spain, as was evidenced by its recent rally in Madrid of hundreds of thousands. Any small victory of Syriza in its confrontation with its troika opponents will be a victory for Podemos and all the other anti-austerity parties throughout Europe. More European governments could possibly fall. The class struggle could intensify.

Varoufakis has described himself as an “erratic Marxist.” He is far more of a Marxist than a Kantian. It’s the only moral thing to be.

Ann Robertson is a Lecturer at San Francisco State University and a member of the California Faculty Association.

Bill Leumer is a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853 (ret.). Both are writers for Workers Action and may be reached at [email protected].

The Minsk II accords are nothing more than a tenuous ceasefire in a tense regional neighborhood, and the sincerity of France and Germany’s intentions is dubious, at best. While the US has yet to formally commit to arming Ukraine, it still holds the option open and can unilaterally do so with or without EU support or ongoing hostilities.

Unravelling The Layers Of EU Thought

While much has been made of France and Germany’s ‘natural’ interests in having peace in Ukraine and the prospects of a major ‘split’ with the US on the issue, scarcely anything has been written about the enormous benefits each gets from their privileged relationship with the US. Let’s take a brief look at both:

France:
While Paris competes with Germany ‘domestically’ within the EU, it complements it in terms of regional foreign policy in order to piggyback off of Berlin and acquire an increased profile and some residual prestige. Be that as it may, France closely cooperates with the US in West/Central Africa, and this relationship is not worth abandoning in order to all-out reject American designs in Ukraine, which Paris sees as being more within Germany’s sphere of influence/responsibility anyhow.

Germany:
Most observers are already aware of Germany’s enormous trade ties with Russia, so it’s not necessary to rehash them at this point. Instead, attention should be drawn to Merkel’s rumored personal ambitions to be the next UN Secretary General, which could help explain her near-useless, albeit symbolic, merry-go-round diplomacy to Kiev, Moscow, Munich, and Washington.Aside from that, Berlin cynically appreciates the US’ anti-Russian fear mongering that has resulted in devastating counter-sanctions against eastern/southeastern EU member states, since it makes their economies more dependent on Germany and thus entrenches its power even deeper in the union’s poorer and more peripheral states.

US Weapons: With Or Without War

The narrative that the EU can somehow prevent the US from equipping Ukraine with lethal weapons, either through its political resistance to such a plan or by ‘bringing peace’ to Ukraine first, is unequivocally false. It’s the US that tells the EU what to do, not the other way around, and the US will deliver weapons to Kiev regardless of what the EU thinks about the issue. As proof of America’s unilaterally aggressive actions in the face of the EU’s diplomatic rhetoric, the commander of US Army Europe, Ben Hodges, announced on the eve of the Minsk II talks that the US military will be training 600 members of Kiev’s armed forces, showing that it could care less about whatever the EU is doing for ‘peace’.

Even if such a distant scenario developed where the EU attempted to pressure the US on the issue and was resolute with its stance, it would in reality only be France, Germany, and a handful of others who would engage in this resistance, since Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania are completely supportive of the US’ anti-Russian policies in the region. With the EU already torn between north and south, it’s not likely that Merkel would want to risk dividing it into east (anti-Russian) and west (pragmatic towards Russia), too.

A Rough, Russophobic Neighborhood

This brings one to the final point, which is that Russia’s western neighborhood is absurdly hostile to it and openly embracive of Russophobic policies. Be it Poland, the Baltic States, or Romania, these countries’ elites feel they have a bone to pick with Moscow and are intent on drawing the US into their spats. By internationalizing their bilateral problems and getting a superpower involved on their side, ‘minor-league’ states and their regional foreign policies become caught up in Great Power politics and are thus elevated to global significance, which ultimately serves their subjective, self-interested goals. It goes both ways, however, since the US also uses them to achieve its own objectives in the region, which in this case, may be about using Poland and Romania as proxies for arming Kiev. Thus, so long as the zeitgeist of those states remains as radically anti-Russian as it is today, then they will always be involved with instigating some level of conflict with Russia and requesting the US’ assistance in resolving it.

Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow, exclusively for ORIENTAL REVIEW.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, a former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.

The same Big Lies repeat since conflict began last April. No letup whatever followed the latest attempt to resolve things diplomatically in Minsk on February 12.

Russia and rebels are consistently blamed for naked Kiev aggression, brutal atrocities, and post-Geneva/Minsk I and II violations.

Joe Biden spoke to Poroshenko following rebel forces routing junta troops in Debaltsevo. Thousands were forced to surrender.

Kiev abandoned them. Rebel forces won a strategic victory. German intelligence says Kiev’s military is disintegrating. They’re outmaneuvered, outsmarted, outfought and soundly defeated.

Biden and Poroshenko condemned Russia and rebels for junta crimes. A White House press secretary statement lied saying “if Russia continues to violate the Minsk agreements, including the most recent (one) signed on February 12, the costs to Russia will be high.”

Canada marches in lockstep with Washington. Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a statement saying “(i)n coordination with our EU and US partners, Canada is once again intensifying its response to the situation by announcing further sanctions against Russian and Ukrainian individuals and entities.”

Its blacklist includes 37 Russian and Donbass officials, 17 Russian and Donbass entities, as well as oil giant Rosneft and industrial/defense company Rostec’s CEO.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said “Canada’s bet on sanctions will definitely be answered.”

“However, we hope that Ottawa will think about the consequences of its actions, which in fact fuel the further armed standoff in Ukraine, and realize that pressing Russia with sanctions has no perspectives.”

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg bashed Russia and rebels irresponsibly. On February 18, he said “(t)oday I am deeply concerned by the deteriorating situation in and around Debeltsevo.”

“The refusal of the separatists to respect the cease-fire threatens the agreement.”

“As does their denial of access to the area for the OSCE monitors.

Russian forces, artillery and air defence units as well as command and control elements are still active in Ukraine.”

“Russia has supported the separatists with forces, training and advanced weapons.”

“And there has been a steady buildup of tanks and armoured vehicles across the border from Russia to Ukraine.”

“I urge Russia to end its support for the separatists.

And withdraw its forces and military equipment from eastern Ukraine in accordance with the Minsk agreement.”

“The separatists should halt all attacks immediately.”

Fact: No Russian troops operate in Ukraine. No evidence proves otherwise.

Fact: None threaten its territory.

Fact: No Russian buildup near its border exists.

Fact: Or rebel support with “forces, training and advanced weapons.”

Fact: No Russian or rebels violations of Minsk occurred. Its terms didn’t mention Debaltsevo. Rebels respond in self-defense when fired on. It’s their universal right under international law.

Fact: Lots of junta violations occurred post-Geneva, Minsk I and II. Stoltenberg didn’t explain.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini bashed Russia and rebels. She lied saying their actions in Debeltsevo “are a clear violation of the ceasefire.”

“The EU stands ready to take appropriate action in case the fighting and other negative developments in violation of the Minsk agreements continue.”

Clearly threatening more sanctions on Russia. What little hope followed Minsk seems on a fast-track toward collapse.

Reuters reported continued fighting around Debeltsevo despite surrender.

Its correspondent “saw black smoke rising over the town and heard loud blasts hours after the withdrawal began.”

Junta commanders abandoned their troops. Some likely kept fighting, not knowing surrender was ordered. Rebels responded in kind.

AP reported junta forces leaving in trucks or on foot – “unshaven and visibly upset.”

“One soldier spoke of heavy government losses, while another said they had not been able to get food or water because of the intense rebel shelling.”

“A third spoke of hunkering down in bunkers for hours, unable to even go to the toilet because of the shelling.”

“We’re very happy” to get out, a hungry soldier told AP. “We were praying all the time and already said goodbye to our lives a hundred times.”

Retreating troops said they got no help from Kiev. They weren’t sure if they were surrendering or being rotated.

“I don’t know,” said one. “Our commanders didn’t tell us” anything. “They just told us to change our positions because our unit had been staying there for quite a long time and we had sustained big losses.”

Rebel commander Viktor Ponosov said Kiev forces apparently ran out of ammunition and food.

“We heard they were calling their friends and relative saying: “Please help us because they are killing and destroying us.”

Rebel forces consistently say they won’t fire on Kiev troops unless fired on.

The New York Times lied claiming junta forces “fought their way out of (Debaltsevo), choosing a risky overnight breakout rather than surrender…”

Poroshenko ordered surrender. He called it withdrawal. RT International reported Kiev forces “surrendering en masse.”

Sputnik News and other Russian media reported the same thing. Junta ranks were routed, shattered. They had two choices – surrender or die.

The Times portrayed junta forces as heroes, courageous rebels as villains.

It quoted Poroshenko ludicrously saying “(t)oday, the world must stop the aggressor.”

Donbas self-defense forces fight for democratic rights everyone deserves. They reject fascist rule. So should everyone.

They deserve universal support. Don’t expect The Times or other media scoundrels to explain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

The announcement by the Obama administration that it will seek congressional authorization to expand the war on ISIS in Syria and possibly send more heavy weapons to its client government in Ukraine did not generate the kind of muscular opposition and sense of urgency that one would expect from the anti-interventionist liberals and significant sectors of what use to be the anti-imperialist and anti-war left.

Outside of a few articles written by some of us confined to the marginalized and shrinking left, the reports that the administration was considering both of these courses of action were met with passing indifference. It is as if the capitalist oligarchy’s strategy of permanent war has been accepted as a fait-accompi by the general public and even significant numbers of the left.

The fact that the U.S. President could launch military attacks in Syria, supposedly a sovereign state and member of the United Nations, for six months without any legal justification and not face fierce criticism in the U.S. and internationally demonstrates the embrace of lawlessness that characterizes the current epoch of Western imperialist domination.

And the acquiescence of much of the left in the U.S. and Europe on the issue of Syria and the U.S. supported coup in Ukraine reveals the moderating and accommodating forces within the faux left that attempts to bully and intimidate anti-imperialist critics.

To oppose the dismemberment of Syria or criticize the dangerous collaboration between the U.S. and racist neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine was reduced to the silly and intellectually lazy arguments that one was “pro-Assad” or a dupe for Putin!

However, the current ideological environment did not evolve by accident or by the particular confluence of historical events. The disappearance of anti-imperialism among the cosmopolitan left in the U.S. and Western Europe is reflective of a monumental ideological accomplishment by the propagandists of empire. The professional propagandists of empire and Western dominance were able to adroitly “introject” into the center of the radical world-view and consciousness a liberal ideological framework that privileged “anti-authoritarianism over anti-imperialism.

The political consequence of this shift in consciousness has been disastrous for oppositional left politics throughout the West but particularly in the U.S. As the U.S. increasingly turned to lawless violence to advance its interests over the last seven years of the presidency of Barack Obama, “leftists” in the U.S. objectively aligned themselves with the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination through their silence or outright support in the name of opposing authoritarian regimes.

The human consequence of this collaboration with U.S. and Western militarization by progressive forces in the U.S. and Europe has translated into unrestrained violent interventions from Libya to Syria and back to Iraq. Along with the escalations of direct military interventions, economic warfare and subversion directed at the state and people of Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and other progressive states in Latin America has resulted in the unnecessary suffering of millions.

And while the left and millions of Europeans will mobilize to condemn the 17 lives lost in the incident in Paris and defend “Western values,” there is no massive moral outrage from the Western public for the millions that have died at the hands of Western imperialism and the death and destruction that is promised with policies being considered for Syria and the Ukraine by the ruling elite in the U.S.

Fortunately, despite the political confusion of many leftists and the moral duplicity of liberals, signs of growing opposition to U.S. war-mongering are emanating from a historically familiar place – African American young people.

Similar to what occurred in the 1960s when opposition to the Vietnam war was catalyzed by the student organizers of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) working on the frontlines of struggle in the deep South, “Black Lives Matter” activists and the many other formations and tendencies crystalizing out of the Ferguson and anti-police violence movements are making the connection between violence and militarization in the internal colonized areas of the U.S. and the state violence being waged by the U.S. state beyond its’ borders.

Resistance to the logic of white supremacist colonialist/capitalist domination on the part of these young activists is leading them to a resolute anti-imperialist and anti-war stance, just like the young black activists of SNCC some fifty years ago.

Alicia Garza one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement offers a welcomed lesson to the faux left:

“There is absolutely a link between the militarization and the use of force to police black communities in the US and the role of the military to police people of color and Black people in the global South. In both scenarios, the police and the military are used to protect private property and the interests of the elite, but are also used to dampen and or eliminate any resistance to the status quo.”

The experiences of these activists in the U.S. and their increasing connections with struggling peoples’ throughout the world is making it clear to them that the slogan “to protect and serve – capital, ” not only applies to the occupation forces that police the racialized colonies inside the U.S. but also the role of the U.S. military abroad.

“Black against empire,” is not only a title to a book; it also captures the radical stance that conscious black radicals in the U.S. must assume.

The systemic degradation that characterizes the social experiences of African American workers, the marginalized poor, and working class of all of the oppressed and colonized nations and peoples’ by the U.S. empire, strips away the pretense of a benevolent hegemon. The lived experience of oppression means that African American radicals – unlike many white radicals – cannot afford the luxury of being unclear about the nature and interests of the white supremacist, patriarchal, colonial/capitalist order. It is and will be the primary enemy.

On Sept. 12, 2001, the day after the attack in New York city and before it was clear what forces were behind the attack, neoconservative punditsrevealing the pre-determined strategy that was to guide U.S. policy in the 21^st century, were forcefully arguing that the U.S. must be prepared to use force in the world and in the immediate period to declare war on “militant Islam.” The counties identified for immediate attack included Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Iran, with China thrown in as well.

Permanent war and lawless gangsterism to protect and advance U.S. global economic and political interests was codified in the National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002.

And while the pursuit of that strategy made President Bush the symbol of U.S. arrogance and generated vociferous liberal and progressive opposition, Barack Obama has faithfully carried out that very same neocon strategy becoming the smiling brown face of U.S. polices as morally repugnant as his predecessor – but without progressive, popular opposition.

The lack of moral outrage and political opposition to the reactionary policies of Barack Obama is changing and will change even more rapidly as the new generation of black activists shift the center of oppositional politics back to the radical black tradition.

When/if that happens, there will be a much needed rebirth of the anti-war and anti-imperialist movement and radical activism in the U.S. will take a qualitative leap forward.

Ajamu Baraka is a human rights activist, organizer and geo-political analyst. Baraka is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in Washington, D.C. and editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. He is a contributor to “Killing Trayvons: An Anthology of American Violence” (Counterpunch Books, 2014). He can be reached at [email protected] and www.AjamuBaraka.com

America’s top military official – the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey – and Senator Lindsey Graham admitted last September in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that America’s closest allies are supporting ISIS:

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA, MEMBER OF ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE:   Do you know any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL?

GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: I know major Arab allies who fund them.

GRAHAM: Yeah, but do they embrace them? They fund them because the Free Syrian Army couldn’t fight Assad. They were trying to beat Assad. I think they realized the folly of their ways.

4-Star General Wesley Clark – who served as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO – agrees:

And Turkish politicians say that the Turkish government is also supporting ISIS. Some also allege that Israel is directly or indirectly supporting ISIS. And see this.

And the U.S. itself has been taking actions that – intentionally or not – appear to be strengthening ISIS.

Maybe a good start for defeating ISIS would be to stop funding them and their BFFs?

The Novorussians are in control of most of Debaltsevo.  There is no more organized resistance.  Russian sources say that about 1000 junta soldiers have refused to surrender and are hiding in the outskirts or have fled to the south end of the cauldron.  The Novorussians are not even bothering to hunt them down or return their sporadic (and inaccurate) fire: they are waiting for hunger and cold to force them to give up.  A spokesman for the Novorussians has reported that all communications between the junta forces in the cauldron and their commanders have been suppressed.  Russian TV stations are showing footage of Novorussian soldiers raising their flag over the center of the city.

That the forces in the Debaltsevo cauldron were doomed was pretty clear for a while already, but what is still amazing is the speed at which the collapse has taken place.  Clearly, we are dealing with a catastrophic collapse of combat capability of the junta forces.

Novorussian flag over Debaltsevo

The Russian media is also showing many footages of surrendering junta soldiers in and around Debaltsevo.  Those who surrender are treated for their wounds, washed, clothed, fed and they will be sent home as soon as possible.

During his recent press conference in Hungary, Vladimir Putin has confirmed that the Ukrainian forces in Debaltsevo has been defeated.  He also confirmed that the US has been sending weapons to the junta and he added that he was absolutely sure that while this could kill more people, it would make no difference at all because the Ukrainian soldiers have no desire to fight whereas the morale of the Novorussians was extremely strong.

The most amazing event of the day though is Petro Poroshenko’s continual denial that there is any Debaltsevo cauldron at all.  Apparently the junta is in such a shock from the recent events that the freaks in Kiev has decided to simply completely deny the reality of it all.  This is an extremely misguided strategy because even though the Russian media has now been banned on Ukrainian cable and radio stations, and the entire Russian press corps has had its accreditation in the Ukraine canceled, it is still accessible on the Internet and information about the current events is easily transmitted simply by phone (including phone calls from junta forces inside the cauldron).  So while the freaks in the Rada and the government can go into the “deep denial” mode, the population is informed about the reality and rumors will, if anything, only amplify the magnitude of the disaster.

[I would not be most surprised at all if the hardcore crazies à la Iarosh & Co. now turn against Poroshenko.  It will be interesting to see how “Iats” and Turchinov will position themselves – my feeling is that they will all turn against Poroshenko next.]

I think that what we are witnessing these days is truly a historical event.  While the defeat in Debaltsevo is tactical in its dimension, it will most definitely have serious operational consequences and possibly even strategic ones.  Though I cannot say that with any degree of confidence I am getting the strong feeling that the entire Ukrainian military has reached the famous “breaking point” I often mentioned here in the past: the point were regardless of your remaining capabilities the entire organization of your military suddenly and rapidly breaks down.  Yes, I know, the rest of the front is currently stable, but I think that the defeat in Debaltsevo will have a crippling effect on the morale of all the junta forces.  Not only that, but as soon as the cauldron is fully eliminated, the Novorussian forces who took it will be available for operations elsewhere.

Think about it: a number of key locations absorbed a huge amount of Novorussian forces, especially the Donetsk airport (which was used to shell Donetsk),  the Debaltsevo pocket (which was used to shell Gorlovka, which threatened the Donetsk-Gorlovka-Lugansk axis and which could be used to mount an attack on either Donetsk or Lugansk) and the town of Peski which was used to support the junta forces at the Donetsk airport.  They are now all in Novorussian hands.  The question now is where can they turn next?

For the time being, the Novorussians are playing it very “good boys”.  They have even begun to withdraw their heavy weapons even though the junta has not (they were supposed to do that simultaneously).  But let’s not be naive here: they are doing so because they know that it is safe for them to do it, not because they have any trust in the Minsk Agreement 2 (MA2) or, even less so in the junta.  The Novorussian infantry (and armor) is so superior to the junta’s that they can afford to do so at very little cost to themselves.  But since everybody understands that MA2 is impossible to comply with, it is obvious for all the parties involve that the conflict will resume.  When that happens, it will be in a dramatically different context from the one this winter.

First, the Novorussians are, for the first time, adequately armed, equipped and supplied.  Second, the Debaltsvo operation has shown that for the first time the LNR and DNR forces are capable of working together.  Even Mozgovoi, who has less then good things to say about Zakharchenko or Plotnitsky in political terms, is playing it by the same book militarily and all the Novorussian forces appear to have finally been placed under a single command.  Third, the two major weaknesses of the Novorussian positions have now been removed and that is freeing a lot of crack troops for other fronts.

Take the case of Mariupol for example.  The junta forces there have tried to built an attack in the general direction of Novoazovsk.  All they did was to penetrate a couple of kilometers into the no mans land between the two sides and then they were rather easily stopped.  Now that Novorussian crack forces will soon become available, a Novorussian counter-offensive in Mariupol becomes a very real threat to the junta forces in the city.  Until now, any such attack by the Novorussians was risky due to the possibility of a junta flanking maneuver the the danger to be cut off from the rest of the Novorussian forces, but that danger has now receded not only due to the availability of Novorussian forces, but also due to the crushed morale of the junta units.

An other interesting option has been mentioned by anti-maidan’s (very good) military specialist Andrei Basketok who predicts a Novorussian attack along the M4 and N20 in the direction of Karlovka and Avdeevka followed by a pincer attack to surround the junta forces once again (shown in red on this map):

Possible Karlovka-Avdeevka offensive

The real problem for Kiev is that more or less all of the current line of contact can become a potential counter-offensive point for the Novorussians who, by the way, have never concealed their desire to get back all of the historical Novorussian lands.  So while the current (relative) cease-fire is all nice and dandy, I think that by this spring, when the Novorussians will have reinforced their infantry with up to 100’00 more men the situation for the Kiev regime will become absolutely horrific and no amount of US weapon deliveries will change that.  This might well be the beginning of the end for the Nazi experiment in Kiev.

The implications for the AngloZionist empire are rather clear: if the 1%ers have any kind of sense of reality left, they should toss out Poroshenko and the rest of the crazies and foster some kind of government of technocrats in charge of drafting a new constitution and organizing a referendum on federalization simply because the folks in Kiev better negotiate while there still is something left to negotiate then to way to be hiding in a surrounded bunker like their hero Hitler did.  Alas, I don’t think Uncle Sam or the Eurocretins have any common sense left in them.

Whatever may be the case, by the ballot or by the bullet, but we *are* winning.

The Saker

PS: to fully measure the level of delusional insanity of the junta in Kiev here is the full transcript of the latest statement by Poroshenko about the Debaltsevo situation:

I can inform now that this morning the Armed Forces of Ukraine together with the National Guard completed the operation on the planned and organized withdrawal of a part of units from Debaltsevo. We can say that 80% of troops have been already withdrawn. We are waiting for two more columns. Warriors of the 128th brigade, parts of units of the 30th brigade, the rest of the 25th and the 40th battalions, Special Forces, the National Guard and the police have already left the area.

We can assert that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have fulfilled their tasks completely. This position and success were urgently necessary for us in the course of the Minsk negotiations and after them. We managed to show to the whole world the true face of bandits-separatists backed by Russia, which acted as guarantor and direct participant of the Minsk negotiations.

We were asserting and proved: Debaltseve was under our control, there was no encirclement, and our troops left the area in a planned and organized manner with all the heavy weaponry: tanks, APCs, self-propelled artillery and vehicles.

Commanders are working with their personnel. We are waiting for one more column, one more company. Having withdrawn the combat patrol posts to the new defense line, we have preserved the bridgehead for the defense of the state.

It is a strong evidence of combat readiness of the Armed Forces and efficiency of the military command. I can say that despite tough artillery and MLRS shelling, according to the recent data, we have 30 wounded out of more than 2,000 warriors. The information is being collected and may be clarified.

I would like to say that Russia, which yesterday required the Ukrainian warriors to lay down arms, raise the white flag and surrender, was put to shame by the given actions. Ukrainian warriors honorably approved the high rank of the Ukrainian Defender of the Homeland. As I promised, they repelled those who tried to encircle them and left Debaltsevo pursuant to my command, which I gave yesterday, when Russian servicemen forbade the OSCE representatives to come to Debaltsevo to reaffirm our readiness to begin the withdrawal of heavy weaponry and demonstrate the absence of encirclement. They knew it was not true. We demonstrated and proved that with our operation.

We are holding the new defense lines. In the course of my negotiations with leaders of the United States and the EU, I demanded a firm reaction from the world to Russia’s brutal violation of the Minsk agreements, the ceasefire regime and the withdrawal of heavy weaponry. We will prepare organized and coordinated actions together.

I have convened the NSDC meeting for this evening. Now, I am departing to the front to meet those who left Debaltsevo. I am honored to shake hands and thank Ukrainian heroes.

Today, my Decree on awarding the high title of Hero of Ukraine to commander of the 128th Mukacheve mining-infantry brigade Serhiy Shaptala will be proclaimed. Ukraine is proud of such heroes. Internal stability will not be undermined by the battalions “everything is lost” and “this is the end”, lies about a lot of soldiers murdered yesterday, encircled roadblocks and Ukrainian warriors without ammunition, food and water. It is not a Ukrainian scenario. I am confident that those who were spreading it expected a different result. Fortunately, we successfully completed the operation and will have an opportunity to further defend the state.

UPDATE: interestingly, the NYT had a very different view of what has really taken place. In an article entitled “A Bloody Retreat From Debaltsevo as Ukrainian Forces Suddenly Withdraw” the NYT wrote that “Mr. Poroshenko sought to cast the retreat in a positive light, but the loss of the town was clearly a devastating setback for the army“. The fact that even the NYT has a more realistic assessment of what happened then Poroshenko is a powerful indicator of how totally out of touch the junta propaganda really is.

On 24 December 2014, ISIS reported and the US-led coalition confirmed that a Jordanian fighter pilot, Mu‘ath al-Kassasbeh, had crashed in Syria and was now in ISIS custody. On 3 February 2015, ISIS released a video showing its own members murdering the pilot by immolation. The Jordanian regime vowed revenge. Some Jordanians took to the streets in grief and anger. The Jordanian Armed Forces, for its part, intensified its bombing campaign in Syria.

Media outlets and Middle East analysts have expended considerable energy assessing whether and how Jordan’s war on ISIS in the aftermath of the Kassasbeh capture and death represents a game changer. It is difficult to find a sustained critique of this war on ISIS in the local Jordanian media, whether in the mainstream or the more critical online venues. This is not surprising. After all, Jordan is an authoritarian state. Both historically and in the contemporary moment, the regime has carefully drawn red lines around public speech and political opposition.

Manufacturing Silence

Immediately after al-Kassasbeh’s capture, the Jordanian regime put the general public and the local media on notice. On 25 December, the day after al-Kassasbeh’s capture, the kingdom’s attorney general announced that the (re)publication of ISIS-issued news or media could result in prosecution. He also prohibited any “military analysis” of the Jordanian Armed Forces. That same day, the Jordanian Armed Forces issued a communiqué calling on local media to “not publish any information that harms national security,” in reference to news of the Kassasbeh capture. Any discussion or debate of the ISIS capture of al-Kassasbeh and the Jordanian Armed Forces’ response was now impossible. There would be little tolerance for any questioning or debate of the broader context, specific details, and future (regime) military policy.

The absence of a substantial and publicized local critique of the regime is not an indictment of Jordanians but of the Jordanian regime’s silencing of dissent. Representing Jordanians as consensual and acritical subjects, as several articles that laud the regime’s policies have, is a drastic misreading. This misreading legitimates the regime at a time when regional protest movements have challenged authoritarian rule in new ways.

The public discussion that does exist in Jordan focuses on the nation’s purported readiness for war. One main theme focuses on Jordan’s military capacity and fears of a long war of attrition with unintended consequences. Another emphasizes the potential rifts within Jordanian society. For some, there is limited yet real support for ISIS within Jordan, which could undermine the stability of the country.

In all of these discussions, what “winning” this amorphous war means is unaddressed. Many questions remain unasked (if not intentionally silenced, as Lamis Andoni points out). Are the methods of the war—even if winnable—justified? What responsibility does the Jordanian regime have in terms of international standards of state conduct? Why do Jordanians find themselves grieving the brutal murder of one their own in the first place? Is there room for Jordanians to oppose both ISIS and the regime’s war on terror? The public discourses in both Jordan and the United States foreclose these questions, though for different reasons. They effectively combine expert commentary on authoritarian states with the lexicon of the war on terror to manufacture the appearance of consent. The regime, it appears, is waging a war of necessity.

Unanswered Questions

ISIS threatens the many civilians who find themselves under its rule, in its path, or on the receiving end of its military onslaughts. ISIS is capable of killing all of its prisoners, whether military or not. ISIS is capable of setting someone on fire, filming their death, and releasing the video. This is all condemnable.

In the aftermath of the video’s release, the Jordanian Armed Forces have waged an intensified bombing campaign on alleged ISIS strongholds. Spokespersons for the regime have reported degrading twenty percent of the military strength of ISIS. Media outlets and Middle East analysts have taken such reports at face value. A closer look would reveal some exaggeration and uncritical celebration.

US-led bombings of ISIS positions began in August 2014 and have expanded since. By September 2014, media were reporting over 204 US-led coalition air strikes against ISIS. That number would grow to over 1300 strikes by December 2014 and then 1600 strikes by January 2015. Throughout these strikes, not once was it credibly reported that coalition forces accomplished anything approximating a twenty percent degrading of ISIS capacities.

We are now expected to believe that in less than one week, Jordanian air strikes have degraded more ISIS capacity than in the previous six months of coalition bombings. Why has revenge been the only explanatory variable for these disparate set of facts? The danger of not going beyond the “revenge factor” ultimately produces a heroic (but hardly believable) presentation of the regime. Such presentation is not benign. It manufactures legitimacy for an authoritarian regime that has denied transparency, accountability, and social justice for the majority of its population.

Furthermore, who is speaking for civilians living under ISIS rule and currently subject to the “shock and awe” and “wipe them off the face of the planet” policy of the regime’s bombing campaign? A cursory reading of reporting on Kayla Mueller’s death shows that the media is undecided (and perhaps uninterested) in exploring whether ISIS or Jordanian strikes killed Mueller. Mueller is not more important than the many unnamed that Jordanian airstrikes killed. Mueller’s death is exceptional only in that she is the only person that Jordanian and US mainstream media have named and acknowledged. Despite this, the lack of regard to the cause of her death reveals US and regime interests, rather than the general wellbeing of Syrians, Jordanians, or any other civilians, are driving policy. Civilians in Raqqa have attempted on numerous occasions to name their dead as a result of US and Syrian bombing of ISIS targets in Raqqa (see, for example, here and here). When a military force (i.e., the Asad regime, the US-led coalition, or the Jordanian air force) claims it is going to bomb the “capital” (i.e., Raqqa) of their enemy (i.e., ISIS), the over 200,000 civilians living under that enemy’s rule are subject to untold horrors in addition to the devastating reality of living under ISIS rule.

Have we forgotten about the “precision strikes” and “smart bombs” of the United States invasion, occupation, and counter-insurgency policies in Iraq? Have we forgotten about the drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere? We all know full well that the war on terror has killed more civilians than al-Qa‘ida and ISIS operatives. The Jordanian regime, for its part, does not even bother to claim that it is using “precision strikes” or “smart bombs.” Clearly, that same core of an international military coalition we saw in 2001, 2003, 2011, and now in 2014 (despite the very different contexts) has not learned the lessons of Iraq and the broader war on terror. Those lessons are that foreign intervention, militarization, and short-term thinking invariably breed long-term problems. Those lessons also include the fact that the brutalization of a civilian population in the name of freedom breeds deep-seated discontent, alienation, and extremism. The refusal to learn these lessons explains in part the US administration’s support of Arab military policy. Barack Obama has deployed the rhetoric of “this is your problem, you deal with it.” With this move, the US administration has in the eyes of some shielded its “smart” military intervention from critiques that highlight infrastructural destruction, civilian death toll, and their sociopolitical ramifications.

There certainly are differences between the Jordanian war on terror, the US war on terror, and the Egyptian war on terror. Yet there is one factor that unites all of them. No one speaks for those civilians caught in the crossfire between ISIS rule and coalition strikes. Where is the disgust and disdain for the civilian deaths, incinerated bodies, and social dislocation for which US, European, and Arab states are responsible for? Where is the condemnation by these very same voices at mangled and severed bodies of Palestinians in Gaza? Why is the incineration of Mu‘ath al-Kassasbeh in Raqqa any more abhorrent than the US incineration of an entire family by Hellfire missile in Yemen or a boy by white phosphorous in Falluja? Why is it more abhorrent than the daylight fatal police shooting of Shayma’ al-Sabbagh in Cairo? Who speaks for those civilians in Raqqa and elsewhere that are dying under the rain of Jordanian-launched second-hand US bombs?

We should all condemn al-Kassasbeh’s death. However, that condemnation should be just as harshly directed at the United States and its regional allies. To focus on the performative aspect of ISIS brutality is to miss the crucial connection between the two. ISIS is producing videos of its brutality as a strategy. The United States does not pursue this strategy (and US media play along). Yet US soldiers have in various ways celebrated brutality, torture, and killing sprees since the inception of war in Afghanistan. Hollywood has done this work as well through the unadulterated heroizing and celebration of US brutality in recent films such as American Sniper and Zero Dark Thirty.

Historic Complicity

ISIS is a problem for the region and a threat to those civilians caught up in its networks. But ISIS is part of a much longer story that we have to rigorously take stock of. ISIS is the product of several legacies. It is the child of Saddam Hussein’s prisons, torture, and murder. It was also raised amidst the crucible of the US destruction of Iraqi state and society during US sanctions, invasion, and occupation. ISIS was nourished by the sectarian politics and militia sponsorship of the US counter-insurgency policy in Iraq. It was inaugurated amidst the carte blanche the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey gave to anyone that wanted to fund or arm opposition to Bashar al-Asad in Syria. Some of us know this history.

It is that history that we must return to as we assess the Jordanian regime’s policy. It is this history we must begin with. To forget this history, and the Jordanian regime’s part in it, is to position al-Kassasbeh’s murder in the mutually dependent relationship of Arab authoritarianism and US imperialism.

Proposals to use geoengineering to fight global warming are in the news.   Indeed, humans have been intentionally modifying weather for climate control for decades.  But geoengineering has not always been thought of as a way to fight global warming …

In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, scientists and presidents considered geoengineering to stop a new iceage and create more warming.

On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote an article stating:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Here is a reprint of the article in the Washington Times, and here is a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article.

Why were scientists considering melting the arctic ice cap?

Because they were worried about a new ice age.

Newsweek discussed the 1975 article in 2006:

In April, 1975 … NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing “ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” the magazine warned of an impending “drastic decline in food production.” Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect “just about every nation on earth.” Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you’d have known that the threat was: global cooling…

Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it’s probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt.

Obama’s senior science adviser – John Holdren – was one of those warning of a catastrophic ice age.

The Boston Globe reported in 2005:

The grandest climate engineering schemes came from the Soviet Union. The most Promethean among them was a late 1950s proposal to dam the Bering Strait and, by pumping water from the Arctic Ocean into the Pacific, draw warm water northward from the Atlantic to melt the polar ice pack, making the Arctic Ocean navigable and warming Siberia. The leading Soviet climatologist, Mikhail I. Budyko, cautioned against it, arguing that the ultimate effects were too difficult to predict (though he himself had played with the idea of warming the Arctic by covering it in soot to decrease its reflectivity). John F. Kennedy, as a presidential candidate, suggested the United States look into collaborating on the project. While the two countries continued desultory discussions of the Bering Strait plan into the 1970s, the American government was by then losing interest in the whole field of weather modification.

Similarly, the American Institute of Physics notes:

Around 1956, Soviet engineers began to speculate that they might be able to throw a dam across the Bering Strait and pump water from the Arctic Ocean into the Pacific. This would draw warm water up from the Atlantic. Their aim was to eliminate the ice pack, make the Arctic Ocean navigable, and warm up Siberia. The idea attracted some notice in the United States — presidential candidate John F. Kennedy remarked that the idea was worth exploring as a joint project with the Soviets, and the discussion continued into the 1970s.

Soot is a major cause of ice warming and melting in the Arctic and in the Himalayas.  As NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has shown, soot in the upper atmosphere ends up on the surface of ice sheets and glaciers, such as Arctic ice cap:

South Asia is estimated to have the largest industrial soot emissions in the world, and the meteorology in that region readily sweeps pollution into the upper atmosphere where it is easily transported to the North Pole.

If scientists had convinced policy-makers to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap in the 1970s, we might have had real problems. Damning the Bering Strait would have been disastrous.

First, Do No Harm

I have previously pointed out numerous decisions regarding the environment which have caused more harm than good, such as the government forcing a switch from one type of chemical to a chemical which turned out to be 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Here’s another one. The mongoose was introduced to Hawaii in order to control the rats (which were eating the sugar cane used to make rum). It didn’t work out very well – mongeese are daylight-loving creatures while rats are nocturnal – and the mongeese trashed the native species in Hawaii.

My whole point is that we should make sure that our actions do not cause more harm than good.

For example:

• The prestigious journal Science published a report showing that geoengineering to fight warming could INCREASE the risk of drought

• BBC notes that geoengineering could harm BILLIONS of people

• Scientists are considering all sorts of hare-brained schemes … For example, “government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth’s upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of ‘global warming.’ ” Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being studied and tested (and see this and this), involving such things as dumping barium, aluminum and other toxic metals into the atmosphere

And see this.

Since January 12, 2015, Michel Martelly has ruled Haiti by decree with US-UN guns backing up his dictatorship. The UN Security council, led by Samantha Powers, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, recently visited Haiti to legitimized and reinforce their commitment to Martelly over the objections of the people of Haiti.

Twenty-nine years ago, on February 7, 1986 Haiti ousted the bloody, US-supported Duvalier dictatorship and swore never to allow dictatorship in Haiti ever again.

Today, February 7, 2015, tens of thousands of demonstrators in Haiti swarmed the streets to mark this anniversary, commitment and again to boycott and demand an end, not to another US-supported Haiti dictatorship, but worse, a US-installed dictatorship and an 11-year military occupation of Haiti.

For eleven years, outraged Haitians against dictatorship and occupation have, in various waves, taken to the streets to demand an end to the US-UN occupation behind NGO false benevolence. Since the 2010 doctored elections, Haiti demonstrators have demanded the removal of the puppet Martelly government. As carnival time approaches, this February month is slated to see more anti-dictatorship and anti-corruption demonstrations. More recently, as world gas prices go down, with Haiti prices remaining high; as the Haiti elites continue to block natural desires for sovereignty and a participatory Haiti democracy, the demonstrators are also boycotting businesses, agitating against the high cost of living, low wages and high gas prices.

Haiti boycott against US occupation, Martelly dictatorship, high cost of living – Feb 7, 2015

Each time Haitians take to the streets, they know that the powerful, US-trained militarized police will teargas, shoot and even kill unarmed demonstrators, as they’ve done before. According to eyewitnesses and reports found here and here, after the February 7th march, militarized CIMO/police vehicle #1-608 in Haiti opened fire on protest leaders who went to the home of two journalists.  Yet, Haiti fights on, will demonstrate again, with no weapons, except their bodies, songs, slogans, the divine within and the certainty that their call to the Ancestral powers and universal force for goodness shall not return void.

The corporate media, human rights industry, charitable industrial complex, and other Ndòki forces for empire remain silent about the outsourced US occupation of Haiti. The colonial narrative and racism at play is that the Internationals are “helping” Haiti,  have no partisan interests. They’re effective at using this false credibility to get funding, legitimize themselves and the foul acts and lies of the US Ambassadors to Haiti, the US State Department, the OAS and the UN.

The Internationals reinforce each other. The US State Department freely funds and uses the human rights industry, like the UN, Amnesty International, Paul Farmer’s Partners in Health and others in the crisis caravan, to give credibility to the neocolonial tyranny in Haiti.
For instance, the Haiti protestors are demanding the removal of the Martelly dictatorship, the US occupation, a stop to white supremacy, arbitrary arrests, corruption and an accounting of what former president Bill Clinton and his crew did with the $10 billion collected in earthquake monies.When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatened dissenting Haiti officials with lost of visas if Michel Martelly was not allowed into the second round during the “elections” (though he didn’t have the votes), the human rights industry said nothing. For 11-years, the international human rights industry and corporate media have remained fairly mute about the outsourced US occupation, the US false aid that’s money laundering, the widespread military rapes of Haiti children, the UN shooting live ammunition at peaceful demonstrators and killing unarmed Haitians. When they touch on these subjects, it’s to obfuscate the real issue, minimize the foreign savagery as if these are not criminal acts in need of fair and independent scrutiny. Mostly, when the international human rights industry mentions Haiti, it’s to promote the occupation and the US-installed dictatorship.

But Amnesty International recently sent an open letter, not to ask the UN to stop shooting at unarmed demonstrators, nor to ask Bill Clinton why donation monies meant for homeless people were used to build luxury hotels. No. Amnesty International, sent a letter to Martelly’s newly appointed prime minister. The pretext is that Amnesty International wants to influence the new prime minister and non-government to provide housing for homeless Haiti quake victims and to respect the demonstrators’ right to peacefully protest. The sudden concern is suspect to say the least because the protestors have been in the streets for years and pushed alone to get political prisoners released.

Martelly has ruled by decree informally for three years and besides the quake victims being abandoned, evicted and abused, has steadily taken away peasant lands for the corporatocracy. Where’s the Amnesty International concern that Martelly stop making more homeless Haitians by taking their lands, offshore islands through presidential decree to give to luxury resort developers? The real effect of the strategically timed “Open Letter” was to immediately put the weight of Amnesty International behind the defacto Prime Minister. Publicly signalling to any squeamish cohort that Martelly, formally ruling by decree and his unilateral appointment of a prime minister, even after Parliament was dissolved, is legitimate governance. The people on the streets want the usurpers gone. The Internationals are writing to them, recognizing their authority, providing firepower to them and receiving them in the halls of power with UN Security Council visits. (See, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Paid to Destabilize Eritrea ;  Bombshell proof! Hillary paid Amnesty International to prepare coup d’état: US taxpayers looted to destroy sovereign nations; Leaked Memo: Amnesty International paid to destabilize Eritrea, The Hypocrisy of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in Peru.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After 300 years of direct European enslavement in Haiti and 200 years of unremitting US-Euro tyranny,  containment-in-poverty, abuse and exploitation, Haiti is without hate and still rated the least violent nation in the entire Caribbean. It demonstrates peacefully. Suffers interminably the rape, abuse and atrocities of power elites with the faces of Samantha Power, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Paul Farmer, Amnesty International and Hollywood celebrities.

In myriad ways, Haiti lives are swapped around and cashed in, while the colonial bullies circulate in polite company as if nothing will unveil them. As if their impunity, degeneracy and gross corruption is the newest, shiniest hit record or song.

Haiti protest, Feb. 7, 2015. Calling the Ancestors for strength to combat and end US occupation and its newly minted Martelly dictatorship.

Haiti demonstrators call and put the Ancestors forth. Starting the protest march with traditional prayers that reMEMBERed the lives and generations lost before the February 7, 1986 end to the Duvalier dictatorship and to demand an end to the new Martelly dictatorship. The photos here show their drawn sounds – vèvè – calling forth Ogou and Dantò – the energies, vibration or irreducible essence for raw power, a will of steel, the warrior mother, warrior father, justice defenders, healing, love and creation.

Just like their foreparents, Haitians are deeply committed to liberty and justice. Death is not the worse fate. To live as a slave zombie, is.

Dantò, manman mwen. Ogou, papa mwen: Nou se Ginen depi Lè Marasa, Lè Mò e Lè Mistè. San yo se san nou. Nou fè yon sèl kò. Inyon nou ak Zansèt e TiMoun yo fè fòs nou. Pouvwa Zansèt yo se pouvwa nou. Papa Legba, souple, ouvrè pòt la pou yo. Ohh, mwen wè yo monte anwo, soti Anba Dlo, monte sou tèt dlo a, rale soti lan venn nou, kè nou. Lasous nou rive. Nou wè yo- soti lan lamè, soti lan gròt Ayiti yo, twou wòch yo, anba tè sakre Ayiti Toma a, lan syèl la… Zansèt yo e Timoun yo vini. Nou la. Toupatou. San yo se san nou. Pouvra yo se pouvra nou. Se fòs Bon Dye Zansèt nou yo kap kondwi bra nou pou nou ranpòte la viktwa.– Ezili Dantò, Free Haiti Movement, February 7, 2015

“Grenadye alaso sa ki mouri n’ap vanje yo!” –Indigenous Army of Ayiti, 1791

Here we go again. The US Empire does what it does best, exporting more death, destruction and terror around the world. On Tuesday the Obama administration disclosed that it plans to export killer drones to its allies from Turkey to Italy to Saudi Arabia. And we already know how that song goes. In recent years the Islamic extremists have managed to invariably get their hands on countless weapons and arms shipments intended for our so called allies. Be it in Iraq or Syria, arms that were supposed to go to the Iraqi army or allied Kurds or moderate rebels in Syria somehow always get delivered to the Islamic State extremists, the latest US-Israeli-Saudi created terrorist monster-on- steroids.

As an example last October an airdrop of weapons that was purported to go to the Kurds in the besieged town of Kobani in Syria to fight the Islamic State forces ended up in the wrong hands. As recently as last month it was discovered and reported that the US was regularly air dropping arms and supplies to the waiting Islamic State on the ground below in Iraq. Obama’s huff and puff rhetoric about hunting down the Islamic State in Syria in reality is merely another effectively deceptive ploy to commit air strikes on Assad’s Syria that he couldn’t get away with the year before right after the false flag chemical weapons attack committed by US backed rebels (that were later renamed ISIS). So now both Israeli and US military air strikes are taking out infrastructure inside Syria that hurts the Syrian people, destroying oil refineries and food storage silos.

Any true military strategist would know that if the United States actually wanted to destroy the so called big bad enemy terrorists, the most modern and lethal killing machine on the planet has the means to accomplish this mission within a month. But the truth is the Islamic State serves the megalomaniacal purpose of the Empire and for that reason alone, they must survive and be allowed to continue killing Western journalists and causing deaths of humanitarian aid workers as well as engaging in ongoing Christian cleansing throughout the Middle East and beyond. Terror strikes deep into the psyche when dumbed down masses are manipulated into a frenzied, frothy hate of Islam worldwide that only serves the Zionist-Empire-NATO unholy alliance all too well.

In between making and placing their beheading videos online, the same enemy found the time to undergo training inside our close ally Turkey’s border. With this latest announcement selling drones to US allies, the world is supposed to feel safer now that our “trusted” friends in Turkey and Saudi Arabia will be receiving Obama’s personal favorite form of state-sponsored terrorism from the sky. Using the same preferred modern warfare method that our president has envisioned killing Americans on US soil, he now plans to let others also use it to kill yet more innocent humans.

A recent study from November 2014 revealed that less than 4% of those killed by drones in Yemen and Pakistan were actually the targeted bad guys while over 96% of the 1,147 dead people killed in this latest sample were innocent civilians. The January 28, 2015 tally by the Journal of Investigative Journalism brings the total number of drone deaths in Pakistan alone to be estimated near 4,000 victims. If the sloppy aim of the most experienced and trained drone pilots on the planet from the CIA and US military can’t efficiently kill the enemy, what makes anyone believe that these other nations with fewer trained pilots will produce any better results? It’s another disaster waiting to happen.

All we are doing by spreading terror from the skies in yet more hands around the world is increasing more innocent victims whose family members will justifiably hate the US (and its allies) even more. But then the Empire’s forever war on terror will be just that, with a permanent supply of fresh new jihadist recruits signing up to kill Americans to avenge the loss of their loved ones. And of course because history by design is locked into a forever do-loop pattern repeating itself, our enemies will get a hold of these made in-the-USA drones and be using them in no time on us made-in-the-USA Americans, that is when Obama’s not already using them on us. One can easily see the false flag scenario of a drone attack one day killing Americans in America and then blaming it on the Moslem terrorists who “accidentally on purpose” managed to acquire one of our own “misdirected” killer drones. And the suicidal madness increases exponentially.

A number of America’s so called allies have rather dubious track records when it comes to aiding and abetting our enemy. On the one hand, Obama in his most fluent doublespeak is quick to regard Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan as our allies in the Empire’s war on terror, yet on the other hand reality has repeatedly proven that these same “friends” regularly supply and support terrorism. For that matter, so does the United States. The bottom line is the US Empire created and has been regularly using our so called enemies al Qaeda/ISIS as our mercenary proxy-war boots on the ground in 1980’s Afghanistan against the Soviets, 1990’s Balkans against the Serbs, 9/11/2001 against our own American people, in 2011-12 Libya against Gaddafi and illegally smuggle arms from Benghazi, 2010 to the present in Syria against Assad and last year against puppet fallen-out-of-favor al-Maliki in Iraq. While Obama has continued claiming al Qaeda and ISIS as the US enemy, at the same time he is treasonously using our taxpayer dollars to train, arm and deploy them on the ground wherever he sees fit. The American people are finally realizing Obama cannot have it both ways any more.

Perhaps that’s why a year ago after the CIA-induced overthrow of the democratically elected government in Ukraine, the US decided it was time to declare a new enemy in cold war, part II. Once Putin reclaimed its Crimean naval base after the Crimean people voted overwhelmingly to become part of Russia again, it’s been a propaganda war ever since. Obama and the West have been demonizing Russia once again as the enemy through nonstop lies and false flags. But it’s not working. With far more at stake in making Putin the enemy, Europe is currently attempting to arrive at peace in Eastern Ukraine through diplomacy, much to Obama’s chagrin.

The truth is the United States manufactures allies and enemies according to its fickle, self-serving, propagandizing purpose and has absolutely no moral high ground to stand on in a single aspect of its foreign policy. Whatever suits global hegemony for gaining more power and control while reaping more profit for transnational corporations and the central banking cabal is the common thread behind everything the US government does anywhere and everywhere on earth. That’s why America’s insane, convoluted, chaotic chessboard policy makes allies into enemies and enemies into allies at its fleeting, imperialistic will, amounting to pure schizoid madness. And aside from making more money for the ruling elite, by design its intended purpose is to create conflict and war to destabilize, destroy and impoverish every nation it touches, a la the King Midas-in-reverse effect. And what does this demonic foreign policy have to show for itself? Failed states in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan along with a faltering, choking, bankrupt US economy on the verge of total collapse. Stay tuned for the fall of the American Empire.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed.blogspot. com/.

What’s happened this week in Libya should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention over the last four years. 

Geopolitically speaking and considering its proximity to Europe, this viper’s nest has the potential to be even more perilous than Syria. At the beginning of the new year, we predicted that Libya would be the next major ISIS theater, paving the way for an eventual US or NATO intervention. 21WIRE’s end-of-year feature article Game Changers: 2015 Predictions explains:

“Of all the emerging potential conflict fronts for central planning at NATO, this one looks by far the most promising. In classic Hegelian fashion, the Libyan disaster which NATO created back in 2011 is now ripe for a second clean-up round. Like Iraq, the country has been effectively split into 3 separate regions. Warlords and terrorist gangs have seized the power vacuum left by NATO’s sloppy decapitation of the Gaddafi regime in 2011, and already NATO’s puppet government has run for the hills, using what’s left of their airforce to bomb their own cities.”

From the onset, coverage of Libya has been riddled with misdirection and obfuscation. The warning signs have been visible since late 2011 (below).

How did they get it so wrong? Most of what happened in Libya over the last 4 years was known in the alternative media, but blacked-out by the mainstream media (MSM). As it was then, so it is today. The reason for this is simple. Due to the fact that they gave up on doing any investigative reporting, the MSM has only reacted to the official story. When the event happens, Washington issues its talking points, newspapers repeat, intelligence operatives embedded within the mediakeep to the script, the State Dept. holds its press briefings, while the CIA dispatches its pundits to panels on CNN, FOX and others. The narrative becomes streamlined. Any subsequent information or theme which counters the official line is summarily dismissed and suppressed, and in most cases – completely ignored.

In early 2013, 21WIRE reported how Chris Stevens was overseeing a US gun-running program out of Benghazi and into Syria, and as early at 2011, I also reported how Libyan Islamic fighters were being transferred to the next proxy war in Syria. If only the MSM had done the same back then.

Is ISIS really in Libya? Well, yes and no. ISIS has become a kind of open-source brand, complete with an entire seasonal fashion line, a logo and a full range of merchandise. In fact, absolutely anyone who fancies it can simply fly the ISIS flag, or print out an A4 page and blue-tac it to the wall while filming a martyrdom video – like Amedy Coulibaly did in Paris.

In Libya, they splurged a little, and printed large decals to stick on the hoods of their Toyota pick-up trucks, and showed off their new ISIS flags with a gold fringe. It seems that ISIS/ISIL has no hierarchical structure or organization and exists in Syria and Iraq as a confederation of radical paramilitary and al Qaeda groups many of whom receive various degrees of funding and weapons from NATO allies and from the GCC oil monarchies. There’s also a number ofseasoned mercenaries and western special forces who are training rebel and ISIS fightersheading into Syria. Otherwise, terrorist brigades function much more like a gang syndicate or Sand Pirate privateers than they do a bona fide terrorist organization. So in theory, anyone can be ISIS, and ISIS can be anywhere. It looks like the pretext for the ultimate open-ended and unregulated international war.

We were primed for this week’s official ISIS PR launch event in Libya back in January when a minor false flag operation was carried out – a “shooting attack” at the Corinthia Hotel, accompanied by a car bombing. This event was brought to us via Pentagon’s media outlet SITE Intelligence Group, who said the attack was the work of the “Tripoli branch of ISIS”, and we are meant to trust SITE 100% and not question the provenance of their many ‘terror exclusives’..

ISIS ‘Video Wars’

Most sane people are in agreement that the terror video genre is now officially out of control. To some degree the public are becoming desensitized to it, but on the other hand, politicians and media producers have embraced it because it makes their jobs easier. If it scares the public, then it serves a corporate fascist agenda, and the media too. Our world has been transformed into a cinematic merger of Batman meets Iron Man 3 featuring The Mandarin.

Back in September, 21Wire reported how most of the early edition ISIS beheading videos were likely fakes, and filmed against a green screen, completely with props, wardrobe and voice overs. It turns out that at least two of the US major networks – CNN and FOX News finally admitted this three weeks ago. Here’s one example, reported by Dahboo77:

So if the MSM got that wrong for so long, why should we believe anything they are claiming in relation to the ISIS movie productions?

Another amazing thing about these videos is how effective they seem to be in getting other Middle East nation states to bomb their neighbors. The formula resembles a pure Hegelian dialectic, introduced by a problem – a horrific ISIS video appearing on the internet, followed by a predictable reaction – which is public outrage and a demand for blood atonement, and finally followed by the solution – a bombing campaign against the alleged faceless enemy.

Jordanian pilot Kasasbeh stands in front of members ISIS, in what appears to be a staged scene. Notice the shadowing of the picture plane from front to back. (counterjihadnews.com)

First came Jordan. Immediately after the public release of a highly suspect ‘ISIS’ movie production allegedly showing a Jordanian pilot, Moaz al-Kasasbeh, being burned up in what appears to be a ‘prop’ cage, the King of Jordan responded by launching a series of high-profile ‘revenge’ airstrikes inside neighboring Syria. The media were told that these sorties were against ‘ISIS targets’. In reality, we may never know if that’s true or not. Judging by the media hype, it’s more likely that this was a symbolic airstrike designed to bolster public opinion for a regime which wasn’t very popular the week before. To add to the confusion, someone conveniently threw in the alleged American female hostage Kayla Mueller into the mix, with ISIS claiming that the Jordanian airstrike killed her, and Washington and Amman claiming that ISIS killed her – and in the great ISIS tradition of no forensic evidence, the western media validates without any question and then accepts that the JPEGS emailed by ISIS to Kayla’s family – were perfectly legitimate. Surreal.

ISIS in LIBYA: Still image from the latest ISIS production, showing the execution of 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians being murdered by masked ISIS militants wearing identical Ninja robes, with prisoners wearing standard-issued Guantanamo Bay orange jump suits.

Then came Egypt. Like his fellow dictator in Jordan, Egypt’s supreme leader General Abdel Fatah El Sisi has his own problems at home. Somehow, he managed to garner 98% of the votein this past summer’s election, but many believe this result was achieved by locking up any opposition and scaring opposition voters away from the polls (he’s looks a shoe-in to be the next Hosni Mubarak, destined to rule for another 25 years). Suddenly, another gruesome ISIS video appeared yesterday, depicting a mass beheading of 20 Egyptian Coptic Christians who happened to be in Libya and hanging out (so we’re told) in an ISIS hot spot along Libya’s northern Mediterranean coast. Within a few hours of the video’s release, El Sisi orders airstrikes against Libya, and news clips of Egyptian-owned, US-made F16 fighters scrambling in formation towards their new target, a civilian neighborhood in the coastal city of Derna, in Libya – exacting revenge for the horrific ISIS movie production. Was the movie really filmed in Derna? There is no way to know in fact. All we know is that it was filmed on a beach, somewhere on earth.

The US or UK media will not report on any civilians killed in these glorious “air raids”, and if there are any then it’s simply “collateral damage”. But that dark PR generated in places like Syria and Libya only guarantees more extremism will take root on the ground, feeding back into the Hegelian loop. This equation is the very reason (coalition airstrikes anyone?) why Libya is infested with extremist paramilitaries in the first place, but you’ll never hear that admitted by the MSM brain trust, or CNN’s panel of “national security experts”.

Just imagine – a global arms industry driven by YouTube videos? We’re practically there. Washington hardly has to lift a finger, just cue up the videos and watch them all bomb each other back to the Ottoman Era.

Meanwhile the western media falls into hysteria, calling it an “ISIS attack on Europe’s Doorstep”. Even the Italian press is in a panic, fearing that ISIS is “making inroads” into Italy and could hit Rome and other major cities.

Sensationalist reporting by British newspapers are also screaming-up new fears of “boat loads of ISIS” sailing across the Med and on to the beaches of Europe. These stories are placed in the media in order to push public opinion further towards accepting a permanent war.

In all of these ISIS ‘beheading’ videos, besides many of them not even showing the deaths of the on-screen victims, there has been zero forensic evidence to verify the murders; no murder weapon, no location, no time of death, and no body. We are told by our political establishment and media to accept the videos on face value. What makes these highly produced videos any different from a Hollywood production? Answer: Nothing. In the end, there is no real crime scene, only a YouTube video.

Perfect Timing For New US Declaration of War

The timing of this week’s latest ISIS video-on-demand episode in Libya is almost uncanny, if not dubious, considering the constitutional debate which is currently unfolding in the United States. Is it just another odd coincidence that just 24 hours before Egypt launched its airstrikes in Libya, US President Barack Obama proposed a new congressional authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIS which beltway pundits were touting as “a rare moment of unity among congressional Democrats and Republicans”?

By using this latest installment of the ISIS Crisis, the US government is attempting to re-write and even redefine the whole process of declaring war. 21WIRE’s Shawn Helton explained the historical significance of this executive move yesterday:

“The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has been a source of sharp debate with US leadership since it was passed, and the ‘constitutionality’ of the joint Congressional law has been questioned by every US President since its establishment.”

“While the AUMF was not an official “declaration of war”, it does provide the legislative grease needed to allow more authority to be used by a US president.”

Pre-ISIS in Libya

It should be clear by now to anyone with even a cursory grasp of recent history, that Washington DC and its NATO partners Britain and France had hoodwinked the world just long enough to fast-track the dodgy UN Resolution 1973 ‘No-Fly Zone’ which gave NATO jets a clear run of the country to provide air cover for their insurgency, effectively opening the gates of hell in Libya, quickly transforming the country nearly overnight into the globe’s most al Qaeda-infested cauldron at that time. The exact same scenario is now unfolding in Syria, only there is no ‘official’ no-fly zone, only a de facto one. This arrangement was more or less formalized this week when Obama signed off on allowing “Moderate” Syrian Rebels to now call in US B-1B bomber airstrikes. If that’s not a war, I’m not sure what is.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, backed strongly by the US (and now we know why) stayed in power just long enough to fulfill their function for the US-NATO operation in Libya. They played a crucial role at that time in shipping arms and fighters over their border into Libya, and also later on in the networking and recruitment through Brotherhood branches in Libya, Tunisia and Syria – to help flood Syria with foreign fighters – many of whom are flying the ISIS flag today.

Once the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was executed in late Oct. of 2011 by armed al Qaeda (and soon to be ISIS) street mobs (we’re told – with ex-US special forces standing by in a ‘supervisory’ capacity only yards away) – Libya was destined to be the warlord-ridden Somalia-on-the-Med that it is today.

Between NATO’s bombing and the new warlords, after it was all said and done an estimated 30,000 Libyans had been killed as a result of the artificial uprising and bombing campaign. Tribal divisions grew and instability with it. Only weeks after Gaddafi’s death, the black al Qaeda flag (same as ISIS) could be seen flying over the old court house in Benghazi. We said it at the time, and so did many other alternative media pundits. Meanwhile, US and European news networks were still musing about “the birth of democracy in Libya” ad nauseum. In the end, the US and its NATO gang lied about the UN Resolution and changed the mission to regime change. Back in Oct 20, 2011, Pepe Escobar explained what the NATO plan was all along, as well as accurately predicting the civil war chaos “for years to come”:

The bottom line here is: if you are expecting the mainstream media to get Libya right again, after getting so wrong before, then I’d like to offer you a half-price deal on London’s Tower Bridge. Buy now, pay later.

The other key point which the US government, NATO and the corporate media are desperate to leave out of this story is the revolving door between Guantanamo Bay prison and Libya’s Islamic and al Qaeda groups. The US cannot rightly complain about al Qaeda or ‘ISIS’ in Libya when at least two of its top leaders were repatriated into Libya for the sole purpose of leading the spiritual and militant insurgency to remove Gaddafi and permanently destabilize the country.

As 21WIRE reported back in 2013, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, was imprisoned at Guantanamo Baycirca 2002, after being captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. He was released and filtered back into fighting regions to organise Al-Qaeda-type Islamist groups in Libya. After the fall of Gaddafi, Bejhaj was rewarded with the position of Libya’s military ‘Governor’ of Tripoli. He still commands the same terrorist (ISIS?) forces today which swept him into power behind NATO in Oct. 2011.

The other key Gitmo graduate previously reported by 21WIRE in Jan. 2014, is named Abu Sufian bin Qumu, a former detainee from Libya, who ‘played a role’ in the Benghazi attack, according to witness accounts confirmed by U.S. officials. At the same time, the United States State Department claimed it was to ‘designate’ the three branches of Ansar al-Sharia, as foreign terrorist organizations, who were positioned at locations including  Darnah, Benghazi in Libya, and Tunisia. Ansar al-Sharia is stated to have been led by Qumu. Intelligence sources had implicated Qumu in the Benghazi attack, within two weeks of the incident, naming him as one of their prime suspects. Qumu was also involved with Belhaj’s Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), the group largely responsible for toppling Gaddafi in 2011 alongside NATO. Like US asset Belhaj, fellow Gitmo alumni Qumu still commands the same forces today which he led in 2011.

Those two examples are not the only ones, but at least you can draw your own conclusions here about what Guantanamo is in reality.

Sam Bacile’s enraging “Mohammed film” entitled ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ caused an uproar throughout the Middle East region, but in reality it was just an expensive piece of neoconservative ‘clash of civilizations’ PR financed to the tune of $5 million dollars, and according to the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Beast  money was provided by ’100 Jewish-American donors’. It turns out that Egyptian-Christian ‘filmmaker’ Bacile was actually 55-year-oldNakoula Basseley Nakoula, a California Coptic Christian convicted of federal bank fraud charges, likely a FBI informant working with a pretty extensive cast of characters in the background helping to produce and distribute the provocative film.

BAD B MOVIE: Sam Bacile’s howler was lauded by both Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton as the inspiration for the Benghazi debacle. 

Innocence of Muslims – was a fake video, in other words, the final product had nothing to do with the original production. Bacile had essentially taken an old production about an unrelated subject and plot, re-edited the film, added voice overs, and then changed the title. Despite thelies by Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton at the time in 2012, the film was not the reason why the CIA’s villa in Benghazi was raided by armed insurgent mobs which left US Ambassador Chris Stevens and  3 others dead. However, the media hype received by this film (thanks in part to Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice) did spark a series of global anti-American protests which quickly cascaded around the globe in real-time. As we’ve demonstrated, the film was designed as aprovocation, and just like the Charlie Hebdo Magazine – it fulfilled its function.

I was asked to comment on the film by global news channel RT just two days after the Benghazi Raid on Sept 11, 2012, and I stated then that the film was a giant PR stunt. I was right, even though it took the mainstream media months to catch up to the real story. The same goes with the ‘ISIS Box Set’ – it’s pure PR and it’s designed to speed-along public opinion in order for the major players to nudge their agendas forward.

In the end, after the hype subsides and the tear gas clears, the final object of PR stunts like this, and those produced by ‘ISIS’ too, is a furtherance of an Anglo-American dominated international policy of ‘divide and rule’.

Is it all fake? Is any of it real? It’s hard to tell for sure, but as we’ve shown you – it is highly stylized, and some of it has been clearly shown to be fake – all the more reason to question and scrutinize every frame which is being held up in public as “evidence” of a terrorist incident.

If, as some analysts suggest, the ISIS crisis is pushing us into a multi-front war, then it’s more  likely that World War III will be started by a YouTube video – and the saddest part is that it won’t even matter whether or not it’s real or fake. It might as well be a cartoon.

Terrorism is not the biggest threat to modern civilization. Humanity is standing at the edge of a cliff called sanity.

Unless we can cure ourselves of this mass obsession with religious propaganda videos, we don’t stand a chance in this digital hall of mirrors.

The European Court of Human Rights today confirmed that the Polish government was complicit in the CIA’s secretive programme of rendition, detention and interrogation.

The Court in Strasbourg today rejected a challenge from the Polish government to a landmark ruling from last July, a decision which now makes that original judgement final.

July’s judgment said that two current Guantánamo inmates, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, were held in a CIA prison in Poland, that they had been subject to torture, and that Poland failed in its duty under European human rights law to protect them or investigate what happened.

Poland had requested a referral to the Court’s grand chamber, effectively appealing the decision, which could not become final while the request was pending.

The grand chamber today refused the request, but did not give any reasons.

It means that the Polish government now faces a substantial bill for damages and legal costs.

In the July judgment, both men were awarded €100,000 in damages and Abu Zubaydah another €30,000 in legal costs.

However, Abu Zubaydah’s US lawyer confirmed to the Bureau that if the money was made available they would not claim the legal costs, and that Abu Zubaydah would be donating the full €100,000 in damages to victims of torture.

Poland is the first EU member state to be found guilty of complicity in the CIA’s secret detention programme and responsible for multiple violations of the detainees’ rights.

The case concerned the treatment of the two detainees, who were held by the CIA in Poland and subjected to torture, incommunicado detention and secret transfer to other CIA black sites.

Both men were secretly rendered to Poland on December 5 2002. Al-Nashiri was taken to Morocco on June 6 2003. Abu Zubaydah was transferred from Poland to a black site in Guantánamo Bay on September 22 2003.

Helen Duffy, European lawyer for Abu Zubaydah, told the Bureau the decision means that “Poland is required to finally conduct a thorough and effective investigation, make public information concerning its role and hold those responsible to account”.

She added: “This is an opportunity for Poland to reengage constructively, to address the crimes of the past and reassert its position as a supporter of the rule of law.”

The decision comes after the Senate intelligence committee published an executive summary of its investigation into the CIA’s detention and interrogation programme last December. Al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah were among the 119 detainees named in that summary report.

The European Parliament last week voted to resume investigating the complicity of EU member states in the CIA programme, in the wake of the new information revealed by the Senate’s summary.

The new information included confirmation of previous suspicions that the CIA paid the Polish government to continue hosting the black site, after the government refused to accept the planned transfer of new detainees, who the summary said included Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 2001 attacks on US cities.

Joe Marguiles, US lawyer for Abu Zubaydah, told the Bureau: “We are gratified but not surprised that the Court held to its prior judgment.  The evidence was overwhelming when the Court ruled the first time, and now it’s irrefutable.  The only question is whether Poland is sufficiently committed to the rule of law that it will conduct a meaningful investigation.  So far, the evidence on that score is not promising.”

The Polish government claimed when requesting referral to the grand chamber that the presence of a CIA black site in Poland was not proven, and that Polish officials were unaware of what happened within the confines of the alleged black site.

In its letter to the ECHR requesting a referral, which has been seen by the Bureau, the Polish government said: “It is not enough to make an overall negative assessment of the HVD [High Value Detainee] programme and to make the respondent state’s cooperation under this programme plausible.”

The Polish government had also questioned the court’s finding that Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri were actually in Poland. In the letter, the government said that al-Nashiri’s allegations contained “unrebutted fact”, and that the body of evidence which suggested the two men were detained in Poland was “mostly circumstantial”.

Following the US Senate Intelligence Committee’s report into CIA rendition and “enhanced interrogation” techniques last December, former Polish president Alexander Kwasniewski admitted that he had allowed the US to operate its black site in Poland, but claimed he did not know torture was being carried out there.

Abu Zubaydah was the first detainee of the CIA’s detention and interrogation programme. He and al-Nashiri were two of around 17 so-called high value detainees.

Both al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah were subjected to the torture technique known as waterboarding, with US government documents showing Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in one month.

Documents filed by Abu Zubaydah’s lawyers show he was transferred by the CIA on December 5 2002 to the village of Stare Kiejkuty in Poland from Thailand.

Abu Zubaydah is a stateless Palestinian who was born in Saudi Arabia. He was captured by the CIA from a house in Faisalbad, Pakistan, on March 28 2002 and held in detention by the CIA until September 2006, when he was transferred to US military custody at Guantanamo Bay.

Al-Nashiri is a citizen of Saudi Arabia. He has been charged with war crimes.

Abu Zubaydah also remains in indefinite detention in Guantánamo Bay and has never been charged with any crime, either before a military commission or in a civil court.

This report is part of a joint investigation with The Rendition Project and is being supported by the Freedom of the Press Foundation. To support the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s fundraising appeal for this investigation, please click here.

Follow Victoria Parsons on Twitter. Sign up to email updates from the Bureau here.

Germany holds the key to where Europe goes next. A fragile deal may have been reached on Ukraine, but there’s still no deal with Greece. In both cases, there’s much more than meets the eye.

Let’s start with the grueling Eurogroup negotiation in Brussels over the Greek debt.

Greek officials swear they never received a draft of a possible agreement leaked by Eurogroup bureaucrats to the Financial Times. This draft, crucially, referred to an agreement “amending and extending and successfully concluding,” the current austerity-heavy bailout.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble cut off “amending”. This is the draft that was leaked. But then Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis called Prime Minister Tsipras – and the statement, still not signed, was rejected. So this was a top Tsipras decision.

Tsipras could not possibly balk – not after previously raising the stakes – as in promising to boost the Greek minimum wage and halt privatizations. He’s still betting the house that the Troika won’t allow a ‘Grexit’. Yet he may be wrong; the possibility of ‘Grexit’ is hovering around 35 percent to 40 percent, and it will be much higher if no deal is reached on the next crunch meeting, Monday.

Tsipras and Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem at least agreed that Greek officials and the Troika (EC, ECB, IMF) should start talking “at a technical level.” Translation: they will be comparing the current austerity nightmare with new Greek proposals.

Athens essentially has only two choices. Either the Troika accedes to some form of debt repudiation – real or as a sleight of hand (that’s Syriza’s proposal – an arrangement that fosters growth); or ‘Grexit’ ensues, with Athens creating its own central bank and currency as an independent nation. There’s no third choice; a debt of 175 percent of Greece’s GDP is totally unpayable.

As much as the Troika and its institutional derivatives spin ‘Grexit’ won’t be a big deal, the fact is a Greek debt default could have a more devastating effect than the Lehman Brothers case. It was not the fundamentals at Lehman that caused widespread panic when it went down; but the fear that their derivative exposures would bring down the system.

And cutting through all the spin, what remains, essentially, is what European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told Le Figaro a few days ago; it’s out of the question to suppress the Greek debt and, most of all, “there can be no democratic option against European treaties.” There it is, crystal clear: EU institutions work against democracy.

Plan B remains a distinct possibility. Moscow has already invited Tsipras to meet with Putin. And Beijing has invited Tsipras to meet with Prime Minister Li Keqiang. These are the “R” and the “C” in BRICS in action.

It’s worth remembering Greek Defense Minister Panos Kammenos when he articulated if not a majority view, at least a substantial perception among Greek public opinion; “We want a deal. But if there is no deal, and if we see that Germany remains rigid and wants to blow Europe apart, then we will have to go to Plan B… We have other ways of finding money. It could be the United States at best, it could be Russia, it could be China or other countries.”

Alea jacta est. Troika or RC?

And it’s all about NATO

There’s every possibility the ceasefire will be nullified only a few minutes after its implementation at midnight this Saturday – irony of ironies, at the end of Valentine’s Day. Significantly, the final statement bears no important signatures: Putin, Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko.

German Foreign Minister Steinmeier was cautious, warning Minsk 2.0 is not exactly a breakthrough, but at least de-escalates matters. Merkel preferred to spin that Putin had to pressure the Eastern Ukraine federalists of the DNR and the LNR to agree to the ceasefire.

Predictably, like clockwork, even before the ceasefire, the IMF – under Washington’s orders – suddenly announced it would continue to rape, sorry, help bailout bankrupt, failed state Ukraine with a tranche of $17.5 billion, part of a large $40 billion, four-year “rescue” package. Translation: Kiev’s goons now have fresh cash to throw at a war they don’t want to give up on.

Poroshenko himself took no time to torpedo the ceasefire – spinning there’s no autonomy granted to the areas controlled by the federalists, and refusing to confirm Putin’s assertion that Kiev has agreed to terminate the vicious economic blockade of Donbass.

The precise contours of the demilitarized zone – bordering one frontline in September and a very different frontline five months later – remain a mystery. And Washington immediately turned the “withdrawal of foreign forces” clause into a joke. The Pentagon has already announced it will begin training Ukraine’s National Guard next month.

Minsk 2.0 hardly qualifies as a band-aid. Ukraine is unredeemable. It would only come back from the dead if a tsunami of cash – almost equivalent to the cost of German reunification – were poured in. Needless to add, no one in Europe wants to dish out even a few devalued euro.

This was, remains, and will continue to be, essentially about NATO expansion. Washington and the Kiev marionettes will never allow any constitutional reform that lets the Donbass block NATO embedded in Ukraine. So the ‘Empire of Chaos’, in a nutshell, won’t cease from using Ukraine to bully Russia. The ‘Empire of Chaos’ is not exactly in the business of nation building – quite the contrary.

Crossing the German bridge

And that brings us to the crucial role played by Germany – with France as sidekick.

Chancellor Merkel had to go to Moscow to negotiate with Putin because she saw which way the wind was blowing – counterproductive sanctions; Ukrainian economy in free fall; Kiev’s goons defeated on the battlefield. That was as much an imperative as a crucial demarcation away from the imperial NATO expansion obsession.

As Immanuel Wallerstein has observed Moscow is pursuing “a careful policy. Not totally in control of the Donetsk-Lugansk autonomists, Russia is nonetheless making sure that the autonomists cannot be eliminated militarily. The Russian price for real peace is a commitment by NATO that Ukraine is not a potential member.”

So Merkel may have defused the Obama administration’s drive to weaponize Kiev – but only for a moment. There’s no evidence – yet – that the Obama administration and its embedded neo-con cells have admitted that the self-proclaimed People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk (DPR and LPR) are essentially “lost” to Kiev’s influence.

Hollande provided the perfect cover for Merkel. It was Hollande who publicly supported autonomy – as in federalization – for the DPR and the LPR. At the same time, both Merkel and Hollande know that Kiev will never de facto accept it (and even a substantial portion of the Donbass only accepts federalization as a stepping stone to eventual secession and union with Russia.)

Merkel – at least in terms of German public opinion – did manage to achieve her goal, emerging as a victor (“The world chancellor,” as the tabloid Bild coined it) after her frequent-flyer marathon. Putin also emerged a victor of sorts – as Merkel essentially rehashed proposals he made months ago. So yes, whichever angle we look at it, this was in fact a Moscow-Berlin deal. It’s easy to see who is extremely disgruntled and will do everything to bomb it; Washington, Kiev, London, Warsaw and the hysterical “Russia is invading” Baltic states.

Last but not least, let’s call attention to the monumental white elephant in the room. Minsk 2.0 was conducted in the total absence of the ‘Empire of Chaos’ and the (increasingly irrelevant) “special relationship” British minions.

Slowly but surely, public opinion across Europe – and especially Germany – is experiencing a tectonic shift. The obsession by the ‘Empire of Chaos’ to further weaponize Kiev has horrified millions – resurrecting the specter of a war in Europe’s eastern borderlands. Not only in Germany but also in France, Italy, Spain, there is a growing continental consensus against NATO.

Even at the height of a vicious Russia demonization campaign unleashed by virtually the whole German corporate media, a Deutschland Trend survey revealed that most Germans are against NATO troops in Eastern Europe. And no less than 49 percent would rather see Germany position itself as a bridge between East and West. The leadership in Beijing definitely took note.

So it’s tempting to hop on the Merkel/Hollande peace train as the heart of Europe finally exercising their sovereignty and frontally defying the ‘Empire of Chaos’. Perhaps that could be the embryo of a German-French partnership for peace in Europe and even beyond, from the Middle East to Africa.

That would frontally antagonize NATO’s screenplay – which implies the ’Empire of Chaos’ ruling uncontested over Europe, the Middle East and even across Eurasia, with continental European powers, especially Germany, France and yes, Russia, at the margins.

Sooner or later European politicians will have to wake up and smell the coffee; the notion of a German-French-Russian pan-European peace/trade partnership is way more popular than reflected in failed corporate media.

Now it’s up to Germany to clean up its act on Greece. The choice is stark. The EU may embark on a quadruple-dip recession as the ECB further destroys what is left of the European middle class. Or Germany, reflecting the thinking among its captains of industry, may tell the EU – Troika included – that the way to go is to shift the strategic, trade and political focus from West to the East. That would start by stuffing the corporate US-devised TTIP treaty – that’s NATO on trade. After all, this is going to be the Eurasian century – and this train has already left the station.

La guerra che divampa in Libia miete sem­pre più vit­time non solo sulla terra ma sul mare: molti dei dispe­rati, che ten­tano la tra­ver­sata del Medi­ter­ra­neo, anne­gano. «Da sotto il mare ci chie­dono dove sia finita la nostra uma­nità», scrive Pier Luigi Ber­sani. Dovrebbe anzi­tutto chie­dersi dove sia finita la sua uma­nità, e con essa la sua capa­cità etica e poli­tica, quando, il 18 marzo 2011 alla vigi­lia della guerra Usa/Nato con­tro la Libia, in veste di segre­ta­rio del Pd escla­mava «alla buon’ora», sot­to­li­neando che «l’articolo 11 della Costi­tu­zione ripu­dia la guerra, non l’uso della forza per ragioni di giu­sti­zia». Enrico Letta, che con Ber­sani si appella ora al senso uma­ni­ta­rio, dovrebbe ricor­darsi quando il 25 marzo 2011, in veste di vice­se­gre­ta­rio del Pd, dichia­rava «Guer­ra­fon­daio è chi è con­tro l’intervento inter­na­zio­nale in Libia e non certo noi che siamo costrut­tori di pace». Una «sini­stra» che nascon­deva le vere ragioni – eco­no­mi­che, poli­ti­che e stra­te­gi­che – della guerra, soste­nendo per bocca di Mas­simo D’Alema (già esperto di «guerra uma­ni­ta­ria» in Jugo­sla­via) che «in Libia la guerra c’era già, con­dotta da Ghed­dafi con­tro il popolo insorto, un mas­sa­cro che doveva essere fer­mato» (22 marzo 2011).

Sostan­zial­mente sulla stessa linea per­fino il segre­ta­rio del Prc Paolo Fer­rero che, il 24 feb­braio 2011 a guerra ini­ziata, accu­sava Ber­lu­sconi di aver messo «giorni per con­dan­nare le vio­lenze di Ghed­dafi», soste­nendo che si doveva «smon­tare il più in fretta pos­si­bile il regime libico». Lo stesso giorno, gio­vani «comu­ni­sti» del Prc, insieme a «demo­cra­tici» del Pd, assal­ta­vano a Roma l’ambasciata di Tri­poli, bru­ciando la ban­diera della repub­blica libica e issando quella di re Idris (la stessa che sven­tola oggi a Sirte occu­pata dai jiha­di­sti, come ha mostrato il Tg1 tre giorni fa). Una «sini­stra» che sca­val­cava la destra, spin­gendo alla guerra il governo Ber­lu­sconi, all’inizio restio (per ragioni di inte­resse) ma subito dopo cinico nello strac­ciare il Trat­tato di non-aggressione e nel par­te­ci­pare all’attacco con basi e forze aeronavali.

In sette mesi, l’aviazione Usa/Nato effet­tuava 10mila mis­sioni di attacco, con oltre 40mila bombe e mis­sili, men­tre veni­vano infil­trate in Libia forze spe­ciali, tra cui migliaia di com­man­dos qata­riani, e allo stesso tempo finan­ziati e armati gruppi isla­mici fino a poco prima defi­niti ter­ro­ri­sti. Tra cui quelli che, pas­sati in Siria per rove­sciare il governo di Dama­sco, hanno fon­dato l’Isis e quindi invaso l’Iraq. Si è così disgre­gato lo Stato libico, pro­vo­cando l’esodo for­zato – e di con­se­guenza l’ecatombe nel Medi­ter­ra­neo – degli immi­grati afri­cani che ave­vano tro­vato lavoro in que­sto paese. Pro­vo­cando una guerra interna tra set­tori tri­bali e reli­giosi, che si com­bat­tono per il con­trollo dei campi petro­li­feri e delle città costiere, oggi in mano prin­ci­pal­mente a for­ma­zioni ade­renti all’Isis. Il mini­stro degli esteri del governo Renzi, Paolo Gen­ti­loni, dopo aver riba­dito che «abbat­tere Ghed­dafi era una causa sacro­santa», lan­cia l’allarme per­ché «l’Italia è minac­ciata dalla situa­zione in Libia, a 200 miglia marine di distanza». Annun­cia quindi che gio­vedì rife­rirà in Par­la­mento sull’eventuale par­te­ci­pa­zione ita­liana a un inter­vento mili­tare inter­na­zio­nale «in ambito Onu». In altre parole, a una seconda guerra in Libia pre­sen­tata come «pea­ce­kee­ping», come già richie­sto da Obama a Letta nel giu­gno 2013, cal­deg­giata dalla Pinotti e appro­vata da Ber­lu­sconi. Siamo di nuovo al bivio: che posi­zione pren­de­ranno quanti lavo­rano per creare una nuova sini­stra e, al suo interno, l’unità dei comunisti?

Manlio Dinucci

A coup plot against the Venezuelan government has been foiled, with both civilians and members of the military detained, President Nicolas Maduro revealed Thursday, Feb. 12, in a televised address.

Those involved were being paid in U.S. dollars, and one of the suspects had been granted a visa to enter the United States should the plot fail, Maduro said.

Venezuela’s president stated that the coup plotters already had a “transitional” government and program lined up once the plan, which included bombings on the Miraflores Palace and the teleSUR offices in Caracas, as well as assassinations of members of the opposition, Maduro and others, was carried out.

Maduro explained that a video of masked military officials speaking out against the government had been recorded, which was set to be released after the planned assassination was carried out.

Venezuelan Minister of Defense Vladimir Padrino Lopez stated via his Twitter account that the armed forces remain loyal to the constitutional government.

“The Bolivarian National Armed Forces remain resolute in their democratic beliefs and reject coup schemes that threaten the peace of the republic,” said Padrino.

According to Maduro, one of the suspects was already under surveillance and had been suspected of plotting against the government during last year’s violent demonstrations, but was not charged. Nevertheless, he continued plotting against the democratically-elected government.

The four-stage plan involved creating an economic assault on the country, creating an international debate around a supposed humanitarian crisis, a political coup involving officials who would turn on the government, and finally a military coup that would lead to the installation of the transitional program.

Maduro stated that the plot, which was scheduled to coincide with anti-government demonstrations planned for the one-year anniversary of the start of violent, opposition-led demonstrations which began last Feb. 12, was uncovered after military officials who had been approached to participate reported the schemes to authorities.

Maduro called on the Venezuelan people to be on alert and prepared to maintain peace in the country in the face of continued attempts by sectors of the right wing who seek to overthrow the democratically-elected government.

---

Timeline of planned coup

Below is a timeline of how the coup plotters hoped their plan would play out provided by TeleSUR Engish, Anatomy of a Coup.

January 6-8: Coup plotters planned to conduct nationwide operations aimed at creating unrest in the streets. Queues outside commercial stores such as supermarkets were set to be among the primary targets, where operatives hoped to set off violence. Elsewhere, various groups planned to engage in other activities aimed at fomenting destabilization in the streets.

January 9-February: Over the weeks, plotters hoped the country would descend into a state of turmoil, paving the way for the violent overthrow of the Maduro administration.

February 3: Officials at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas tried to bribe people in strategic positions to participate in a coup, said President Nicolas Maduro at the time.

February 12: The coup was scheduled to begin this day. Chavista and opposition rallies commemorating Youth Day were slated as the first targets. Coup plotters planned on attacking the marches to provoke panic in the streets. Then, strategic sites across the capital were to be bombed in a series of coordinated attacks, carried out using a Tucano attack aircraft. The Tucano is a small, highly maneuverable military aircraft manufactured in Brazil, though the U.S. military has purchased a handful for counterinsurgency operations. The sites targeted for bombing included public transport, government offices, mass media and open areas, such as the grandiose Plaza Venezuela. The full list of targets included:

– teleSUR headquarters (east Caracas)

– Headquartes of the Military Intelligence (DIM)

– Plaza Venezuela

– Metro station Zona Rental (center of Caracas)

– Ministry of Defense (center of Caracas)

– Caracas municipality building (west)

– Miraflores palace (national government and presidential headquarters)

– Public Prosecutor’s office (center of Caracas)

Members of both the opposition and the government – including Maduro – were expected to be assassinated during the ensuing chaos.

Amid the turmoil, media outlets would be forced to broadcast a statement announcing the collapse of the government.

February 13: The coup government was expected to be firmly in control of the country and free to begin rolling back Venezuela’s socialist revolution.

“Uruguayans participate with 13% to 15% of our armed forces in peace missions. For years and years, we have always accepted the places assigned to us. But however you decide and allocate resources, do not consider us to be there just to serve coffee.” Uruguayan President José Mujica, United Nations General Assembly, Sep, 25, 2013.

Ten years ago, a leftist party came to power for the first time in Uruguay, the Frente Amplio (Broad Front). Five years ago, the party won again, and it has recently won for the third time. In all three elections, the Frente Amplio (FA) won an absolute parliamentary majority. José Mujica (“Pepe”), the president elected five years ago, is stepping down to make way for his FA successor, Tabaré Vázquez.

Mujica has been termed, “the poorest president in the world.” He drives a 1967 Volkswagon Beetle, is a former guerrilla and was a political prisoner of the civilian/military dictatorships that ruled Uruguay from 1973 to 1985. His outgoing government has legalized marijuana, abortion rights and gay marriage and has welcomed refugees from Syria as well as six foreign prisoners from the US gulag in Guantanamo, Cuba.

Mujica donates his salary to a voluntary plan for housing construction by a militant labor association of workers. The Serbian filmmaker Emir Kusturica is making a film about him titled The Last Hero. But there is another side.

Uruguay and the phenomenon of UN military missions

For 10 years, Uruguay has maintained troops in Haiti as part of the United Nations police and military occupation force known as MINUSTAH (1). Uruguay not only participates in MINUSTAH, it is the second-largest component of the force, by numbers, after Brazil. Latin American countries are a key pillar of this occupation, contributing about half of its foot soldiers. The Latin American participants in MINUSTAH contribute an average of 10 soldiers per one million inhabitants. But at the peak of its participation, Uruguay, a country of 3.4 million, had 330 soldiers per million of its population!

UN “peacekeeping missions” are becoming ever more clearly the “colonialist screen” that was denounced long ago by Patricio Lumumba, the first, post-colonial leader of Congo. He was assassinated in January 1961, only eight months after being elected prime minister of that country of fabulous natural wealth.

These missions are not neutral forces. They typically support one side against another in times of political and social conflict with imperialism or its local representatives. This was the case in Congo in 1960-61 and it is the case today in Haiti and more recently in Mali. Their function is not “peace” but, rather, to maintain imperial order in points of disturbance on the global, capitalist periphery.

“Peacekeeping” missions of the UN Security Council have a twofold function. One, they are shrouded in the legitimacy of the UN name, and they assist the imperialist powers from becoming overextended in their military efforts to maintain their world order. They also confer a seeming legality to the maintenance of an imperialist order of permanent war. The United States is the prime beneficiary of this service.

Haiti is a special case. There was no armed conflict there in 2004, when MINUSTAH was established (in June of that year). There has been no armed conflict for the 10-plus years of MINUSTAH’s presence. But the “possibility” of violence is used as a convenient pretext for intervention and containment by military means against an eminently political and social conflict.

This aspect of Uruguayan foreign policy – enthusiastic participation in foreign military adventures – requires some explanation.

On the one hand, in common with other leftist Latin American governments participating in MINUSTAH, the government in Uruguay has not broken with imperialism. It and other soft-left governments in Latin America today, including Brazil and Argentina, are still beholden to capitalism. One expression of this is their participation in the occupation of Haiti.
>Even Bolivia and Ecuador have participated in MINUSTAH, although with smaller forces compared to others. Ecuador has recently withdrawn from the force, but its military base in Haiti was transferred to the authoritarian government of Haitian President Michel Martelly, and in 2013, Ecuador provided training to some 40 Haitian paramilitaries, whom Haitians fear will form the nucleus of a revived Haitian army. The reviled, human rights-violating former army was disbanded in 1995 by the pacifist president of the day, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay have played major roles in MINUSTAH. Chile joined with the United States, Canada and France in landing troops in March 2004 to consolidate the violent overthrow of Aristide, then serving his second, elected term as president. Brazil uses these missions to train its troops in military control of its civilian population. For several years, the Brazilian army has militarily occupied the favelas (poor districts) of Rio de Janeiro. The World Cup tournament of 2014 prompted the extension of that occupation to other cities in Brazil.

This contrasts with the attitude of Cuba and Venezuela, which have no military presence in Haiti but, instead, have provided very substantial humanitarian assistance, before and after the devastating earthquake in 2010. Cuba has extensive medical brigades in Haiti and has also assisted with agriculture, fishing and road construction. Venezuela has also assisted with construction and is a key energy supplier. These two countries operate without military support from MINUSTAH, thus refuting the claims of other foreign governments, particularly those of Europe and North America, that armed protection from the Haitian people is required for large aid efforts.

Why Uruguay?

The Mujica period in Uruguay has been characterized by a deepening of the capitalist, extractive economic model and a continual search for foreign, direct investment. The accompanying, mercenary foreign policy is not new. What is new, for several decades now, is the degree to which the military institution and its wishes shape that foreign policy.

For geographic and historical reasons, the Uruguayan bourgeoisie is weaker than others in the region. It has always been drawn toward close ties with whatever empire is dominant. That is an historical constant.

In an earlier era, Uruguay exported agricultural products needed by English industry. But in the Yankee era, the United States does not need or desire such products. Increasingly, Uruguay has resorted to the export of “political goods” that can assist “democratic colonialism.” That is today’s “Product of Uruguay” commercial stamp.

To understand further the new militaristic aspect of Uruguayan foreign policy, it is necessary to understand the historical role of the military in this country.

Uruguay is a small country without great resources. It is surrounded by much larger, friendly countries. Its only borders are with Argentina and Brazil. It has no national conflict hypothesis, no history of wars and no need for armed forces for territorial defense. In any event, armed forces would be useless in the case of real war with its much larger neighbors.

But this small country, pacifist and without enemies, is one of the most militarized in Latin America. Its army counts eight soldiers per 1,000 inhabitants, triple the proportions of Argentina and Brazil.

The bloated and useless army has played a vital role historically in intimidating and deterring social rebellion, despite seeming to be much more passive than elsewhere on the continent. The system of social domination in Uruguay cannot run without the army. This is the counterpoint to democratic political rule in Uruguay – what is termed the “buffer society.” (2) But the cost of the armed forces is a heavy burden on the government’s budget. As armaments become outmoded, it is very costly to modernize them. Participation in “peacekeeping” abroad is a way to share these costs with the imperialist world system, by providing a mercenary police service as a commodity. It also promotes an international image of a country committed to world peace, all the while obtaining direct financial benefits and indirect political ones from militarism.

The full scale (and cost) of Uruguay’s overseas missions includes the soldiers who are serving, those preparing to replace them, and returnees who are in recovery. To this must also be added the permanent staff of logistics services and again, their replacement and recovery. Fully 40 percent of the armed force is thus engaged at any one time. Ninety percent of Uruguay’s armed forces have passed through a foreign mission at some time.

Uruguay has outsourced its armed forces to the point where they would not be present for the country should a real war arise.

The country depends on its foreign roles even to pay the salaries of its soldiers. It receives $50 million per year for the missions in which it participates, including $18 million for Haiti. Eleven million of that pays for salaries; the remainder is supposed to pay for ammunition and equipment maintenance. It’s an inexpensive army, but the costs of maintaining it are inflated by corruption in the spending of its resources. In one renowned case, it cost more to sail two naval vessels to Haiti than the cost of the vessels themselves. There have been several prosecutions of military officials, but the exact degree of corruption and diversion of funds by officials is difficult to quantify.

Uruguay must purchase its own weapons and equipment. The UN pays for the maintenance of equipment during its time in operation. The remainder of the revenue Uruguay earns is used by the Ministry of Defense, whose budget is about $300 million. A Uruguayan soldier earns $400 per month; if he goes abroad on a mission, he earns a total of $1,000 thanks to the stipend paid by the UN. The financial incentive for soldiers to volunteer abroad is thus very considerable. An added incentive is the right to travel to Europe or North America on UN-issued visas.

Military officers, who already earn very high salaries, pensions and additional funds, also boost their salaries when they go on missions. They are already an inflated, upper segment of an inflated army.

It is shameful to hear arguments that have been made by Frente Amplio parliamentarians or senators that participation by Uruguayan soldiers in UN missions allows the soldiers to then buy a small house. Or worse, they argue that missions provide opportunities in actual combat, conveniently overlooking who it is (i.e. local populations) that are killed or injured by such “opportunities.”

Haiti threatens a good thing

This comfortable business in foreign military missions has always been challenged by the MINUSTAH mission in Haiti for a host of reasons:

• The Haitian people have consistently rejected foreign occupation of their country.
• The government of President Martelly is increasingly taking shape as a dictatorship.
• The Uruguayan social organizations, including the national trade union center, have always demanded complete and immediate withdrawal of Uruguayan troops from Haiti. Each year, Parliament must approve the extension of Uruguay’s participation in MINUSTAH (the Security Council itself must approve the mission in a vote each year). In these annual votes, the Frente Amplio has imposed a military discipline on its parliamentary bloc (the notorious, “hand in a cast” votes). (3) This has led to the resignation of three FA deputies in the recent period, who refused out of principle, to vote for keeping troops in Haiti. This is the only issue in the FA over which internal differences have come to such a point. (4)
• On top of all this, Uruguayan forces in Haiti have displayed the worst forms of conduct. There has been corruption in military purchases and ineptitude of military aviators, causing a crash with fatal consequences (the ministry of defense falsified the record of flying hours of pilots serving in Haiti to have their credentials accepted by the UN). The whole world viewed on the internet the scandalous images of Uruguayan soldiers anally raping a young Haitian at a Uruguayan naval base in Haiti. That has turned out to be the lasting image of Uruguay in Haiti.

Faced with all these difficulties, the Mujica government is attempting an intermediate solution. It is conducting a gradual withdrawal, in stages, already completed in part. From its peak of 1,100 soldiers, the number is now 240. To deal with the increasingly embarrassing evidence of the authoritarian drift of the government of Martelly, Uruguay is joining with other foreign powers to pressure Martelly into an agreement with the political opposition in Haiti for the holding of elections to the Senate and Chamber of Deputies. The electoral mandates of deputies and senators have expired, and Martelly threatens to rule by decree.

Uruguayan Foreign Minister Luis Almagro has virtually extorted Martelly with the threat of immediate withdrawal of the Uruguayan troops if the political deadlock is not solved, a rather unusual diplomatic style for a small country, to say the least. Meanwhile, President Mujica has stated emphatically that Uruguay “will not be a praetorian guard of a dictatorship.”

Uruguayans who are truly anti-colonialist do not agree with any “imposition of liberty” on Haiti from abroad. They are demanding unconditional and unilateral withdrawal of troops. But even if we treat the gestures of Mujica and Almagro as signs of good intention, these have failed. Why? Because Martelly does not govern Haiti.

Martelly and his government are nothing more than Yankee puppets. What’s more, they have lost control of the situation. They no longer have anything to offer to Haitians short of Martelly’s resignation. This is what the Haitian people are now demanding in street protests and in other forms of struggle, day after day.

Prospects for Haiti, for MINUSTAH, and for Uruguay’s role

So what is happening in Haiti? There is no agreement between the government and the political opposition. The Parliament [Senate] is no longer functional because there have been no elections as the mandates of senators and deputies expired. Martelly’s government now rules by decree as [is] a dictatorship; the people are demanding his resignation as well as the departure of foreign occupation troops. Popular mobilizations are growing.

In Uruguay, Mujica’s government now faces a very big dilemma: to act as a praetorian guard of a dictatorship, or use the law approved by Parliament in December (proposed by Mujica himself) which contains the option of a complete withdrawal of the troops.

Mujica’s government will end at end of February. His successor Tabaré Vázquez, also FA, will return to the presidency, having served from 2005-10. He wants a political rapprochement with the United States. The situation in Haiti has provoked internal tension and debate in the government.

There is still no Uruguayan decision on withdrawal from Haiti. The government is “watching” to see if a dictatorship becomes installed in Haiti or whether this can be averted. Defense Minister Fernandez Huidobro defends the position of keeping the troops. Like Mujica, he is a former guerrilla of the Tupamaros movement. But in the early 1970s, after he was captured and imprisoned and while the Tupamaros were still operating under the command of its legendary founder Raul Sendic, Huidobro began negotiations with the military. He said he wanted the military government to adopt a “nationalist agenda” and accord better treatment of prisoners. In exchange, he would advocate that the guerillas give up their arms. No accord materialized, and Huidobro’s efforts served to camouflage the ongoing military dictatorship. Today, Huidobro is a strong supporter of maintaining the status quo with the military, including leaving its privileges untouched and not to lift the impunity it was granted for the crimes of the military dictatorships of the 1970s and 80s. There are only a half dozen military officials who were convicted for past crimes, and they are residing in a luxurious “VIP prison” built with funds remaining from overseas “missions.”Huidobro (and also Mujica) wants them freed in deference to their advanced age.

There are at least 400 military personnel implicated in past torture and murders who remain unpunished. Unlike the luxurious conditions of genocidal military officers, overcrowding of common prisoners in Uruguay’s prisons is a serious problem that has been reported by the UN’s special rapporteur against torture.

Huidobro has just been through a bruising controversy with human rights organizations who accuse him of obstruction of justice by not providing information files. A recent report of the International Commission of Jurists (an office of the UN) says the same.

Huidobro’s argument in favor of MINUSTAH is that it is preferable to have an “anti-imperialist intervention” instead of a “Yankee invasion.” When the 2010 earthquake happened, 10,000 additional US soldiers, including 2,000 marines, entered Haiti unilaterally. Within days of the 2010 earthquake, 20,000 US troops were amassed in Haiti. The “anti-imperialist” MINUSTAH did nothing to stop that, of course. MINUSTAH’s own forces swelled from 9,000 to 12,000.

The Uruguayan army has a keen interest in keeping the money earned from foreign missions flowing. The challenge facing the government in a withdrawal from Haiti is to first get a pledge from the UN for “new work for the guys.”

Uruguay has just received the support of the countries of Latin America for one of the 10, nonpermanent, rotating seats on the Security Council. Foreign Minister Almgro is a strong candidate for a posting as General Secretary of the Organization of American States. What policies will Uruguay pursue though in these institutions? Will the country vote for an end to the occupation of Haiti and for the UN to take responsibility for the damage of cholera that it brought to the country? Or will it be there “just to serve coffee” while others make the decisions?

The business of praetorian guards requires customers to be successful. That means serving dictatorships, of course. Democratic and popular regimes, on the other hand, do not require such a service. It’s not only in Haiti that “peacekeeping” serves the worst national and social interests. It’s also in Uruguay.

As Frederick Engels once wrote, “A people which oppresses another cannot emancipate itself.”

This article was first published by Truthout on Feb. 11, 2015.

Fernando Moyano is a Marxist political activist in Uruguay and a longtime writer and editor in left-wing media in Latin America media, including the journal of Marxist theory Alfaguara. He began his political activity in the late 1960s in the Proletarian Socialist Unification Movement, a detachment of the Socialist Party. He joined other political organizations, including the Popular Participation Movement, led today by outgoing Uruguayan President José Mujica. He was a founder of the Coordination of Social Organisations for Withdrawal of Troops in Haiti and a member of the Uruguay Free of Strip Mining movement.

Notes

1. MINUSTAH is the French acronym for “United Nations International Mission for Stability in Haiti.”

2. The “buffer society” is a term coined by Carlos Real Azúa (1916-1977), a lawyer, professor of literature and aesthetics, literary critic, historian and essayist. He is considered the foremost pioneer of political science in Uruguay. His term is a metaphor for Uruguay and its people in which social and political changes do not explode; they are contained by social commitments and nonviolent forms of domination.

3. The “hand in a cast” (mano de yeso) is a metaphor used in Uruguay to refer to a party imposing a rigid discipline on its parliamentary deputies in voting on matters deemed vital to the interests of the party hierarchy.

4. When MINUSTAH was created in June 2004 and Uruguay joined in, the Frente Amplio was in opposition and voted against it. One of those MPs who was emphatic in rejecting the mission was current defense minister, Eleuterio Fernández Huidobro. A year later, the FA was in government, and it voted to continue Uruguay’s participation. A veteran socialist deputy and leading figure on the political left in Uruguay, Guillermo Chifflet, refused to vote in favor and gave up his seat. In the following years, no one challenged the party discipline. But in 2012, another deputy, Esteban Pérez, like Mujica a former guerrilla and political prisoner of the military dictatorship, refused to vote in favor during the annual vote to extend participation, and he was forced to leave the FA. Last December, a third rebel deputy, Luis Puig, came out in opposition. He is a leader of a small political organization affiliated to the FA with deep roots in the labor movement.

Related stories: Haiti’s promised rebuilding unrealized as Haitians challenge authoritarian rule, by Roger Annis and Travis Ross, Truthout, Jan. 12, 2015.
Uruguay takes on London bankers, Marlboro mad men and the TPP, by Michael Meurer, Truthout, Dec. 12, 2014.

Firstly even though we have heard the word bandied about for 60 years what does National Security substantively mean and what would actually be a threat to it? The accepted definitions of National Security all encompass three main points. The protection of a nation’s basic Sovereignty, very simply to ensure that the recognized government of the country retains full authority throughout their territory. The defense of a nation’s territory, international trade and foreign policy, ensuring it can maintain open trade while defending itself from espionage or undue influence of foreign entities or governments. Keeping its People and the infrastructure that sustains them and serves their interests safe and secure.

So if the RCMP is looking diligently for threats to national security then it should be looking in foreign boardrooms not Canadian coffee houses. Because even surface analysis by any reasonable professional shows that the real threat to our sovereignty, our defense and most importantly our people emanate from the boardrooms of the multinational resource companies that do business here. Let’s do the comparative threat assessment point by point.

Sovereignty, in the sense of democracy, is the ability of a people through their government to conduct their own affairs within their defined geographical territory.

An obviously violent 84 year old B. Grant arrested by our vigilant security forces Burnaby Mountain 2014

Activists have certainly broken civil and sometimes minor criminal law and will likely continue to do so. The nature of these offenses from all the available data are property crimes, contempt of civil legal injunctions, and failing to follow the orders of police. The vast majority of the offenses are against private companies that are almost always multinational. This would meet some of the conditions for interfering with a government’s sovereign power within its territory. It is not however the goal of activists to fundamentally wrest power from the government control of its resources. As a point of fact all of the major organizations call for the government to take more power over its resources in the form of legislation and, in the case of some smaller groups, nationalization of resource extraction. While some case could be made that they temporarily interfere with the sovereign right of the people through their government to benefit from the extraction of its resources, two factors would mitigate this. Firstly the interruptions, when they do occur, are of very short duration and, when compared to the resource industry in Canada’s daily operations, meaningless in size.  In 99% of cases they are non destructive to infrastructure. Secondly the amount of economic loss to the state is lessened by the fact that these companies pay very little in taxes or extraction fees so the amount of economic disruption to the population is minimal.

Resource companies tend not to openly defy government power but rather through influence simply gut it. They do this using the vast sums of capital at their disposal. Resource companies occupy most of the top positions in size and economic clout, some of them having bottom line far larger than 3/4 of the nation states in the world. This is not an internet conspiracy theory. It has been noted by enough academics in the last 40 years to fill a library. The RCMP routinely investigates corruption on a personal level but not on a national one in terms of resource companies. In other countries there are documented examples of resource companies literally overthrowing sovereign governments quite openly. Resource companies also regularly deny the use of Canada’s sovereign territory when they leave it in a condition unusable for anything else. Perhaps no better example of the influence Resource companies have on the sovereignty is the fact that due to the influence they now have in our economy the Minister of Finance of the government of Canada is unwilling to drop his budget due to fluctuations in the price of one resource. Viewing this in any other sense than a fundamental attack on sovereignty would be ludicrous.

Defense of the nation’s territory, trade and foreign policy

Activists in this area are mainly attacking on the fronts of foreign policy and trade. They want generally to decrease the trade in resources across borders and to insure that foreign policy does not give undue attention to control and trade in resources. Exclusively the tactics employed are large demonstrations against government policy in this area and legal action brought by groups to try and limit or change government activity. We will not assess the tactics of legal action for what one hopes are obvious reasons. In the area of protest there have been few examples of violent anti-resource protests in Canada and when this was not the case property damage was minor and far less serious than damage usually caused by Vancouver losing a hockey game. There has to this point been no documented espionage, actual acts of sabotage and at this time the possibilities of a ground invasion by Greenpeace or the Sierra club seem minimal.

Resource companies by their very nature are indeed looking to take physical control of a nation’s territory and resources for their own use. They do this by literally staking claim to huge swaths of territory and in the case of Alberta 70% of the water rights.

Denial of Territory, the oil sands

In the area of foreign policy and trade these companies are legally mandated to do everything in their power to maximize profits. Restrictions on trade and tariffs are interference and are actively removed leaving the nation in a position where it no longer controls the resources that would be needed in the event of conflict with another state. Their influence on our foreign policy are almost always to the detriment of Canada’s traditional foreign policy. Where once we led on trying to implement global policies to deal with pollution and climate change under their direct influence we have abandoned these positions and now indeed actively fight any international efforts in this area. Where once we had trade policies designed to protect Canadian companies and workers the resource companies have led the charge in gutting these legislation. One only need look to the decimated remnants of manufacturing in Canada to see the results on our security.

Activists in Canada have no history of threatening human life in an organized way. There is no record of them committing actions like bombings of natural gas pipelines.  There have been clashes between demonstrators and police over anti-resource extraction actions but I can find no credible reports of police or extraction workers being injured. Activists actions are generally designed to deny the use of equipment or territory. I will use the example of the Mk’mac residents of Elsipogtog near Rexton, New Brunswick. They successfully disrupted the activities of SouthWest Energy, an American company conducting fracking activities on their territory. They did this by blocking the workers from moving their heavy equipment out of a yard. They at all times allowed the workers to go freely and even shared food with them. Despite this the RCMP evicted them in a ridiculously dangerous paramilitary operation. (The new face of the RCMP, image right)

Resource companies pose multiple and widely demonstrated threats to Canadian citizens. The health risks posed to the Canadian population by resource extraction are too numerous to mention but very well documented.  If the life expectancy and health of huge segments of your population don’t qualify as a threat to ‘National Security” then the term is meaningless. A recent glaring example is the fate of Lac Magantic in Quebec. Virtually the entire center of the town and 47 Canadian citizens were wiped off the map . There was another “oil train” derailment on Friday near Timmins that is still burning as I write this.  The pipelines resource companies are pushing across the country will endanger huge segments of the population. Witness the suburbs full of crude oil in the U.S. Even more alarmingly they have, in collusion with the RCMP, committed the very acts they say they need to defend against. The RCMP has admitted carrying out bombings in Alberta B.C. under the influence of resource company Encana. 

So by all rubrics for defending Canada’s National Security the RCMP needs, one supposes, first to stop committing terrorist acts themselves, then stop their tradition of putting Big Business in front of their lovely sounding Moto and “Uphold the Right” for the Canadian population. Instead they have been working for years to change terminology and definitions to laughingly try to present activists that chain themselves to equipment as a fundamental threat to the Canadian state.  They have been meeting openly and often in recent years directly with resource company security executives to plan strategies to wipe out a movement of peaceful Canadian citizens. Perhaps like in many industrialized western nations we the people should be regarding the security services like the RCMP as the real threat to our National Security.

Gill McGowan head of the Alberta Federation of Labor speaks frankly about the real politics of resource extraction in Canada

A film By Clifton Nicholas on the brutal end to a peaceful occupation by MK’Mac in New Brunswick

Article Cover image ; Warrior Publications. much thx

About William Ray: I am a ten year veteran of the Canadian Forces. I was with the 2nd Battalion PPCLI in Croatia in 1993 when they were awarded the Governor General’s commendation for bravery. I started with community radio and writing articles. In 2009 I began working with CUTV Montreal. During the student strikes and subsequent social unrest I helped manage the Livestream ground teams. I am also a co-founder of 99media.org and The founder of 3RTV, both citizen media groups. I also collaborated with Michelle Moore on the documentary film Déception Durable which was selected for the 2014 Montréal International Film Festival, and Films That Matter in Calgary on resource extraction in Quebec. I am a member of the Canadian Journalists Association.

Image: Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko.

Ukraine’s new Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, who has become the face of reform for the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev and will be a key figure handling billions of dollars in Western financial aid, was at the center of insider deals and other questionable activities when she ran a $150 million U.S.-taxpayer-financed investment fund.

Prior to taking Ukrainian citizenship and becoming Finance Minister last December, Jaresko was a former U.S. diplomat who served as chief executive officer of the Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), which was created by Congress in the 1990s and overseen by the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) to help jumpstart an investment economy in Ukraine.

But Jaresko, who was limited to making $150,000 a year at WNISEF under the U.S. AID grant agreement, managed to earn more than that amount, reporting in 2004 that she was paid $383,259 along with $67,415 in expenses, according to WNISEF’s public filing with the Internal Revenue Service.

Later, Jaresko’s compensation was removed from public disclosure altogether after she co-founded two entities in 2006: Horizon Capital Associates (HCA) to manage WNISEF’s investments (and collect around $1 million a year in fees) and Emerging Europe Growth Fund (EEGF) to collaborate with WNISEF on investment deals.

Jaresko formed HCA and EEGF with two other WNISEF officers, Mark Iwashko and Lenna Koszarny. They also started a third firm, Horizon Capital Advisors, which “serves as a sub-advisor to the Investment Manager, HCA,” according to WNISEF’s IRS filing for 2006.

U.S. AID apparently found nothing suspicious about these tangled business relationships – and even allowed WNISEF to spend millions of dollars helping EEGF become a follow-on private investment firm – despite the potential conflicts of interest involving Jaresko, the other WNISEF officers and their affiliated companies.

For instance, WNISEF’s 2012 annual report devoted two pages to “related party transactions,” including the management fees to Jaresko’s Horizon Capital ($1,037,603 in 2011 and $1,023,689 in 2012) and WNISEF’s co-investments in projects with the EEGF, where Jaresko was founding partner and chief executive officer. Jaresko’s Horizon Capital managed the investments of both WNISEF and EEGF.

From 2007 to 2011, WNISEF co-invested $4.25 million with EEGF in Kerameya LLC, a Ukrainian brick manufacturer, and WNISEF sold EEGF 15.63 percent of Moldova’s Fincombank for $5 million, the report said. It also listed extensive exchanges of personnel and equipment between WNISEF and Horizon Capital. But it’s difficult for an outsider to ascertain the relative merits of these insider deals and the transactions apparently raised no red flags for U.S. AID officials.

Bonuses for Officers

Regarding compensation, WNISEF’s 2013 filing with the IRS noted that the fund’s officers collected millions of dollars in bonuses for closing out some investments at a profit even as the overall fund was losing money. According to the filing, WNISEF’s $150 million nest egg had shrunk by more than one-third to $94.5 million and likely has declined much more during the economic chaos that followed the U.S.-back coup in February 2014.

But prior to the coup and the resulting civil war, Jaresko’s WNISEF was generously spreading money around. For instance, the 2013 IRS filing reported that the taxpayer-financed fund paid out as “expenses” $7.7 million under a bonus program, including $4.6 million to “current officers,” without identifying who received the money.

The filing made the point that the “long-term equity incentive plan” was “not compensation from Government Grant funds but a separately USAID-approved incentive plan funded from investment sales proceeds” – although those proceeds presumably would have gone into the depleted WNISEF pool if they had not been paid out as bonuses.

The filing also said the bonuses were paid regardless of whether the overall fund was making money, noting that this “compensation was not contingent on revenues or net earnings, but rather on a profitable exit of a portfolio company that exceeds the baseline value set by the board of directors and approved by USAID” – with Jaresko also serving as a director on the board responsible for setting those baseline values.

Another WNISEF director was Jeffrey C. Neal, former chairman of Merrill Lynch’s global investment banking and a co-founder of Horizon Capital, further suggesting how potentially incestuous these relationships may have become.

Though compensation for Jaresko and other officers was shifted outside public view after 2006 – as their pay was moved to the affiliated entities – the 2006 IRS filing says:

“It should be noted that as long as HCA earns a management fee from WNISEF, HCA and HCAD [the two Horizon Capital entities] must ensure that a salary cap of $150,000 is adhered to for the proportion of salary attributable to WNISEF funds managed relative to aggregate funds under management.”

But that language would seem to permit compensation well above $150,000 if it could be tied to other managed funds, including EEGF, or come from the incentive program. Such compensation for Jaresko and the other top officers was not reported on later IRS forms despite a line for earnings from “related organizations.” Apparently, Horizon Capital and EEGF were regarded as “unrelated organizations” for the purposes of reporting compensation.

Neither AID officials nor Jaresko responded to specific questions about WNISEF’s possible conflicts of interest, how much money Jaresko made from her involvement with WNISEF and its connected companies, and whether she had fully complied with IRS reporting requirements.

Shared Values?

Despite such ethical questions, Jaresko was cited by New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman as an exemplar of the new Ukrainian leaders who “share our values” and deserve unqualified American support. Friedman uncritically quoted Jaresko’s speech to international financial leaders at Davos, Switzerland, in which she castigated Russian President Vladimir Putin:

“Putin fears a Ukraine that demands to live and wants to live and insists on living on European values — with a robust civil society and freedom of speech and religion [and] with a system of values the Ukrainian people have chosen and laid down their lives for.”

However, Jaresko has shown little regard for transparency or other democratic values, such as the right of free speech when it comes to someone questioning her financial dealings. For instance, she has gone to great lengths to block her ex-husband Ihor Figlus from exposing what he regards as her questionable business ethics.

In 2012, when Figlus tried to blow the whistle on what he saw as improper loans that Jaresko had taken from Horizon Capital Associates to buy and expand her stake in EEGF, the privately held follow-on fund to WNISEF, Jaresko sent her lawyers to court to silence him and, according to his lawyer, bankrupt him.

The filings in Delaware’s Chancery Court are remarkable not only because Jaresko succeeded in getting the Court to gag her ex-husband through enforcement of a non-disclosure agreement but the Court agreed to redact nearly all the business details, even the confidentiality language at the center of the case.

Since Figlus had given some of his information to a Ukrainian journalist, the court complaint also had the look of a leak investigation, tracking down Figlus’s contacts with the journalist and then using that evidence to secure the restraining order, which Figlus said not only prevented him from discussing business secrets but even talking about his more general concerns about Jaresko’s insider dealings.

The heavy redactions make it hard to fully understand Figlus’s concerns or to assess the size of Jaresko’s borrowing as she expanded her holdings in EEGF, but Figlus did assert that he saw his role as whistle-blowing about improper actions by Jaresko.

In a Oct. 31, 2012, filing, Figlus’s attorney wrote that

“At all relevant times, Defendant [Figlus] acted in good faith and with justification, on matters of public interest, and particularly the inequitable conduct set forth herein where such inequitable conduct adversely affects … at least one other limited partner which is REDACTED, and specifically the inequitable conduct included, in addition to the other conduct cited herein, REDACTED.”

The filing added: “The Plaintiffs’ [Jaresko’s and her EEGF partners’] claims are barred, in whole or in part, by public policy, and particularly that a court in equity should not enjoin ‘whistle-blowing’ activities on matters of public interest, and particularly the inequitable conduct set forth herein.” But the details of that conduct were all redacted.

Free Speech

In a defense brief dated Dec. 17, 2012 [see Part One and Part Two], Figlus expanded on his argument that Jaresko’s attempts to have the court gag him amounted to a violation of his constitutional right of free speech:

“The obvious problem with the scope of their Motion is that Plaintiffs are asking the Court to enter an Order that prohibits Defendant Figlus from exercising his freedom of speech without even attempting to provide the Court with any Constitutional support or underpinning for such impairment of Figlus’ rights.

“Plaintiffs cannot do so, because such silencing of speech is Constitutionally impermissible, and would constitute a denial of basic principles of the Bill of Rights in both the United States and Delaware Constitutions. There can be no question that Plaintiffs are seeking a temporary injunction, which constitutes a prior restraint on speech. …

“The Court cannot, consistent with the Federal and State Constitutional guarantees of free speech, enjoin speech except in the most exceptional circumstances, and certainly not when Plaintiffs are seeking to prevent speech that is not even covered by the very contractual provision upon which they are relying.

“Moreover, the Court cannot prevent speech where the matter has at least some public interest REDACTED, except as limited to the very specific and exact language of the speaker’s contractual obligation.”

Figlus also provided a narrative of events as he saw them as a limited partner in EEGF, saying he initially “believed everything she [Jaresko] was doing, you know, was proper.” Later, however, Figlus

“learned that Jaresko began borrowing money from HCA REDACTED, but again relied on his spouse, and did not pay attention to the actual financial transactions…

“In early 2010, after Jaresko separated from Figlus, she presented Figlus with, and requested that he execute, a ‘Security Agreement,’ pledging the couple’s partnership interest to the repayment of the loans from HCA. This was Figlus first realization of the amount of loans that Jaresko had taken, and that the partnership interest was being funded through this means. …By late 2011, Jaresko had borrowed approximately REDACTED from HCA to both fund the partnership interest REDACTED. The loans were collateralized only by the EEFG partnership interest. …

“Figlus became increasingly concerned about the partnership and the loans that had been and continued to be given to the insiders to pay for their partnership interests, while excluding other limited partners. Although Figlus was not sophisticated in these matters, he considered that it was inappropriate that HCA was giving loans to insiders to fund their partnership interests, but to no other partners. …

“He talked to an individual at U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Washington D.C., because the agency was effectively involved as a limited partner because of the agency’s funding and supervision over WNISEF, but the agency employee did not appear interested in pursuing the question.”

A Spousal Dispute

Meanwhile, Jaresko’s lawyers mocked Figlus’s claims that he was acting as a whistle-blower, claiming that he was actually motivated by a desire “to harm his ex-wife” and had violated the terms of his non-disclosure agreement, which the lawyers convinced the court to exclude from the public record.

The plaintiffs’ brief [see Part One and Part Two] traces Figlus’s contacts with the Ukrainian reporter whose name is also redacted:

“Figlus, having previously received an audit from the General Partner, provided it to REDACTED [the Ukrainian reporter] with full knowledge that the audit was non-public. Also on or about October 2, 2012, REDACTED [the reporter] contacted multiple Limited Partners, informed them that he possessed ‘documented proof’ of alleged impropriety by the General Partner and requested interviews concerning that alleged impropriety.”

The filing noted that on Oct. 3, 2012, the reporter told Figlus that Jaresko “called two REDACTED [his newspaper’s] editors last night crying, not me, for some reason.” (The Ukrainian story was never published.)

After the competing filings, Jaresko’s lawyers successfully secured a restraining order against Figlus from the Delaware Chancery Court and are continuing to pursue the case against him though his lawyer has asserted that his client will make no further effort to expose these financial dealings and is essentially broke.

On May 14, 2014, Figlus filed a complaint with the court claiming that he was being denied distributions from his joint interest in EEGF and saying he was told that it was because the holding was pledged as security against the loans taken out by Jaresko.

But, on the same day, Jaresko’s lawyer, Richard P. Rollo, contradicted that assertion, saying information about Figlus’s distributions was being withheld because EEGF and Horizon Capital “faced significant business interruptions and difficulties given the political crisis in Ukraine.”

The filing suggested that the interlocking investments between EEGF and the U.S.-taxpayer-funded WNISEF were experiencing further trouble from the political instability and civil war sweeping across Ukraine. By last December, Jaresko had resigned from her WNISEF-related positions, taken Ukrainian citizenship and started her new job as Ukraine’s Finance Minister.

In an article about Jaresko’s appointment, John Helmer, a longtime foreign correspondent in Russia, disclosed the outlines of the court dispute with Figlus and identified the Ukrainian reporter as Mark Rachkevych of the Kyiv Post.

“It hasn’t been rare for American spouses to go into the asset management business in the former Soviet Union, and make profits underwritten by the US Government with information supplied from their US Government positions or contacts,” Helmer wrote. “It is exceptional for them to fall out over the loot.”

Earlier this month, when I contacted George Pazuniak, Figlus’s lawyer, about Jaresko’s aggressive enforcement of the non-disclosure agreement, he told me that “at this point, it’s very difficult for me to say very much without having a detrimental effect on my client.” Pazuniak did say, however, that all the redactions were demanded by Jaresko’s lawyers.

Unresponsive Response

I also sent detailed questions to U.S. AID and to Jaresko via several of her associates. Those questions included how much of the $150 million in U.S. taxpayers’ money remained, why Jaresko reported no compensation from “related organizations,” whether she received any of the $4.6 million to WNISEF’s officers in bonuses in 2013, how much money she made in total from her association with WNISEF, what AID officials did in response Figlus’s complaint about possible wrongdoing, and whether Jaresko’s legal campaign to silence her ex-husband was appropriate given her current position and Ukraine’s history of secretive financial dealings.

U.S. AID press officer Annette Y. Aulton got back to me with a response that was unresponsive to my specific questions. Rather than answering about the performance of WNISEF and Jaresko’s compensation, the response commented on the relative success of 10 “Enterprise Funds” that AID has sponsored in Eastern Europe and added:

“There is a twenty year history of oversight of WNISEF operations. Enterprise funds must undergo an annual independent financial audit, submit annual reports to USAID and the IRS, and USAID staff conduct field visits and semi-annual reviews. At the time Horizon Capital assumed management of WNISEF, USAID received disclosures from Natalie Jaresko regarding the change in management structure and at the time USAID found no impropriety during its review.”

One Jaresko associate, Tanya Bega, Horizon Capital’s investor relations manager, said she forwarded my questions to Jaresko last week, but Jaresko did not respond.

Further showing how much Jaresko’s network is penetrating the new Ukrainian government, another associate, Estonian Jaanika Merilo, has been brought on to handle Ukraine’s foreign investments. Merilo’s Ukrainian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association (UVCA), which is committed to “representing interests of private equity investors to policymakers and improving the investment and business climate in Ukraine,” included Jaresko’s Horizon Capital as a founder.

In a way, given Jaresko’s background of parlaying U.S. taxpayer’s money into various insider investment deals, perhaps she does have the experience to handle the incoming $17.5 billion in aid from the International Monetary Fund.

But the question remains whether Jaresko’s is the right kind of experience – and whether the money will go to help the impoverished people of Ukraine or simply wind up lining the pockets of the well-heeled and the well-connected.

–With research by Chelsea Gilmour

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

When pro-vaccine scientists and skeptics claim that they believe what they believe because of “science,” it’s important to remember that much of what is assumed to be science today is actually pseudoscience for the promulgation of special interests. Concerning vaccines, it continues to come to light that many of the studies and research projects upon which regulators bought into the vaccine agenda were manipulated, faked or otherwise tampered with to push an agenda.

This is especially true about the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, which currently dominates news headlines amidst widespread fears over measles. Government spokespersons, media correspondents, celebrities and others are urging everyone, young and old alike, to march down to their local pharmacy and get an MMR vaccine, which they insist will provide protection against the threat of infection.

But is this actually true? Both the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine have been called into question on numerous occasions, including late last summer when U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) whistleblower Dr. William Thompson came forward with information about how the MMR had been shown to cause autism in children, and particularly African American children. The government tried to conceal this data from the public, but Thompson bravely brought it to light in a move that could cost him his career.

More recently, it was brought to our attention that a lawsuit had been filed against Merck & Co., the maker of the MMR II vaccine currently administered to U.S. children as part of the CDC’s official vaccination schedule. Filed under the False Claims Act, the shocking suit by two former Merck scientists alleges that Merck manipulated early trial data on the MMR to make it appear safe and at least 95 percent effective, allowing it to receive a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) endorsement.

Time and time again, vaccine manufacturers have been caught massaging the numbers, altering study criteria and even tampering with study subject matter, including blood samples and test subjects, in order to achieve a desired outcome. It doesn’t matter if a vaccine actually works or is safe — as long as the data can be adjusted or changed to create the illusion, the government and the public seem to have no problem accepting the official narrative.

“It cannot be denied that today’s mandatory childhood vaccine programs are little more than blind experiments with the possibility of unthinkable and irreversible consequences for our children’s physical, mental, and emotional health in the future,” wrote Dr. Harold E. Buttram, M.D., and Catherine J FrompovichCatherine J FrompovichCatherine J. Frompovich about the issue. “The time is long overdue for a complete reevaluation of the current vaccine formulations and programs.”

Vaccines directly spread the diseases they are claimed to prevent, science shows

The MMR vaccine has long been a source of controversy ever since gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield reported on an unusual bowel condition that he and his colleagues observed in direct conjunction with the jab. The study, which was originally published in The Lancet, sparked a global debate in which the vaccine establishment has ever since had to aggressively brainwash the public just to stay in business.

But there’s simply no denying that the MMR isn’t nearly as safe as Merck and the government claim it is. This is evidenced not only by previously concealed information about its dangers brought to light by Dr. Thompson and the two former Merck scientists but also by Merck’s own admissions in the MMR II package insert that the vaccine can cause serious, life-threatening conditions like:

• Vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels)
• Pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas)
• Diabetes
• Thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count)
• Chronic arthritis
• Encephalitis (inflammation of the brain)
• Panniculitis (inflammation of the subcutaneous fat layer)

Several of these conditions are directly brought about by the live viruses contained in the MMR, including encephalitis, which is also a marker of autism. Even the mainstream media is now acknowledging measles encephalitis as a risk factor, though sources are associating this condition with wild measles as opposed to atypical vaccine-induced measles.

Then there’s the issue of permanent, lifelong immunity, something that can’t be achieved with any vaccine. In fact, vaccines eliminate all possibility of a person developing lifelong immunity to infectious diseases like measles because they circumvent innate immunity, the body’s first line of defense against disease, exposing the adaptive immune system to viral components that it would never otherwise encounter.

This causes permanent damage to the immune system and helps explain why many people today are stricken with autoimmune disorders that prior to vaccines were virtually nonexistent. What the media isn’t telling you is that natural exposure to measles, for instance, is generally mild and imparts permanent immunity — it is nature’s vaccine, without all the chemicals and heavy metals.

“Whereas natural recovery from many infectious diseases usually stimulates lifetime immunity, vaccines only provide temporary protection and most vaccines require ‘booster’ doses to extend vaccine-induced artificial immunity,” said National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) President Barbara Loe Fisher.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com^[PDF]

http://naturalnews.com^[PDF]

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.fda.gov^[PDF]

http://www.npr.org

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org

http://healthimpactnews.com

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org

“The ongoing dispute between the German and Greek governments is nothing less than a democratic revolution against German hegemony and the attempt of the Germans and their paladins in the EU to dictate Greek domestic policy.”

The U.S. – and Presumably Russia – Have Researched Weather Modification As Warfare For Many Decades

This week, a top American climate researcher – Professor Alan Robock from Rutgers – says that the CIA is looking into weather modification as a form of warfare.

The Independent reports:

A senior American climate scientist has spoken of the fear he experienced when US intelligence services apparently asked him about the possibility of weaponising the weather as a major report on geo-engineering is to be published this week.

Professor Alan Robock stated that three years ago, two men claiming to be from the CIA had called him to ask whether experts would be able to tell if hostile forces had begun manipulating the US’s weather, though he suspected the purpose of the call was to find out if American forces could meddle with other countries’ climates instead.

During a debate on the use of geo-engineering to combat climate change, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, Prof Robock said: “I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we’d like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we know about it?

”I told them, after thinking a little bit, that we probably would because if you put enough material in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight we would be able to detect it and see the equipment that was putting it up there.

“At the same time I thought they were probably also interested in if we could control somebody else’s climate, could they detect it?”

Professor Robock, who has investigated the potential risks and benefits of using stratospheric particles to simulate the climate-changing effects of volcanic eruptions, said he felt “scared” when the approach was made.

“I’d learned of lots of other things the CIA had done that haven’t followed the rules and I thought that wasn’t how I wanted my tax money spent. I think this research has to be in the open and international so there isn’t any question of it being used for hostile purposes.”

***

Professor Robock’s concerns come as a major report on geo-engineering is to be published this week by the US National Academy of Sciences. Among the report’s list of sponsors is the “US intelligence community”, which includes Nasa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Department of Energy.

The professor alleges that the CIA told a colleague of his that it wanted to fund the report, but claimed that it did not want this fact to be too obvious – he added that the CIA is “a major funder” of the report which “makes me really worried about who is going to be in control”.

He claimed the US government had a proven history of using the weather in a hostile way, citing the action of seeding clouds during the Vietnam War to muddy the Ho Chi Minh foot-trail and attempt to cut it off, as it was used as a supply route but the north Vietnamese.

He claimed the CIA had also seeded clouds over Cuba “to make it rain and ruin the sugar harvest”.

Professor Robock may sound like a nutcase … but he’s actually sane, and his concerns are well-founded.

The Guardian reported in 2001:

During the Vietnam war, the Americans launched Project Popeye, a secret mission to seed the tops of monsoon clouds and trigger phenomenal downpours that would wash away the Ho Chi Minh Trail used for ferrying supplies.

For five years Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were sprayed during the monsoons, and military intelligence claimed that rainfall was increased by a third in some places. It only came to an end in March 1971 when [Washington Post] journalist Jack Anderson exposed the project and caused such a public furor that the UN general assembly approved a universal treaty banning environmental warfare.

Interestingly, U.S. weather modification efforts during the Vietnam war were revealed as part of the Pentagon Papers.

The Washington Post reported on July 2, 1972:

Indochina – by the evidence of a long-ignored passage in the Pentagon Papers – has been a test battleground, the site of purposeful rain-making along the Ho Chi Minh trails.

***

Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.) is prominent among members of Congress who believe it has become a reality. “There is very little doubt in my mind,” he says. Rep. Gilbert Gude (R-Md.) states: “There’s no doubt in my mind that it’s going on in Vietnam.”

“I think there’s no doubt rain-making was used in Laos on the trail,” says a Senate committee aide well versed in defense affairs.

***

It is a “successful” pre-1967 use which is documented in the “senator Gravel” version of the Pentagon papers. In late February, 1967, this document discloses the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a list of “alternative strategies” for President Johnson.

One, titled “Laos Operations”, read:

“Continue at present plus Operation Pop Eye to reduce trafficability along infiltration routes … authorization required to implement phase of weather modification process previously successfully tested and evaluated in same area ….

In 1967 — according to columnist Jack Anderson, who published the first allegation of Indochina rain-making — U.S. forces started secret Project Intermediary Compatriot “to hamper enemy logistics” … (with) claimed success in creating man-made cloudbursts … and flooding conditions” along the Ho Chi Minh trails, “making them impassable.”

The Post makes clear that cloud-seeding wasn’t limited to the Vietnam war theater:

The Defense Department freely reports that it has “field capacities” for making rain. It used them in the Philippines in 1969, in a six-month “precipitation augmentation project” at the Philippines request; in India in 1967, at a similar invitation; over Okinawa and Midway Islands, and in June, July and August, 1971, over drought-stricken Texas, at the urgent request of Gov. Preston Smith.

***

Navy rain-makers are currently involved in two long-range California programs — one over the Pacific off Santa Barbara, an attempt to increase rainfall over a national forest; the other over the Central Sierras to try to increase the snow-pack for electric utilities that depend on water power.

The Post also quoted high-level scientists warning that enemies could modify weather as a direct form of warfare, for example, by flooding coastal areas where one’s enemy resided.  And – as the Post notes – even in 1972, the government was studying the affect of counter-measures to weather warfare:

ARPA Director Stephen J. Lukasik told the Senate Appropriations Committee in March: “Since it now appears highly probable that major world powers have the ability to create modifications of climate that might be seriously detrimental to the security of this country, Nile Blue [a computer simulation] was established in FY 70 to achieve a US capability to (1) evaluate all consequences of of a variety of possible actions … (2) detect trends in in the global circulation which foretell changes … and (3) determine if possible , means to counter potentially deleterious climatic changes …”

“What this means,” Lukasik explains, “is learning how much you have to tickle the atmosphere to perturb the earth’s climate. I guess we’d call it a threat assessment.”

The Boston Globe noted in 2005:

A few years ago, a team led by the late Edward Teller [the creator of the nuclear bomb] suggested creating a similar effect by launching a million tons of tiny aluminum balloons into the atmosphere.

***

The US military, unsurprisingly, was intrigued by the possibility of a godlike meteorological arsenal. According to Spencer Weart, a physicist and historian of science at the American Institute of Physics, the thinking in the Defense Department was “maybe we’ll give the Russians a real Cold War, or maybe they’ll give us one, so we should be ready.” Pentagon money funded much of the era’s climate research, helping to create the weather models we now use in forecasting. War gamers dreamed up climatological warfare scenarios like laying down a blanket of fog over an airfield or visiting drought upon an enemy’s breadbasket.

***

A 1996 Air Force report entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” argued that “the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril.”

Here is a copy of the Air Force study “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025″.

The Technology Has Advanced Far Beyond Seeding Clouds With Silver Iodide

The technology has advanced a long way since the early 1970s.

For example, the Telegraph reported in 2011 that Abu Dhabi ‘creates man-made rainstorms’ by “using giant ionisers, shaped like giant lampshades, to generate fields of negatively charged particles, which create cloud formation.” “There are many applications,” Professor Hartmut Grassl, a former institute director, is quoted by the Daily Mail as saying. “One is getting water into a dry area. Maybe this is a most important point for mankind.”

The Guardian reported in 2001:

The US air force planners recently came up with new proposals to launch new weather weapons. Instead of silver-iodide, the idea is to shower fine particles of heat-absorbing carbon over clouds to trigger localised flooding and bog down troops and their equipment. Lasers on aircraft would also trigger lightning onto enemy aircraft, whilst other lasers could be fired at fog to clear a path over enemy targets on the ground.

Former secretary of defense William Cohen told a conference on terrorism on April 28, 1997:

Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

The American Institute of Physics (the organization mentioned above in the Boston Globe article) provides an interesting overview of the history of weather modification:

From 1945 into the 1970s, much effort went into studies of weather modification. American entrepreneurs tried cloud-seeding to enhance local rainfall, Russian scientists offered fabulous schemes of planetary engineering, and military agencies secretly explored “climatological warfare.”

***

At the close of the Second World War, a few American scientists brought up a troublesome idea. If it were true, as some claimed, that humans were inadvertently changing their local weather by cutting down forests and emitting pollution, why not try to modify the weather on purpose? For generations there had been proposals for rainmaking, based on folklore like the story that cannonades from big battles brought rain.

Now top experts began to take the question seriously…. At the end of 1945 a brilliant mathematician, John von Neumann, called other leading scientists to a meeting in Princeton, where they agreed that modifying weather deliberately might be possible. They expected that could make a great difference in the next war. Soviet harvests, for example, might be ruined by creating a drought. Some scientists suspected that alongside the race with the Soviet Union for ever more terrible nuclear weapons, they were entering an equally fateful race to control the weather. As the Cold War got underway, U.S. military agencies devoted significant funds to research on what came to be called “climatological warfare.”

***

In 1953 a President’s Advisory Committee on Weather Control was established to pursue the idea. In 1958, the U.S. Congress acted directly to fund expanded rainmaking research. Large-scale experimentation was also underway, less openly, in the Soviet Union.

Military agencies in the U.S. (and presumably in the Soviet Union) supported research not only on cloud seeding but on other ways that injecting materials into the atmosphere might alter weather. Although much of this was buried in secrecy, the public learned that climatological warfare might become possible. In a 1955 Fortune magazine article, von Neumann himself explained that “Microscopic layers of colored matter spread on an icy surface, or in the atmosphere above one, could inhibit the reflection-radiation process, melt the ice, and change the local climate.” The effects could be far-reaching, even world-wide. “What power over our environment, over all nature, is implied!” he exclaimed. Von Neumann foresaw “forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined,” perhaps more dangerous than nuclear war itself. 

As such, it is vital that weather warfare not be allowed to spiral out of control.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble denounced a new Greek proposal for a six-month loan extension with the naked ultimatum, “It’s not about an extension of the loan programme, it’s about whether this program is fulfilled, yes or no.”

He was reiterating Germany’s demand that Greece honour Greece’s commitment to impose savage austerity measures to the hilt, irrespective of the dire consequences for millions of working people.

A further indication of German opposition came Wednesday evening, with the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) to grant a further extension of only €3.3 billion to Greek banks accessing the ECB’s Emergency Liquidity Assistance fund.

At the current rate of deposit outflows from Greek banks, this sum is estimated to cover just one week of funding. Even this sop revealed divisions on the ECB board, with the Bundesbank’s Jens Weidmann opposing even a token increase.

Greece’s current loan agreement with the so-called “troika” (European Commission, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund) expires at the end of this month. Without further loans, it will rapidly default on its foreign debt of €320 billion and be plunged into state bankruptcy, a massive run on the banks and a forced exit from the euro-zone.

If any agreement is reached between the Eurogroup and Greece, the essential demand being made is that it will be based on a continuation of austerity and that Syriza will enforce this agenda.

Even then, the growing scale of Greece’s foreign debt is such that it cannot be paid off. More and more commentators are concluding that Greece is edging toward default and a “Grexit.”

The Guardian warned in its editorial Wednesday that Greece’s application for an extension “would be only a temporary, if welcome, respite to the underlying problem.” The editorial continued: “It would be foolish to assume that it represents a conclusive step back from the brink.”

Yet such an appeal for a “temporary respite” of just six months, one made after a month of often bitter discussions, is considered to be impermissible. Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis told Germany’s ZDF, “We should extend the credit programme by a few months to have enough stability so that we can negotiate a new agreement between Greece and Europe.” But Schäuble responded by declaring, “I don’t have any new information, but there is no loan agreement, it’s an assistance programme. And in this seemingly unimportant detail lies the key: Greece would like to receive credit, but not fulfil the conditions to allow Greece to recover economically.”

Germany, leading behind it the other European powers, is determined that an example is set in Greece to make clear that there is no alternative to the brutal attacks waged on workers in Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy and throughout the continent.

Schäuble has gone out of his way to crack the whip and display contempt for Syriza, exhibiting the arrogance and indifference of the bourgeoisie for the suffering of the masses, in the quest to make Greece an object lesson on the futility of challenging the power of capital. But, every government is imposing austerity on their own politically and socially restive populations, and fears that even the most minor “concession” to Athens can stimulate opposition. The Financial Times reported, for example, “No European leader has poured more scorn on the radical aspirations of the Syriza-led government in Athens than the prime minister of Portugal,” Pedro Passos Coelho, who “dismissed Syriza’s bid to rewrite the rules on debt repayment and bailout conditions as a ‘fairytale’…”

These essential realities of class relations in Europe and internationally have exposed the political bankruptcy of Syriza. In coalition with the right-wing Independent Greeks, Syriza, which speaks for sections of the bourgeoisie and privileged upper-middle class layers, has based its entire perspective on appealing for a more reasonable and manageable repayment agenda–while pledging to defend Greek capitalism and its place in the EU and Eurozone.

According to press reports, Greece’s latest request was scheduled to be submitted on Wednesday, but was held back by Athens in order to ensure that it was worded in a manner acceptable to the Eurogroup.

According to sources, it is based on the document authored by Pierre Moscovici, economic chief of the European Commission, which Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis said on Monday he was prepared to sign.

At Monday’s meeting of euro zone finance ministers in Brussels, the Moscovici document was withdrawn and replaced with another from Eurogroup head Jeroen Dijsselbloem demanding that Greece remain within the previous austerity agreement and impose further cuts.

On Wednesday, Varoufakis spoke by telephone with US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew seeking support. But Lew only called on Greece to “find a constructive path forward in partnership” with its creditors.

To back up its case, on Wednesday, the Greek government released documents outlining its negotiating positions and citing statements made by Varoufakis at the last two Eurogroup meetings.

In his presentation to the February 11 Eurogroup meeting, Varoufakis stressed that Syriza understood the austerity measures already in place in Greece would be permanent. “Greece has made a vast adjustment over the past five years at immense social cost” he said. “The new government takes this adjustment as its point of departure.”

Addressing concerns that Syriza might implement a few reforms partially reversing austerity measures in place involving privatisations, the firing of public sector workers, the slashing of pensions and cuts in the minimum wage, Varoufakis explained that, regarding privatizations, “we are ready and willing to evaluate each and every project on its merits alone.” He went on to insist that “foreign direct investment will be encouraged.”

On the promised reinstatement of laid-off state employees, Varoufakis told the Eurogroup meeting that just 2,013 workers would be rehired, and promised that this “tiny number” would “have no adverse effect on competitiveness and no fiscal bearing as [the reinstatements] will be paid for entirely by other savings in the state budget.”

He said the “restoration of the pension cuts we announced concern pensioners living at or below the poverty line and comes up to less than 2 euros per day per eligible pensioner—a grand total of around 9.5 million.”

On the minimum wage, Syriza is proposing only a return to the level prior to the launching of austerity measures, but he assured the finance ministers the “government will phase in its restoration to the 2012 level gradually, from September onward,” and only “after consultation with employers and trades unions.” It would apply, moreover, “only to the private sector.”

“Some of you… were displeased by the victory of a left-wing, a radical left-wing party. To them I have this to say: It would be a lost opportunity to see us as adversaries. We are dedicated Europeanists.”

The Eurogroup rejected these miserable proposals because it will not allow anything to be legislated in Greece, or anywhere else, that impinges on the ongoing transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. The Daily Telegraph summed up the position of the ruling elite when it lauded Lithuania, calling it “the euro zone’s newest member… where the minimum wage is €300 per month,” contrasting this with Syriza’s pledge to “increase the Greek minimum wage to €751 per month.”

A series of attacks on Muslims in the US have occurred in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in France and executions carried out by the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria. These events have been seized on by governments around the world, including the Obama administration, to promote anti-Islamic sentiment so as to justify expanded military interventions in the Middle East and stepped up domestic repression.

On February 10, three Muslim-American students—Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19—were found shot in the head, execution-style, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The two young women were wearing traditional hijabs when they were killed.

The man who turned himself in to authorities in connection with the murders had previously brandished guns at the victims and threatened them. Before the shooting, Yusor Abu-Salha told her father, “Daddy, I think he hates us for who we are and how we look.”

On February 12, an Arab-American man was brutally attacked by two white men at a Kroger supermarket in Dearborn, Michigan. The attackers also taunted his daughter, who wears a hijab, making references to ISIS and Muslims. The attackers called the man and his daughter “r–head” and said, “Go back to your country.”

On February 13, the Quba Islamic Institute in southeast Houston, Texas was the target of an arson attack that destroyed a substantial portion of the building and caused an estimated $100,000 in damage. On February 17, police in Austin, Texas arrested a man for threatening to bomb an Islamic center as well as a Middle Eastern restaurant.

Last month, a “Texas Muslim Capitol Day” event (the declared purpose of which was to “engage American Muslims in the political process”) was attacked and disrupted by anti-Muslim thugs. Another attack was organized on “Muslim Day” in Oklahoma City. The attacking group’s Facebook page screamed, “Get Islam Out of America.”

The rate of hate crimes against Muslims in the United States stands at five times what it was before September 2001. A recent poll found that out of all religions, Americans harbor the most negative feelings towards Muslims.

The American political and media establishment bears a significant portion of the responsibility for these trends.

A recent report by the Center for American Progress entitled “Fear, Inc. 2.0, The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America” exposes a veritable “Islamophobia industry” operating on the periphery of the American state. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent over the past decade to promote anti-Muslim bigotry through a shady network of politicians, journalists, foundations, “activists” and “experts.”

This Islamophobia network enjoys close ties with police departments and the intelligence agencies. Anti-Muslim bigotry, the report indicates, can often be found “masquerading as law-enforcement counterterrorism training.” The training materials and “experts,” according to the report, encourage police and intelligence agents to see “a terrorist plot in every mosque.”

The intentional whipping up of anti-Muslim bigotry has intensified internationally in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks last month. As the World Socialist Web Site has explained, the campaign to vilify Muslims serves definite political ends.

Anti-Muslim hysteria provides a justification for imperialist mayhem abroad as well as a wedge with which to attack democratic rights at home. Policies can be pursued in the climate of such hysteria that would otherwise be unthinkable. And, as with all such campaigns against racial and religious minorities throughout the twentieth century, murderous and fascistic elements are mobilized that, in a crisis, can be unleashed against the working class as a whole.

In cultivating the conditions for an intensification of anti-Muslim violence within the United States, a particularly reprehensible role has been played by the racist, homicidal film American Sniper. The film features an elite US soldier heroically slaughtering Iraqi “savages” for God and country.

Chris Kyle, the real-life sniper behind Clint Eastwood’s pro-war propaganda film, boasted of killing more than 300 people. (He was apparently also a pathological liar who bragged about having shot and killed dozens of “looters” in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and to have participated in other events that are unlikely ever to have happened).

During a military investigation of allegations that Kyle killed an unarmed civilian in Iraq, Kyle said, “I don’t shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.”

In the current toxic social climate, and in the absence of any progressive outlet for social discontent, American Sniper has met with a certain and disturbing response. “American sniper makes me wanna go shoot some f—ing Arabs,” wrote one individual on Twitter. “Nice to see a movie where the Arabs are portrayed for who they really are,” wrote another, “vermin scum intent on destroying us.”

Another individual wrote, “Great f—ing movie and now I really want to kill some f—ing r–heads.” And another: “American sniper made me appreciate soldiers 100x more and hate Muslins (sic) 1000000x more.”

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee described a “drastic increase” in hate speech on social media following the film’s release. It is not difficult to see how these kinds of responses can translate into real violence.

A revealing episode was provided by the “National Prayer Breakfast” on February 5. Bowing to pressure from the right, Obama utilized the occasion (a reactionary spectacle under any circumstances) to denounce “ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism, terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.” Obama also mentioned the Crusades and the Inquisition as examples of “terrible deeds” committed in the name of religion.

Obama’s appearance fueled an ongoing campaign by the Republican right denouncing the White House for not going far enough in vilifying Muslims. Obama was criticized on the grounds that his invocation of the Crusades and the Inquisition “throws Christians under the bus.”

“The words ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ do not come out of the president’s mouth,” declared Republican Senator Ted Cruz. “The word ‘jihad’ does not come out of the president’s mouth. And that is dangerous.”

“The president’s comments… at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore told reporters. “He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”

The engines of anti-Muslim agitation in the United States do not include only the usual suspects: the Republican Party, the military, AM talk radio, police, the intelligence agencies, Fox News, the Murdoch Press, religious zealots, billionaire reactionaries, the Tea Party and so forth.

Instead, anti-Muslim prejudice has been lent a certain respectable gloss by so-called “liberal” and “left” sections of the political establishment. These layers either endorse the vilification of Muslims, acquiesce to it, or make hand-wringing scholarly inquiries into whether or not Islam is “inherently violent.”

“The rash of horrific attacks in the name of Islam,” read a front-page article in the New York Times on January 9, “is spurring an anguished debate among Muslims here in the heart of the Islamic world about why their religion appears cited so often as a cause for violence and bloodshed.” The article then weighs arguments—for and against—the proposition that Islam is “inherently more violent than Judaism or Christianity.”

No significant section of the political establishment in any of the imperialist countries has shown itself capable of taking a principled stand in opposition to the promotion of anti-Muslim sentiment. That task falls to the socialist movement, which stands for the international unity of the working class, defends its democratic achievements, and rejects all attempts to whip up national, ethnic or religious bigotry.

Congress and the White House are leaning on Twitter to censor Islamic State posts on its network.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, the chair of a House foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, has singled out Twitter for allowing supposed IS operatives to recruit and propagandize on the social media platform.

“This is the way (the Islamic State) is recruiting — they are getting people to leave their homelands and become fighters,” Poe said.

He added “there is frustration with Twitter specifically” over its refusal to censor tweets the government claims promotes terrorism.

Poe and other members of Congress will send a letter to Twitter CEO Dick Costolo this week demanding the popular social media platform shut down tweets attributed to IS.

Costolo admitted earlier this month “We suck at dealing with abuse and trolls on the platform and we’ve sucked at it for years.“

Poe said the government wants Twitter “to treat this the same as child pornography,” Yahoo News reports.

Twitter has responded to the accusations by saying it provides user tracking information on alleged IS members to the FBI.

The White House, however, has complained that Twitter will not respond to inquiries.

The company “wouldn’t even return (White House officials’) phone calls,” a former U.S. official said, citing a complaint by Lisa Monaco, President Barack Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser. “They were really pissed off.”

Twitter says it follows similar policies used by other social media sites like Facebook.

“Like our peer companies, we do not proactively monitor content,” a Twitter spokesman said. “We review all reported content against our rules, which prohibit unlawful use and direct, specific threats of violence against others. Users report potential rules violations to us, we review their reports and take action if the content violates our rules.”

Twitter has actively shut down IS accounts since July.

Over the last year, however, Twitter has suspended a large number of IS accounts. It has suspended nearly 800 suspected accounts since last autumn, but this “may be the tip of the iceberg,” as almost 18,000 accounts “related” to the Islamic State were suspended over the same time period, according to JM Berger, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who tracks Islamists on social media.

The Brookings Institution has promoted a number of neocon positions on terror and is linked to the “conservative” wing of the Democrat Party.

In addition to funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Rockefeller Foundation, the Brookings Institution is supported by the Ford Foundation, which has links to the CIA.

One of the brains behind Tesla motors and Paypal, Tesla Motors CEO and entrepreneur Elon Musk has a new invention up his sleeve that will help power homes at low cost, and it will make living off-grid easier than ever.

A Florida woman had to stand up to a local judge to continue living off grid when he declared it illegal, but if millions of people start to live more self-sufficiently and sustainably, what will the corrupt judiciary say then?

Musk’s new invention is based on Tesla’s lithium-ion battery technology, and the new battery is expected to help the company become a leader in the growing home energy-storage market.

“We are going to unveil the Tesla home battery, the consumer battery that would be for use in people’s houses or businesses fairly soon,” Bloomberg quoted Musk as saying.

Not only does this mean that people could tell their electric company (and their high bills) good-bye, better lithium-ion storage also means that even solar arrays would work better. Soon, clean energy could be powering everything from our ovens to our computers and lights with more ease.

If homesteaders were ever concerned about having a sufficient supply of on-demand energy, Musk’s technology would put those worries to bed. Many solar panel manufacturers won’t currently warranty their goods for off-grid living because of storage issues, but the new battery changes that problem considerably.

“We are trying to figure out what would be a cool stationary (battery) pack,” Forbes had quoted Musk as saying at the time. “Some will be like the Model S pack: something flat, 5 inches off the wall, wall mounted, with a beautiful cover, an integrated bi-directional inverter, and plug and play.”

The production of the battery is set to begin in the next 6 months. Lithium-ion technology is popular because the “li-on” batteries are great with energy density; a LIB setup can pack a lot of power into a very small space. According to MIT researchers, “Li-on” batteries offer sufficient charge times and a high number of discharge cycles before they die.

“The long-term demand for stationary energy storage is extraordinary,” JB Straubel, Tesla’s chief technical officer, said. “We’ve put in a huge amount of effort there.”

Overall, the “system” is built to discourage any lifestyle, which would make one sovereign – that is, sustainable, and not dependant on government plutocracies. This threatens our very independence, and in a time when our water and soil is being poisoned, forces us to partake of a disenfranchising system, which causes ill health to the masses.

Anything that helps us live a more self-sufficient life untied from government-led living systems could very well help us survive in the not-so-certain future.

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

The term legal imperialism was coined in relation to the Argentina’s public debt. A New York court admitted a number of private claims to hand down a verdict. By a stroke of hand a judge increased the country’s debt up to $120 billion, according to experts’ estimates. The essence of legal imperialism is the support rendered by Anglo-Saxon legal system to financial vultures. 

Financial vultures vs. Argentina under the cover of American Themis

It all started in 2001. Argentina had to declare a sovereign default on around $130 billion. It was the biggest default on sovereign debt in history. The talks on restructuring started. As a result, the lenders agreed to write off the bulk of it (75%) and alter the conditions for paying off the rest. Some bondholders in possession of around $4 billion of Argentinian bonds refused to comply with the agreements’ terms. This included a small group of hedge funds holding over $1, 3 billion bonds headed by Elliott Management Corp. of billionaire Paul Singer. The hedge funds had already obtained the reputation of financial vultures. They acquired the bonds of the states that were on the verge of sovereign default or the ones already in default and then demanded 100% payments refusing to accept any compromises.

The audacity is supported by the fact that they normally win the trials demanding 100% payments on the bonds. The vultures went to the New York court to sue Argentina for the whole amount without restructuring. In October 2012 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York) ruled on the pari passu clause that required they receive full payment. Moreover it forbade Argentina to pay off its restructured debts till it complies with the court’s decision. It was an uphill struggle for Argentina as it realized that other lenders would demand full payments too. The country was a hostage because its bonds were issued in compliance with the laws of the state of New York. According to the court’s decision, Argentina faced the June 31, 2014 deadline when it was supposed to pay the next installment of interest to all bondholders. No settlement had been reached so the leading rating agencies greatly lowered the country’s investment rating. The regular payments by Argentina to comply with the conditions of restructured debt were blocked by the court’s ruling. Argentina refuses to comply while the fines keep on growing each passing day…

Yukos case – first large-scale operation conducted by legal imperialism against Russia

The decision handed down by the Hague-based International Arbitration Court in the Russian oil giant Yukos case upon the claim of foreign shareholders is the example of how the legal imperialism works. Yukos ceased to exist as a legal entity in November 2007. For many years it avoided paying taxes. The taxes debts were to be paid in accordance with the court’s decision taken ten years ago. The company failed to comply. The bigger part of Yukos assets went to Russian oil producer Rosneft. Yukos foreign shareholders were disgruntled and went to courts abroad. Finally the claims were consolidated and sent to the Hague International Court. Initially the claimed sum was $114 billion (much more than the Yukos assets at the time of company’s liquidation). The Court let the claims be suspended, it was waiting for something. Finally it got what it was expecting. The West imposed sanctions against Russia in the spring of 2014. The court went back to the Yukos case and made public its verdict: Russia was to pay investors of the now non-existent company $50 billion – the largest compensation ever paid to shareholders upon an international arbitrary tribunal. According to the Court’s decision, Russia allegedly violated the Energy Charter Treaty and expropriated the company taking it from legal owners. A peculiar ruling in view that Russia never ratified the Charter. It is even more peculiar that the acquisition of the Yukos assets by another company is called «expropriation». In fact the verdict was an informal way of imposing sanctions by the West against Russia or the legal imperialism in force. As they say Russia was «put on the counter». After the ruling was announced Russia was given 180 days to comply. It did not. From January 15, the deadline set by the Court in the Hague for Russia to pay its fine, the fine will attract interest equal to the yield on a 10-year US Treasury bond. On January 15 the rate measured 1.91 percent. It means that the first year the sum of the debt will increase to $956, 6 million. That’s why over one billion dollars will surely be added to the $50 billion in 2015.

The Hague Court ruling: what does it mean for Russia?

The appeals made by Russian lawyers brought about no result. The Hague Court’s decision was not taken into account in the 2015 budget. The opposite side is very active. Right after the Court’s decision the former Yukos shareholders were involved in interesting activities – they started to look for Russian assets to be used to pay the debt. Russia’s state foreign assets could be confiscated. The Rosneft assets are to be arrested first, other companies with state participation (VTB, Gasprom, Aeroflot, VAB etc.) second and state agencies third. Embassies have immunity unlike ships visiting foreign ports.

Nobody cares about the fact that there are few companies with 100% state participation. There are non-state minority shareholders and the expropriation of companies’ assets would constitute a violation of their property rights. This is a classic game without rules. Actually there is one – punish Russia at any cost.

Legal imperialism as effective informal sanction against Russia

There have been three packages of sanctions introduced against Russia. Experts believe that the fourth will also come into effect. I don’t think so. The matter is – informal sanctions are more effective. There will be new claims to Russia, its companies and banks. Russian individuals and legal entities will be blacklisted; Western courts will hand down decisions on expropriating their foreign assets. The «case of Rotenberg» will be repeated. In the spring of 2014 Russian entrepreneur Arkady Rotenberg was blacklisted during the first wave of sanctions. In September Italian courts handed down a decision to arrest and confiscate his €30m assets. The March sanctions envisioned a ban on entering the territories of the countries that imposed sanctions and seizing the bank accounts of blacklisted persons. In the case of Rotenberg they took away his real estate that had no relation to business. I emphasize it to show that legal imperialism is a war without rules waged to satisfy the desire to plunder. In general, that’s how the algothytm of legal marauding works:

1) A Western vulture chooses an asset that belongs to a Russian legal entity of individual;

2) The vulture makes the Russian owner blacklisted;

3) A Western court hands down a decision to seize the asset;

4) The court’s decision is carried out; the asset becomes the property of the vulture.

Black lists as an instrument of legal imperialism

There are different grounds for being included into black lists: «suspicion of corruption involvement», «complicity in the annexation of Crimea and aggression against Ukraine», «the violation of human rights», «ties with terrorists» etc. The US has already introduced special laws, for instance, «the Magnitsky Act» allowing making lists of those who had connection to the death of lawyer Sergey Magnitsky. The lawyer represented the investment advisory firm Hermitage Capital Management. In 2008 he was arrested accused of few billion roubles tax evasion. He died in a prison cell. The West made him a martyr and responded with black lists.

Not the United States is mulling a possibility to turn the Magnitsky Act into a universal instrument of fighting Russia under the banner of defending human rights. It is planned to include into the list not only those who did anything wrong to Magnitsky, but also Alexey Navalny and his associates in «the struggle against totalitarianism». Washington wants to kill two birds with one stone: a) to exert political pressure on Russia; b) to reap benefit by seizing the assets of the persons included into the black lists (the Magnitsky Act envisions a ban on entry into the country and arrest of bank accounts). They want to get more out of it. It is considered to go beyond seizing the bank accounts but also spread the sanctions on bonds and equity.

(To be continued)

Curious is the United Nation and NATO’s sudden interest in peace. Both organizations are suing for truces on two separate battlefields, one in Ukraine in Eastern Europe, and another in Syria’s northern city of Aleppo amid a regional conflagration in the Middle East. It is curious because talks of “truces” were completely absent just as recently as 2011, when both organizations, the UN and NATO, backed hordes of terrorists sweeping across Libya, committing abhorrent atrocities including the systematic, genocidal extermination of Libya’s black communities.

 

Image: No “ceasefire” or “truce” was proposed by the UN or NATO, because the terrorists they were backing were winning. Such calls are meant not to alleviate human suffering, but to preserve, buy time for, and rebuild forces committed to expanding such suffering. 

There was also the encirclement, intentional starvation, and denial of humanitarian aid, along with the bombardment of Libyan cities like Sirte, which also saw no protests or calls for “ceasefires” by the UN or NATO. In fact, as terrorists enforced blockades on the ground to starve residents to death, NATO bombed the encircled cities relentlessly from the air for weeks. The eventual fall of Sirte, for example, would leave behind an utterly devastate city and a decimated, scattered population. Other cities, like Tawarga, had their entire populations, down to the last resident, either killed or forced to flee.

To explain the transparently hypocritical change in policy, the UN and NATO are now witnessing a change in fortunes for forces backed by the very special interests that have hijacked and upturned the mission statements of both organizations.

Forces that were afforded absolute impunity from the UN and were backed, armed, and provided air cover by NATO in Libya, are now encircled and facing destruction in Syria. Likewise, a similar proxy conflict in Ukraine has seen thousands of NATO-backed militants encircled. A desperate attempt to broker a ceasefire through the so-called “Minsk accord” fell apart before the ink dried, with NATO-backed militias openly declaring they had no intention of giving up the fight.

The Only Terms That Could Be Acceptable 

For Syria in particular, Aleppo only still serves as a battlefield for the sole reason that NATO is to this day still funding, arming, and transferring terrorists to the battlefield through NATO-member Turkey. Any “ceasefire” or “truce” brokered in the northern city of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and a national commercial hub, should be accompanied by international peace keepers stationed in Turkey to ensure the regime in Ankara is no longer harboring, arming, and supplying terrorists within its territory.

With the streaming of terrorists across Turkey’s border with Syria abated, the existential threat to Aleppo and the rest of northern Syria would likewise cease to exist, making calls for Syrian troops to stand down a much more reasonable proposition. To ask them now, while hordes of invaders flow into their country for the sole purpose of dividing and destroying it, is an unimaginable absurdity.

Should invading militants be blocked from crossing into Syria permanently, an amnesty could be arranged for Syrian militants.

The total and complete restoration of peace and stability in Syria, with its territory fully intact, can be the only terms accepted in any deal with the UN. Anything less is ploy by the UN and NATO to buy time for an increasingly defeated army of proxy militants and a last ditch effort to arrange a “settlement” that will leave swaths of Syrian territory in the hands of NATO’s proxy forces where they can rebuild and relaunch their destructive campaign in the near future.

If ever there was a brutalised poster boy for the failure of humanitarian intervention, then bloodied, wounded Libya would be it.  In 2011, the morally indignant, the ethically charged, and the generally outraged powers of the UK, France and to a lesser extent, the US, did a patchwork job under what, on the surface, was given a legal deep finish.  It was executed under the guidance – supposedly – of a UN Security Council resolution. It has the cri de coeur flourish of a scatterbrained French philosopher promising stains on the French flag if French missiles were not deployed.

The current Libyan state, if it even deserves to be called that name, sees escalating food prices, electricity cuts, and the disappearance of critical media – up to 14 journalists were assassinated last year – and an overall sense of institutional collapse.[1]  The education system has all but vanished, with parents attempting to school their children at home.

International powers, as they have been doing since 2011, have been dirtying their noses in backing the assortment of militias that proliferated like fungi after the dictatorship collapsed. Qatar is providing backing for self-declared rulers in Tripoli, generally consisting of a coalition of militias termed Libya Dawn.  Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, have aligned themselves with the Libyan National Army, led by Khalifa Haftar.

Haftar, who only last year left his home in northern Virginia, is adopting the tactic of secular stomping: bashing extremism by being a touch extremist in his own techniques.  This is fitting, providing a sense of redux perversity: it was Haftar who, as an army cadet, participated in Qaddafi’s coup against the Libyan monarchy in 1969.  But Qaddafi’s flattery of the cadet’s skills was nowhere to be seen when he was disavowed as a prisoner of war, captured in disastrous encounters with the troops of Chad in 1987.[2]

There are now suggestions that Libya is poised to become the next “gateway” in terms of ISIL’s campaign, a possible means of threatening Europe from the south. The British anti-extremist group Quilliam is posing the greatest of nightmares for advocates of security and refugees – the promise that fighters may use people trafficking vessels, thereby gaining access to European states.  (The idea is daft in its futile dangerousness, but the very fact that it is being floated is worth nothing.)

Egypt’s ambassador to the UK, Nasser Kamel, has also done his best to rattle nerves with suggestions that the increased number of refugees from north Africa pose a threat to European security, which is another way of suggesting that if you don’t assist such questionable regimes as those in Cairo, your own security is set for the chop.  “Those boat people who go for immigration purposes and try to cross the Mediterranean… in the next few weeks, if we do not act together, they will be boats full of terrorists also.”[3]

Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, in an interview with a French radio station, has also called for a UN-backed military operation in light of the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians by associates of the Islamic State.[4]  The Egyptian president is also acutely aware of the large population of Egyptian workers stationed in Libya.

Kamel, despite stoking the interventionist flames, did make a valid point about the chaos in Libya.  “I think after toppling Qaddafi, while no one is questioning that he was a dictator, we as an international community, especially those that intervened militarily, did not put enough resources (in) for developing a modern, democratic, Libyan state.”

To that end, it all seems rather rich to see the statement, issued by the United States, France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Britain, that emphasises how the current forces of disruption “will not be allowed to condemn Libya to chaos and extremism”.  In what seems to be mere diplomatic piffle, the signatories insist that such forces will “be held… accountable by the Libyan people and the international community for their actions” (The Washington Post, Feb 17).

Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, added a good dose of sauce to the cant with his statement that the world was clearly “better off” without Qaddafi at the helm.  The reason?  Qaddafi had been a key figure in arming the IRA with explosives during the period of the troubles.  Instead, what Britain was doing was “giving Libya support through our aid budget.  We gave a major training project for the Libyan security forces” (The Telegraph, Feb 17).  Such sanctimonious attitudes have been typical for powers in the aftermath of regime change: we are doing our very best to stem the slide into vicious oblivion with “training budgets” and aid.

The latest contribution by Jon Lee Anderson for The New Yorker (Feb 23) simply affirms what we already knew in accounts of the immediate aftermath of post-Qaddafi Libya. It is a description of a state that is not so much failing as failed, crumbling over claims made by two competing governments, rampant militias, the dwindling of oil revenues, and the deaths of some three thousand people in the last year.  “What has followed the downfall of a tyrant – a downfall encouraged by NATO airstrikes – is the tyranny of a dangerous and pervasive instability.”

It is not an instability that will tolerate an occupation regime, or an intervention force based upon the principles of humanitarian restoration.  That, after all, had been attempted – with calamitous results. Europe, the United States, and Libya’s neighbours, are now reaping the whirlwind.

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

Notes:

With a general election looming in the United Kingdom and Spain possibly following Greece’s revolt against austerity later this year, we need to think, not just who or what we are voting for, but why we should vote at all.

People are suffering from a deficiency which is as unbalancing as a hormone or vitamin deficiency.  What we are severely lacking in is democracy.  Many of those pondering on the state of politics feel unhappy and somehow depleted.  They haven’t yet realised it is democracy that’s lacking because they have believed what so many politicians have told them, over and over again:

“We live in a democracy.  Now exercise your democratic right and vote for us.”

But what is the point of voting if, no matter who you vote for, what you get is the same old, same old?  Who do the British vote for in May, if none of the candidates can seriously offer what we want?

Members of Parliament – or some of them – are becoming worried about voter ‘apathy’.  The implication is that it is our fault we are not interested in their politics.  There was a debate in Westminster Hall on 5 February – on ‘voter engagement’.

These figures were quoted: 7.5 million people were not registered to vote last year.  This year 8.5 million are not registered (with a projected 17 million by July, because of changes in registration rules), mostly not because they couldn’t care less but because, in the words of MP Graham Allen:

“They are not connected with our democracy at all… those people have turned away from politics not because of any recent issues, but because they do not feel that it can do anything for them or that it is relevant to them… If the current trend continues, I am afraid that our democracy itself could be threatened.”

But what is ‘our democracy’ that we have turned away from?  38 Degrees surveyed its members on what they thought was wrong with the UK political system.  Over 80,000 responded and in March 2014 David Babbs presented the results to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.  Asked what would make them turn out and vote, the most popular response was having a “None of the above” box on the ballot paper.  In other words they wanted to vote, they wanted their votes counted, but they also wanted to deliver a vote of no confidence in the current system.

There is a murmur that this would be discussed in Parliament – but not until 2016.  Of course Westminster will argue that we can’t have such a vote because it might produce a result that was in support of no party at all; and we must have a government, even if it is one we don’t want; and let’s forget that Belgium survived for some time without a government.

The concept of ‘democracy’ has been used to curtail both our freedom and our independence of thought.

But is that concept, so blithely used by our leaders, truly what is meant by democracy?  Or is it just a word where many party-politicians are concerned, not a principle by which to live.  The ‘democratic right to vote’ is worthless if it doesn’t produce democracy, nor does having a vote necessarily mean you live in a democratic society.

Where did this all start?  The beginnings of democracy came out of Athens, an independent city-state.  Athens – the home of Socrates, Plato and other philosophers.  It is worth remembering that while some of the best philosophical advances came out of their discussions in the Agora, Athens was fighting a 20-year war with Sparta, something pretty well absent in Plato’s later Socratic writing.  These days fighting wars is accompanied by discussions based on propaganda, and there is no love of wisdom in that.

The Athenians labelled the different types of government thus: there was monarchy, the rule by one person and/or royal family; tyranny, the illegal or usurped monarchy; oligarchy, rule by those few with power; and demagoguey, rule of the people, by the people, for the people – what we now think of as democracy.

Democracy comes from ‘demos’ or ‘deme’, the Greek word for ‘village’. The deme was the smallest administrative unit of the Athenian city-state.  And there, essentially, is the key.  Democracy belongs to the little people and their communities, not Washington or Westminster.  And because there are now such large populations everywhere, the administrative area has become too large to be governed by anything other than draconian methods.  The connection ‘of, by and for the people’ has been broken.

Athenians didn’t vote; they chose by lot.  That did mean that sometimes they got a lousy lot of men governing, but that was balanced by occasionally getting a really good council – of men.  Of course, of men.  Only citizens’ names went into the pot; landless men, slaves and women didn’t come into it.  Not that much of a democracy, but a beginning.

Should we chose by lot?  Perhaps not.  But on a purely local level there is an argument to be made for selecting our representatives rather than electing people who put themselves forward or are chosen by political parties.  The Zapatistas, from the Chiapas area of Mexico, are known for reaching decisions by consensus, community by community, as well as selecting their representatives.

The benefit is that those selected are there to represent the majority view of their community, rather than a party’s agenda.  For one of the things that British voters are saying is that MPs do not represent their views, and too often the party agenda has little to do with, or is even damaging to the area the MP represents.

Almost all governments counted as democracies are really oligarchies, government by the few; the few being a political class backed by money and corporate power.  Real democracies aren’t rich in money; they are rich in people and values.

Many ‘democracies’ end up being dominated by two main parties, right and left, Tory and Labour, Republican and Democrat and so on.  To an outsider, there is little difference to be seen between America’s Republicans and Democrats.  In Britain, the Tories, Labour and the LibDems (fast melting away into a miserable little puddle of their own making) are all claiming the centre ground.  No one seems to have realised that the centre ground itself has moved to the right.  Not for nothing has the Scottish Labour Party earned the name ‘Red Tories’.  It is now hard to find a genuinely left mainstream party.  The Scottish National Party, the Green Party and the Welsh Plaid Cymru are getting there but all are hampered by party-political thinking.

A party-political system can be very divisive.  For a start, it demands that people take sides.  It is an adversarial system that pits interests against each other instead of finding common ground.  It becomes almost impossible for independent candidates, no matter how worthy, to be elected.  Parties demand loyalty over and above an MP’s conscience.  It is difficult to do anything but toe the party line, and that line can be very dogmatic and narrow in vision.  Westminster’s party whips rule when instead they should be got rid of.  The Parliamentary Select Committees have come out with some eye-popping reports since party whips were shown the door.

Parties also have ‘party values’ which are of course ‘better’ than those of other parties.  Prime Minister David Cameron is strong on values.  More than once he has claimed that “Britain is a Christian country” and that we should all follow Christian values.  How can he urge that considering some of the cruel policies his government has put in place?  And anyway, what specifically are the ‘Christian values’ he says we should live by?  In bringing them into the conversation, isn’t there an assumption they are different, not to say superior, to those held by Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or aboriginal peoples?

If it isn’t Christian values, it’s ‘British values’.  Children should be taught them in school, though the textbook has still to be written.  Politicians talk vaguely about ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ yet can give no justification for these values being particularly British.  I suspect that the ‘British’ values at the back of Cameron’s mind were born out of and promoted by the British Empire.  One only has to read late Victorian and Edwardian boys’ fiction to see the process: never surrendering to the ‘enemy’, remaining at one’s post while facing screaming hordes of ‘natives’, the stiff upper lip and so on.  British values were built out of remaining in control of oneself while controlling ‘the natives’ in the Empire and Colonies.  It’s what being British was all about. Rule Britannia!

And what with English Votes for English Laws, another distracting result of the Scottish Referendum, how long will it be before Cameron and his cabinet ask us to uphold ‘English values’, happily ignoring the Welsh and the Northern Irish, let alone the independently-minded Scots?  Values as promoted by political leaders are the values of the ruling class – because political leaders see themselves as the ruling class.  And that is the problem that we voters have to solve.

We could all hold and live by good and moral values.  But those values are universal.  They do not belong to this religion or that, this nationality or that.  They do not even belong exclusively to the human race.  A lifetime dealing with animals has shown me how generous, caring, altruistic and ethical animals can be.  There are times when I think that we humans are only superior in one way – our ability to delude ourselves.

So how is this for delusion?

The Minister for the Constitution Sam Gyimah wrapped up the Westminster Hall debate.  (Did you know we had a Minister for the Constitution?  He is responsible for constitutional reform. As the UK doesn’t have a written constitution, one wonders quite what he does, and what bits of paper he shuffles.)  He came out with this:

“Scotland had a huge turnout in the referendum…  The reason was that people were motivated, excited and engaged with the issues.  Introducing more electoral innovation might make voters’ lives easier, but it is not a substitute for us politicians doing our work to connect properly with people, to engage with them and, after all, to get them to turn out to vote for us.” (my emphasis)

And the Electoral Commission told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:

“As we have seen in Scotland with the historic turnout at the referendum on independence, individuals will register and turn out to vote when they are inspired by the debate and are convinced of the importance of the issues at stake.  Politicians and political parties must be at the forefront of this engagement.”

Isn’t it time that we the people were at the forefront?  If we really want democracy, surely that is where we must stand.

This week, a top American climate researcher – Professor Alan Robock from Rutgers – says that the CIA is looking into weather modification as a form of warfare.

The Independent reports:

A senior American climate scientist has spoken of the fear he experienced when US intelligence services apparently asked him about the possibility of weaponising the weather as a major report on geo-engineering is to be published this week.

Professor Alan Robock stated that three years ago, two men claiming to be from the CIA had called him to ask whether experts would be able to tell if hostile forces had begun manipulating the US’s weather, though he suspected the purpose of the call was to find out if American forces could meddle with other countries’ climates instead.

During a debate on the use of geo-engineering to combat climate change, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, Prof Robock said: “I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we’d like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we know about it?

”I told them, after thinking a little bit, that we probably would because if you put enough material in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight we would be able to detect it and see the equipment that was putting it up there.

“At the same time I thought they were probably also interested in if we could control somebody else’s climate, could they detect it?”

Professor Robock, who has investigated the potential risks and benefits of using stratospheric particles to simulate the climate-changing effects of volcanic eruptions, said he felt “scared” when the approach was made.

“I’d learned of lots of other things the CIA had done that haven’t followed the rules and I thought that wasn’t how I wanted my tax money spent. I think this research has to be in the open and international so there isn’t any question of it being used for hostile purposes.”

***

Professor Robock’s concerns come as a major report on geo-engineering is to be published this week by the US National Academy of Sciences. Among the report’s list of sponsors is the “US intelligence community”, which includes Nasa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Department of Energy.

The professor alleges that the CIA told a colleague of his that it wanted to fund the report, but claimed that it did not want this fact to be too obvious – he added that the CIA is “a major funder” of the report which “makes me really worried about who is going to be in control”.

He claimed the US government had a proven history of using the weather in a hostile way, citing the action of seeding clouds during the Vietnam War to muddy the Ho Chi Minh foot-trail and attempt to cut it off, as it was used as a supply route but the north Vietnamese.

He claimed the CIA had also seeded clouds over Cuba “to make it rain and ruin the sugar harvest”.

Professor Robock may sound like a nutcase … but he’s actually sane, and his concerns are well-founded.

The Guardian reported in 2001:

During the Vietnam war, the Americans launched Project Popeye, a secret mission to seed the tops of monsoon clouds and trigger phenomenal downpours that would wash away the Ho Chi Minh Trail used for ferrying supplies.

For five years Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were sprayed during the monsoons, and military intelligence claimed that rainfall was increased by a third in some places. It only came to an end in March 1971 when [Washington Post] journalist Jack Anderson exposed the project and caused such a public furor that the UN general assembly approved a universal treaty banning environmental warfare.

Interestingly, U.S. weather modification efforts during the Vietnam war were revealed as part of the Pentagon Papers.

The Washington Post reported on July 2, 1972:

Indochina – by the evidence of a long-ignored passage in the Pentagon Papers – has been a test battleground, the site of purposeful rain-making along the Ho Chi Minh trails.

***

Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.) is prominent among members of Congress who believe it has become a reality. “There is very little doubt in my mind,” he says. Rep. Gilbert Gude (R-Md.) states: “There’s no doubt in my mind that it’s going on in Vietnam.”

“I think there’s no doubt rain-making was used in Laos on the trail,” says a Senate committee aide well versed in defense affairs.

***

It is a “successful” pre-1967 use which is documented in the “senator Gravel” version of the Pentagon papers. In late February, 1967, this document discloses the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a list of “alternative strategies” for President Johnson.

One, titled “Laos Operations”, read:

“Continue at present plus Operation Pop Eye to reduce trafficability along infiltration routes … authorization required to implement phase of weather modification process previously successfully tested and evaluated in same area ….

In 1967 — according to columnist Jack Anderson, who published the first allegation of Indochina rain-making — U.S. forces started secret Project Intermediary Compatriot “to hamper enemy logistics” … (with) claimed success in creating man-made cloudbursts … and flooding conditions” along the Ho Chi Minh trails, “making them impassable.”

The Post makes clear that cloud-seeding wasn’t limited to the Vietnam war theater:

The Defense Department freely reports that it has “field capacities” for making rain. It used them in the Philippines in 1969, in a six-month “precipitation augmentation project” at the Philippines request; in India in 1967, at a similar invitation; over Okinawa and Midway Islands, and in June, July and August, 1971, over drought-stricken Texas, at the urgent request of Gov. Preston Smith.

***

Navy rain-makers are currently involved in two long-range California programs — one over the Pacific off Santa Barbara, an attempt to increase rainfall over a national forest; the other over the Central Sierras to try to increase the snow-pack for electric utilities that depend on water power.

The Post also quoted high-level scientists warning that enemies could modify weather as a direct form of warfare, for example, by flooding coastal areas where one’s enemy resided.  And – as the Post notes – even in 1972, the government was studying the affect of counter-measures to weather warfare:

ARPA Director Stephen J. Lukasik told the Senate Appropriations Committee in March: “Since it now appears highly probable that major world powers have the ability to create modifications of climate that might be seriously detrimental to the security of this country, Nile Blue [a computer simulation] was established in FY 70 to achieve a US capability to (1) evaluate all consequences of of a variety of possible actions … (2) detect trends in in the global circulation which foretell changes … and (3) determine if possible , means to counter potentially deleterious climatic changes …”

“What this means,” Lukasik explains, “is learning how much you have to tickle the atmosphere to perturb the earth’s climate. I guess we’d call it a threat assessment.”

The Boston Globe noted in 2005:

A few years ago, a team led by the late Edward Teller [the creator of the nuclear bomb] suggested creating a similar effect by launching a million tons of tiny aluminum balloons into the atmosphere.

***

The US military, unsurprisingly, was intrigued by the possibility of a godlike meteorological arsenal. According to Spencer Weart, a physicist and historian of science at the American Institute of Physics, the thinking in the Defense Department was “maybe we’ll give the Russians a real Cold War, or maybe they’ll give us one, so we should be ready.” Pentagon money funded much of the era’s climate research, helping to create the weather models we now use in forecasting. War gamers dreamed up climatological warfare scenarios like laying down a blanket of fog over an airfield or visiting drought upon an enemy’s breadbasket.

***

A 1996 Air Force report entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” argued that “the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril.”

Here is a copy of the Air Force study “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025″.

The Technology Has Advanced Far Beyond Seeding Clouds With Silver Iodide

The technology has advanced a long way since the early 1970s.

For example, the Telegraph reported in 2011 that Abu Dhabi ‘creates man-made rainstorms’ by “using giant ionisers, shaped like giant lampshades, to generate fields of negatively charged particles, which create cloud formation.” “There are many applications,” Professor Hartmut Grassl, a former institute director, is quoted by the Daily Mail as saying. “One is getting water into a dry area. Maybe this is a most important point for mankind.”

The Guardian reported in 2001:

The US air force planners recently came up with new proposals to launch new weather weapons. Instead of silver-iodide, the idea is to shower fine particles of heat-absorbing carbon over clouds to trigger localised flooding and bog down troops and their equipment. Lasers on aircraft would also trigger lightning onto enemy aircraft, whilst other lasers could be fired at fog to clear a path over enemy targets on the ground.

Former secretary of defense William Cohen told a conference on terrorism on April 28, 1997:

Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

The American Institute of Physics (the organization mentioned above in the Boston Globe article)provides an interesting overview of the history of weather modification:

From 1945 into the 1970s, much effort went into studies of weather modification. American entrepreneurs tried cloud-seeding to enhance local rainfall, Russian scientists offered fabulous schemes of planetary engineering, and military agencies secretly explored “climatological warfare.”

***

At the close of the Second World War, a few American scientists brought up a troublesome idea. If it were true, as some claimed, that humans were inadvertently changing their local weather by cutting down forests and emitting pollution, why not try to modify the weather on purpose? For generations there had been proposals for rainmaking, based on folklore like the story that cannonades from big battles brought rain.

Now top experts began to take the question seriously…. At the end of 1945 a brilliant mathematician, John von Neumann, called other leading scientists to a meeting in Princeton, where they agreed that modifying weather deliberately might be possible. They expected that could make a great difference in the next war. Soviet harvests, for example, might be ruined by creating a drought. Some scientists suspected that alongside the race with the Soviet Union for ever more terrible nuclear weapons, they were entering an equally fateful race to control the weather. As the Cold War got underway, U.S. military agencies devoted significant funds to research on what came to be called “climatological warfare.”

***

In 1953 a President’s Advisory Committee on Weather Control was established to pursue the idea. In 1958, the U.S. Congress acted directly to fund expanded rainmaking research. Large-scale experimentation was also underway, less openly, in the Soviet Union.

Military agencies in the U.S. (and presumably in the Soviet Union) supported research not only on cloud seeding but on other ways that injecting materials into the atmosphere might alter weather. Although much of this was buried in secrecy, the public learned that climatological warfare might become possible. In a 1955 Fortune magazine article, von Neumann himself explained that “Microscopic layers of colored matter spread on an icy surface, or in the atmosphere above one, could inhibit the reflection-radiation process, melt the ice, and change the local climate.” The effects could be far-reaching, even world-wide. “What power over our environment, over all nature, is implied!” he exclaimed. Von Neumann foresaw “forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined,” perhaps more dangerous than nuclear war itself. 

As such, it is vital that weather warfare not be allowed to spiral out of control.

I parse the Russian media (corporate and social) on a daily basis and I am always amazed at the completely different way the issue of western sanctions is discussed.  I think that it is important and useful for me to share this with those of you who do not speak Russian.

First, nobody in Russia believes that the sanctions will be lifted.  Nobody.  Of course, all the Russian politicians say that sanctions are wrong and not conducive to progress, but these are statements for external consumption.  In interviews for the Russian media or on talk shows, there is a consensus that sanctions will never be lifted no matter what Russia does.

Second, nobody in Russia believes that sanctions are a reaction to Crimea or to the Russian involvement in the Donbass.  Nobody.  There is a consensus that the Russian policy towards Crimea and the Donbass are not a cause, but a pretext for the sanctions.  The real cause of the sanctions is unanimously identified as what the Russians called the “process of sovereignization”, i.e. the fact that Russia is back, powerful and rich, and that she dares openly defy and disobey the “Axis of Kindness”.

Third, there is a consensus in Russia that the correct response to the sanctions is double: a) an external realignment of the Russian economy away from the West and b) internal reforms which will make Russia less dependent on oil exports and on the imports of various goods and technologies.

Fourth, nobody blames Putin for the sanctions or for the resulting hardships.  Everybody fully understands that Putin is hated by the West not for doing something wrong, but for doing something right.  In fact, Putin’s popularity is still at an all-time high.

Fifth, there is a wide agreement that the current Russian vulnerability is the result of past structural mistakes which now must be corrected, but nobody suggests that the return of Crimea to Russia or the Russian support for Novorussia were wrong or wrongly executed.

Finally, I would note that while Russia is ready for war, there is no bellicose mood at all.  Most Russians believe that the US/NATO/EU don’t have what it takes to directly attack Russia, they believe that the junta in Kiev is doomed and they believe that sending the Russian tanks to Kiev (or even Novorussia) would have been a mistake.

The above is very important because if you consider all these factors you can come to an absolutely unavoidable conclusion: western sanctions have exactly zero chance of achieving any change at all in Russian foreign policy and exactly zero chance of weakening the current regime.  In fact, if anything, these sanctions strengthen the Eurasian Sovereignists by allowing them to blame all the pain of economic reforms on the sanctions and they weaken the Atlantic Integrationists by making any overt support for, or association with, the West a huge political liability.

But the Eurocretins in Brussels don’t care I suppose, as long as they feel relevant or important, even if it is only in their heads.

The Saker

The Russian President’s visit last week to Egypt signified that both countries are eager to restore the closeness of their former Nasser-era ties. The deepening partnership between the two has the possibility to qualitatively transform the region, with the ‘Arab Yugoslavia’ serving as a conduit for advancing Russian interests at the expense of the two main powers over the region, the US and Saudi Arabia. On a larger scale, this means that Egypt has become the third springboard for projecting Russian foreign policy in the Mideast, with all of the resultant multipolar aftereffects for the previously unipolar-dominated region.

Washington’s Worry

Al-Sisi is playing a very strategic game in balancing his relations between Washington and Moscow, with the aim that closer ties with the latter will lead to a better arrangement with the former. The world is arguably in the throes of a ‘New Cold War’, just this time, instead of being between capitalism and communism, it’s being played out between unipolarity and multipolarity. The US used to hold the cards in Cairo under Mubarak, but after betraying their old and aging ally in the interests of guiding an inevitable leadership transition, they ended up on the wrong side of history when their Muslim Brotherhood proxy was overthrown by al-Sisi.

Understandably, the current president harbors no illusions about the US’ treacherous nature, yet he also knows that it’s not wise (nor possible) to completely break ties with the country, especially when he’s being patronized by the pro-US Gulf States. Under these conditions and in the context of the unfolding ‘New Cold War’, al-Sisi has sought to engage in a more pragmatic and balanced relationship with all major regional and global players, hoping that this policy can reap the greatest dividends for his country. This makes Egypt but one of many pivotal countries currently engaging in multipolar policies, placing it among the likes of Vietnam, India, and Turkey, for example.

Egypt Russia talk.

That being said, no matter how fair and balanced al-Sisi’s policies become, the US will always remain worried that Egypt is ‘drifting away’ from its orbit, as any movement closer to the multipolar world is a relative defeat for the unipolar one. The purpose of such an Egyptian policy pivot is to heighten the country’s importance in regional affairs and return it its former leadership position, which had been largely abandoned shortly after Nasser’s passing as a result of the submissive ‘alliance’ with the US and Israel. A strong Egypt safe from American domination is one that cannot be fully controlled by Washington, and which in turn becomes a regional ‘loose cannon’ that could obstruct America’s regional ‘management’.

With the Egyptian eagle now spreading its multipolar wings, it has come to realize that full dependency on any one patron places it in a position of extreme vulnerability, ergo the country’s delicate political recalibration towards the Gulf Kingdoms and Russia and away from the US. Per the Eurasian vector, Moscow has a calculated interest in seeing a strong, multipolar Egypt restore order and stability to the Mideast and act as a buffer against unipolar designs (either directly or via proxy), which helps explain the current and close confluence of strategic interests between the two states. As for the Gulf orientation, Egypt is in a unique position to bring together Saudi Arabia and Russia and assist in the resolution of the Syrian and Oil War crises that have crippled bilateral relations, which if successful, would be yet another strategic setback for American policy in the Mideast.

Settling Russia’s Disputes With The Saudis

While strategy and theory were spoken about earlier, now it’s time to look into the specifics of how al-Sisi can act as the Mideast’s true middleman. Saudi Arabia and Russia have absolutely divergent stances on the Syrian Crisis and the oil price war, and the only country capable of helping to bridge the divide is Egypt, which has been courted by them both in the past year and a half. Let’s take a look at the details:

The War On Syria:
Russia supports the popular and democratically elected government of President Bashar Assad, while Saudi Araba is rabid about supporting regime change at all costs (including a terrorist takeover). Egypt, despite being the recipient of billions of dollars of Gulf largesse, actually opposes the Saudis’ policies there, largely due to the aforementioned fact that al-Sisi is opposed to terrorism (which includes the Qatar-sponsored Muslim Brotherhood, to say nothing of ISIL). His independent views pose no threat to the Saudis since they’re not backed by any military action against their interests (such as arms shipments to the Syrian Arab Army), hence why they haven’t disowned him and cut off the purse strings. Not only that, but Egypt is reemerging as such a pivotal state in regional affairs that it’s not likely the Saudis would jeopardize their relations with it simply over al-Sisi’s stance on Syria, with or without weapons shipments to the government there. Even if they wanted to, the only real lever of influence they could pull is to support terrorist groups in Egypt, but al-Sisi has been categorically wiping them out since he came to power, which thereby mitigates the overall impact of this destabilizing option. Of course, the Saudis and associated Gulf proxies could stop funding the country, but then al-Sisi would simply move even closer to Russia and the BRICS countries (just like Greece has threatened to do if the EU cuts it off) in an effort to replace the lost investment, which would represent a larger strategic loss for Riyadh than allowing Cairo to practice an independent Syrian policy.

In such a position, the Saudis are forced to acquiesce to al-Sisi’s recent moves to consolidate the Syrian ‘opposition’. While on the surface such a move seems to support the Saudi’s strategy, in reality, something very different is taking shape that can actually sabotage it and pave the way for peace in Syria. Russia and Egypt are in fact engaged in complementary diplomacy in bringing together the two factions of the Syrian ‘opposition’ with the end intention of lessening Western and Gulf control over them and hopefully facilitating a reasonable accommodation with Damascus.Moscow is assembling the non-terrorist anti-government opposition (NTAGO) per its recent Inter-Syrian Dialogue, while Cairo is gathering all the others. Putin and al-Sisi have asserted their joint opposition to terrorism and their will to peacefully resolve the Syrian Crisis, so it’s clear that both countries are coordinating their policies on these two burning topics.

That being said, Egypt can thus act as a bridge in bringing together Saudi Arabia’s proxies (if not directly co-opting them as much as possible) and the legitimate government in Damascus, while Russia does the same on the NTAGO side of things. It could perhaps even come to pass that if both ‘opposition’ factions can be consolidated via Cairo and Moscow’s diplomacy, then they can find a way to actually merge into a semi-unified entity that would be more pliable (and reasonable) towards reaching a peaceful settlement to end the country’s crisis. The more successful that Egypt is in diluting Saudi control over its proxies, filtering out the radical elements, and moderating/taming the remaining representatives, the more likely this scenario becomes, although it is certainly quite difficult to achieve and still a long time away. Nonetheless, if al-Sisi can pull this off, he can skyrocket his country’s role in the Mideast, assert his true multipolar independence from Saudi Arabia, and still continue to interact with all of the major players in the region, albeit on a more respected ground.

The Oil War:
Unlike the War on Syria, where Egypt has some crafty diplomatic cards that it can play, when it comes to the Oil War, no such advantages are held by Cairo. Instead, its position in resolving the War on Syria (which is to Saudi Arabia’s detriment) is enough to earn Riyadh’s attention, which in turn can be redirected towards speaking with Russia behind closed doors. In order to do that, however, Saudi Arabia needs to have a motivation, which it currently lacks. Once more, this is where Egypt’s new Syrian stance can come in, since it meshes perfectly with what Russia is doing (and is the opposite of Saudi Arabia’s approach) and could thus serve as reason enough to bring the two sides together. If Russian and Saudi diplomats begin discussing their disputes over each other’s preferred methods for conflict resolution in Syria, then the Russian side can take the initiative to also speak on the oil issue. Although it’s unlikely that Saudi Arabia would alter the contentious energy course that it’s embarked on, it’s always better to have some avenues for dialogue (no matter how vague and possibly premature) than to not have the opportunity at all, which is exactly the void that Egypt could fill in this situation.

It must be said that the Syrian issue is only a means for bringing Russia and Saudi Arabia together to discuss the Oil War, and it is not to infer in any way whatsoever that Russia would ever sacrifice Syria for the sake of higher energy prices (as the New York Times falsely alleged was possible).Not only has Russia categorically denied that this would ever happen, but it would be completely counterproductive to all of Russia’s multipolar inroads that it’s made in the Mideast over the past decade, to say nothing of betraying it’s only time-tested ally. No matter that, the corrupt Saudi political establishment (which knows no moral, ethical, or principled boundaries) may still think that such a deal is possible, hence why they may want to speak directly with Russia using Egypt as a dialogue channel in facilitating their wishes. This is precisely the scenario that Russia is looking for, namely that its stance on Syria (which is unfettering and solid) is used as ‘bait’ to lure the self-interested Saudis into reaching out to them and using Egypt as an enabling vehicle.

It’s not important that such talks will probably result in no progress at all – instead, the key points are that Russia has established an indirect dialogue channel with the Saudis, and namely, that it’s using Egypt to do this. Cairo’s importance to Riyadh would thus be even more elevated, with the (failed) secret Russian-Saudi talks serving its own interests more so than the other two players’. But taken another way, everything makes sense, since Egypt’s ‘reward’ for working with Russia on Syria (despite the existing commonality of interests to do so) would be for Russia to find a way to make Egypt more independent from Saudi Arabia, and simultaneously, more important to it. This would present a win-win situation for Russian-Egyptian relations and deepen their emerging strategic partnership. Remember, power and influence projection in this case only works in one direction, that of Russia against Saudi Arabia vis-à-vis Egypt, as it is not at all foreseeable that Saudi Arabia would be able to use Egypt to pressure Russia in the same way. Such a reality only underscores the natural and complementary nature of Russian-Egyptian ties in pursuing a more multipolar order in the Mideast.

Springboards To Reverse The ‘Arab Spring’

Russia’s expanded relations with Egypt amount to the country becoming Moscow’s third springboard of regional influence, alongside Syria and Iran, with all four players intent on reversing the chaos brought about by the ‘Arab Spring’ Color Revolutions. While the role of Syria and Iran in bringing about this shared regional vision has been expostulated upon in an earlier article, this section will look specifically at Egypt’s piece in the larger puzzle.

Signing of bilateral documents after Egypt Russia talks.

Russia and Egypt signed a slew of bilateral agreements during Putin’s visit, including most importantly a Free Trade Agreement with the Eurasian Union and plans for Russia to build a nuclear power plant in the country. The strategic nature of these agreements is of pivotal significance, since it symbolizes that relations are deeper than meet the eye and that strong diplomatic activity was ongoing prior to the meeting that helped bring such major deals to fruition. Therefore, one can take it that Russian-Egyptian ties have been steadily advancing away from the intrusive eyes of the public, making one wonder what other levels of political calibration are currently ongoing.

To conjecture a bit, one can speculate that these likely entail Syria (as mentioned above), and perhaps even al-Sisi’s new War on Terror against ISIL in Libya, as it’s unlikely that strikes were a spur-of-the-moment emotional reaction. What is more probable is that Egypt had been contemplating such moves for some time (as they were already earlier suspected of having carried out secret strikes there last year), and that al-Sisi notified Putin of his moves during the latter’s visit last week. After all, understanding that there is more to Russian-Egyptian relations than both sides publicly let on, and examining their joint anti-terror statements, it’s logical to conclude that such an interaction took place. Should it have, then it would demonstrate the deep level of trust that both sides have in the other, which would further their cooperative efforts in Syria. Also, Putin supports legal anti-terror campaigns that are coordinated with the host state, and with the official Libyan government having requested international support in the past, al-Sisi’s legal War on ISIL stands in stark contrast to the illegal one that the US and its buddies are waging in Syria against the will and outside the coordination of Damascus. Russia thus supports an empowered Egypt that is confident enough to assert its security interests outside its borders (and in a legal fashion), which makes it both a stronger multipolar player and a more capable contender for regional leadership, thereby satisfying both partner’s strategic interests in helping to restore order to the chaotic post-‘Arab Spring’ Middle East.

Concluding Thoughts

Russian-Egyptian ties are on the cusp of returning to their close and coordinated Nasser-era level, albeit the primary difference is that Cairo is also seeking to simultaneously emulate this model with other players in the multipolar world. Even so, this symbolizes a tectonic shift in Mideast geopolitics, since the most populous Arab nation and one-time regional leader is once more rising to the occasion to chart an independent course separate from the US’ interests. There are still many more complicated and convoluted moves to be made before this ambitious goal is reached, but it’s indisputable that Egypt under President al-Sisi is intent on restoring his country’s lost pride and regional role, and that Russia is actively assisting with its geopolitical rebirth. This presents enormous opportunities for Russia as it seeks to usher in the transition to global multipolarity, and Egypt is the right partner that it needs in order to fulfill this vision for the Mideast.

Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow, exclusively for ORIENTAL REVIEW.

Wherever America intervenes, failed states follow. Pro-Western stooge regimes replace sitting governments.

They fail to provide essential functions, services and/or responsibilities required of sovereign independent ones.

Failed state examples include Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Haiti, Honduras, Somalia, Yemen and Ukraine. Syria’s government maintains power despite having lost control of much of its territory.

Wikipedia lists the following characteristics of failed states:

“Loss of control of its territory, or the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein.”

“Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions.”

“Inability to provide public services.”

“Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.”

“(W)idespread corruption and criminality.”

“(I)nvoluntary movement of populations” creating huge numbers of refugees.

“(E)conomic decline.”

The Fund for Peace maintains an annual “Fragile States Index.” Characteristics include:

“Mounting demographic pressures.”

“Massive displacement of refugees, creating severe humanitarian emergencies.”

“Widespread vengeance-seeking group grievances.”

“Chronic and sustained human flight.”

“Uneven economic development along group lines.”

“Severe economic decline.”

“Criminalization and/or delegitimization of the state.”

“Suspension or arbitrary application of law; widespread human rights abuses;

“Security apparatus operating as ‘a state within a state.’ ”

“Rise of factionalized elites.”

“Intervention of external political agents.”

Chomsky argues “we should have little difficulty in finding the characteristics of ‘failed states’ right here at home.”

He calls America an out-of-control hegemon waging permanent wars on humanity under the pretext of “anticipatory self-defense” or “preventive war.”

Attacking any country it calls a threat to national security – real or invented. International, constitutional and US statute laws don’t matter.

Might makes right when America says so. Ultimate doom may be humanaity’s legacy if this monster isn’t stopped.

It operates under what Adam Smith called the “vile maxim of the masters of mankind: All for ourselves and nothing for other people.”

It’s willing to risk global war to achieve its objectives. Rogue state ruthlessness defines US policy. William Blum calls them “worse than you imagine.”

“If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy (throughout) the past century, this is what crawls out:”

“invasions, bombings, (subversion), overthrowing governments, suppressing (popular) movements for social change, assassinating political leaders, perverting elections, manipulating labor unions, manufacturing ‘news,’ death squads, torture, (chemical), biological (and nuclear) warfare, (radiological contamination), drug trafficking, mercenaries,” police state repression, and war on humanity writ large.

“It’s not a pretty picture,” says Blum. “It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.”

Ukraine is the latest example of rogue US policy. Its seriousness can’t be overstated.

It’s Obama’s war. Using Ukraine’s military as proxy forces to advance America’s imperium throughout Eurasia.

Minsk resolved nothing. Ceasefire is temporary at best. It’s largely (though not entirely) holding in some Donbass areas but not all.

The Colonel Cassad web site says it has “one foot in the grave.” Chances for peace are virtually nil. It’s just a matter of time before resumed conflict. Perhaps more intensely than before.

For sure, instigated by Kiev on Washington’s orders. US military, intelligence and other elements direct war policy from Kiev.

US heavy weapons continue pouring into Ukraine. NATO planes arrive regularly with shipments.

Kiev conscription continues despite thousands of Ukrainians refusing military service. Mobilization readies for resumed conflict at  Washington’s discretion.

On Monday, Putin, Merkel and Poroshenko discussed issues related to Minsk by phone. A Kremlin press release said:

“They discussed among other things the issues related to the ceasefire, the pullback of heavy armaments by the conflicting sides and the situation in the area of the southeastern town of Debaltsevo.”

They agreed on “concrete steps for OSCE (observers) to monitor” conditions on the ground.

Fighting for Debaltsevo continues. Resolving it isn’t included in Minsk terms. Both sides remain firm.

Kiev considers the city a major military asset close to Donetsk. Ukrainian propaganda depicts ongoing conflict as a heroic last stand.

Thousands of Kiev troops are surrounded. Effectively defeated. Rebels promised safety in return for surrendering and laying down their arms.

Standoff continues. It’s just a matter of time before Debaltsevo falls. How many more Ukrainian soldiers will die waging a futile battle remains to be seen.

DPR parliament Speaker Denis Pushilin was clear and unequivocal saying “(w)e do not have the right  (to stop fighting for Debaltsevo). It’s even a moral thing. It’s internal territory.”

On Tuesday, AP said both sides “failed…to start pulling back heavy weaponry from the front line…”

Kiev military spokesman Anatoliy Stelmakh blamed rebels for Ukrainian violations.

RT International reported sniper fire on Friday attacking its camera crew about 14 km from Debaltsevo.

Casualties were avoided. “We came under fire. Everyone is alright,” said correspondent Roman Kosarev.

RT’s Arabic journalist Anna Knishenko said they were fired on when trying to leave Uglegorsk.

Ukrainian snipers are everywhere, she said. Clearly identified press representatives are targeted.

RT correspondents were repeatedly attacked last year. Fyodor Zavaleykov was wounded in Mariupol.

Other attacks occurred in Kramatrosk, Lugansk, Donetsk, and Chetnukhino. RT is one of the few news services reporting from Donbas. Perhaps the world’s most dangerous place for journalists today.

Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal headlined “Ukraine’s Truce Fades in Fight for Key Town.”

Saying ceasefire in Debaltsevo “lasted all of 40 minutes.” A sign of things to come.

Heavy fighting around the strategic railway town “has become the biggest challenge” to fragile agreed on terms, said the Journal.

Western officials blame Putin for what’s ongoing. Despite his urging both sides to end fighting.

Rebels keep battering Kiev forces. Even The New York Times admitted they “lost on the battlefield.”

One Ukrainian soldier called conditions “a meat grinder. We didn’t even pick up the dead, just the injured,” he said.

“There’s no way out. It’s a double encirclement.” The area was cut off for days.

On Monday, 20 Ukrainian soldiers managed to escape. They avoided death or injuries driving two vehicles across fields. No one else got out on Monday.

Debaltsevo reflects the struggle for Donbas sovereignty. One Ukrainian soldier said “(s)ooner or later (full-scale conflict) will start again.”

“It’s just a temporary ceasefire, not peace.” Before fighting ends, Ukraine may be destroyed altogether.

It’s already bankrupt. A failed state. With virtually no financial resources except IMF funds with strings.

Ukraine is “broke,” economist Michael Hudson explains. It practically exhausted its foreign reserves waging war it can’t win.

It “destroyed its (Donbass) industrial export and coal mining capacity…” It’s deeply in debt nearing insolvency.

According to Hudson, “Ukraine must meet conditions that seem almost impossible.”

It must comply with odious IMF terms amounting to turning Ukraine into a hollow shell. Looting it for profit.

At the same time, IMF chief Christine Lagarde says funds won’t be released without cessation of conflict.

Hudson believes Ukraine may be “the first step in the United States losing Europe. It may end up splitting European economic interests away from NATO…”

Playing America’s game amounts to shooting themselves in the foot. How long will they “acquiesce to this sacrifice,” Hudson asked?

At what point will internal interests override Washington’s? Hudson said Putin told Merkel and Hollande they had two choices.

On the one hand, join with Russia. Create a prosperous economic zone combining Moscow’s raw materials with European technology.

On the other, support US-dominated NATO’s Eastern European expansion “and draw Russia into war that will wipe it out.”

“Could Obama’s neocon strategy backfire and lose Europe,” asked Hudson? Will EU leaders act in their own self-interest and avoid WW III?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

The pro-GMO lobby always demands that its opponents produce scientific evidence to back up their claims. Parts of this lobby smear and attack people like Vandana Shiva, Professor G.E. Seralini and others for supposedly being incompetent, ‘liars’ or ideological/politically motivated (for example, read this piece on Shiva that calls her a liar, especially the part on farmer suicides – then see the evidence that Shiva provides to back up her claims here).

In its view, anti-GMO campaigners or certain scientists are ignorant, engage in bogus science or are ‘demagogues’ who use emotion and ideological rhetoric to sway opinion.

Let us address these accusations.

The pro-GMO lobby demands its opponents back up their (wild) claims with peer-reviewed studies.

Perhaps, just for a start, GMO supporters should read ‘An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of GM crops and food‘ and ‘Adverse impacts of transgenic crops/food: a compilation of scientific references with abstracts‘.

The pro-GMO lobby says the debate on GMOs is over because there is a scientific consensus on their efficacy among the ‘scientific community’.

Another bogus accusation. See here for evidence pertaining to a lack of consensus.

GMO supporters argue that GMOs can prevent hunger, while trendy ‘elitist’ activists are merely serving to steal the food from people’s mouths.

See here for the evidence that says GMOs are actually causing food insecurity, see here to discover that GMOs are not required to feed the hungry millions and see here to read that ‘eco farming’ is a much more suitable and sustainable strategy that could double food production within a decade. Also see this report based on the input of over 400 scientists that took four years to complete, which was twice peer reviewed, and states we must look to small-holder, traditional farming (not GMOs) to deliver food security in poorer countries through agri-ecological systems which are sustainable. Moreover, see here to read about the serious health impacts of GMO-driven agriculture and here to discover how GMO agribusiness is devastating communities and driving genocide and ecocide in South America.

The pro-GMO lobby asserts that it relies solely on peer-reviewed science and dispassionate reason.

While some contest the claims of Vandana Shiva pertaining to farmer suicides, which she supports with statistical evidence and correlations, they then call her a ‘liar’. A liar is someone who deliberately sets out to deceive. The evidence she supplies may or may not stack up, but that is open to ongoing debate and interpretation. But the same can be said of many of the studies that the pro-GMO lobby puts forward, which have been contested, see here and in this report here (go to section three of the report), on the basis of conclusions overstepping the evidence or inconvenient findings being dismissed as not significant when they are.

Aside from emotive name calling, where else does emotion, ideology or falsehood play a part in the pro-GMO lobby’s side of the debate? That’s clear to see if we look at this on Owen Patterson, this on Anne Glover and this on Kevin Folta. In fact, these aspects are quite commonplace.

On a more general level regarding ‘dispassionate reason’ informing the debate, see what former Monsanto boss in India said in this piece in India Today ‘Monsanto faked data for its approvals, claims ex-chief‘. See here to discover what method it used in Indonesia to force its products into that country. See here and here  to find out how the industry restricts access to its own research conducted on its products. See here to discover how it sidesteps science when its interests are threatened and to gain wider insight into how the GMO agritech sector is distorting scientific practice and debasing the ethos of science.

It seems to be a case of peer-reviewed science to support the anti-GMO case but ‘anything goes’, including science that is anything but open to public scrutiny or peer reviewed (see here), from GMO agritech.

And yet the onslaught by the GMO agritech industry and its mouthpieces against those who legitimately and scientifically contest the claims about the efficacy of GMOs is relentless.

Just ask Arpad Pusztai, P. M. Bhargava, Judy Carman, Terje Traavik, Andrés Carrasco, Ignacio Chapela, Allison Snow, Marc Lappé, Britt Bailey, Bela Darvas and G. E. Seralini. These scientists have all either been threatened, smeared or hindered in their work because their research called into question the safety and/or efficacy of GMOs or associated products (see this ‘GMO researchers attacked, evidence denied and apopulation at risk’).

Such tactics appear to come easy to the pro-GMO lobby. For instance, see here for a revealing description of how the GMO sector sets up front groups and fake identities with the sole aim of attacking scientists and activists or promoting its propaganda.

This is what happens to scientists who attempt to engage with the GMO issue on a scientific or rational level. The hypocrisy of those from the pro-GMO lobby who call for sound science to inform the debate on GMOs is glaringly obvious.

When GMO supporters mount personal attacks and accuse prominent anti-GMO campaigners of being liars, it is useful to ask what credibility they themselves have: for example, bearing in mind the attack on Vandana Shiva mentioned at the start, see this by Tom Philpott on the author of that particular smear piece.

When the GMO agritech sector and its supporters set out to attack others in the ways outlined here, it is a blatant tactic of psychological projection: a self-defence mechanism that denies the existence of such characteristics in itself, while attributing them to others. In other words, those who argue against GMOs are accused of not having science or facts on their side and of engaging in propaganda and lying, while it is clear the pro-GMO lobby that hurls such allegations is itself guilty of such things.

This diversionary tactic of projection goes hand in glove with a strident populist agenda whereby the pro-GMO lobby portrays itself as on the side of the people, while its opponents are ‘elitists’ and are ‘stealing food from the bellies of the poor’. This is a typical tactic of corporate propaganda.

Reality is being twisted to make opponents appear guilty of the things the pro-GMO lobby is engaging in, not least ‘elitism’ (for example, see this and this on how elite interests are seeking to control global agriculture).

Lace the tactics of projection and populism with an unhealthy dose of cheap, fallacious character assassination and you have the basis for a very transparent and predictable propaganda campaign.

See this short film ‘GMOs A Go Go’, which can be watched here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkionqWPc-Q

The fate of Ukraine is now shifting from the military battlefield back to the arena that counts most: that of international finance. Kiev is broke, having depleted its foreign reserves on waging war that has destroyed its industrial export and coal mining capacity in the Donbass (especially vis-à-vis Russia, which normally has bought 38 percent of Ukraine’s exports). Deeply in debt (with €3 billion falling due on December 20 to Russia), Ukraine faces insolvency if the IMF and Europe do not release new loans next month to pay for new imports as well as Russian and foreign bondholders.

Finance Minister Natalia Yaresko announced on Friday that she hopes to see the money begin to flow in by early March.[1] But Ukraine must meet conditions that seem almost impossible: It must implement an honest budget and start reforming its corrupt oligarchs (who dominate in the Rada and control the bureaucracy), implement more austerity, abolish its environmental protection, and make its industry “attractive” to foreign investors to buy Ukraine’s land, natural resources, monopolies and other assets, presumably at distress prices in view of the country’s recent devastation.

Looming over the IMF loan is the military situation. On January 28, Christine Lagarde said that the IMF would not release more money as long as Ukraine remains at war. Cessation of fighting was to begin Sunday morning. But Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh announced that his private army and that of the Azov Battalion will ignore the Minsk agreement and fight against Russian-speakers. He remains a major force within the Rada.

How much of Ukraine’s budget will be spent on arms? Germany and France made it clear that they oppose further U.S. military adventurism in Ukraine, and also oppose NATO membership. But will Germany follow through on its threat to impose sanctions on Kiev in order to stop a renewal of the fighting? For the United States bringing Ukraine into NATO would be the coup de grace blocking creation of a Eurasian powerhouse integrating the Russian, German and other continental European economies.

The Obama administration is upping the ante and going for broke, hoping that Europe has no alternative but to keep acquiescing. But the strategy is threatening to backfire. Instead of making Russia “lose Europe,” the United States may have overplayed its hand so badly that one can now think about the opposite prospect. The Ukraine adventure turn out to be the first step in the United States losing Europe. It may end up splitting European economic interests away from NATO, if Russia can convince the world that the epoch of armed occupation of industrial nations is a thing of the past and hence no real military threat exists – except for Europe being caught in the middle of Cold War 2.0.

For the U.S. geopolitical strategy to succeed, it would be necessary for Europe, Ukraine and Russia to act against their own potential economic self-interest. How long can they be expected to acquiesce in this sacrifice? At what point will economic interests lead to a reconsideration of old geo-military alliances and personal political loyalties?

The is becoming urgent because this is the first time that continental Europe has been faced with such war on its own borders (if we except Yugoslavia). Where is the advantage for Europe supporting one of the world’s most corrupt oligarchies north of the Equator?

America’s Ukrainian adventure by Hillary’s appointee Victoria Nuland (kept on and applauded by John Kerry), as well as by NATO, is forcing Europe to commit itself to the United States or pursue an independent line. George Soros (whose aggressive voice is emerging as the Democratic Party’s version of Sheldon Adelson) recently urged (in the newly neocon New York Review of Books) that the West give Ukraine $50 billion to re-arm, and to think of this as a down payment on military containment of Russia. The aim is old Brzezinski strategy: to foreclose Russian economic integration with Europe. The assumption is that economic alliances are at least potentially military, so that any power center raises the threat of economic and hence political independence.

The Financial Times quickly jumped on board for Soros’s $50 billion subsidy.[2] When President Obama promised that U.S. military aid would be only for “defensive arms,” Kiev clarified that it intended to defend Ukraine all the way to Siberia to create a “sanitary cordon.”

First Confrontation: Will the IMF Loan Agreement try to stiff Russia?

The IMF has been drawn into U.S. confrontation with Russia in its role as coordinating Kiev foreign debt refinancing. It has stated that private-sector creditors must take a haircut, given that Kiev can’t pay the money its oligarchs have either stolen or spent on war. But what of the €3 billion that Russia’s sovereign wealth fund loaned Ukraine, under London rules that prevent such haircuts? Russia has complained that Ukraine’s budget makes no provision for payment. Will the IMF accept this budget as qualifying for a bailout, treating Russia as an odious creditor? If so, what kind of legal precedent would this set for sovereign debt negotiations in years to come?

International debt settlement rules were thrown into a turmoil last year when U.S. Judge Griesa gave a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of thepari passu clause with regard to Argentina’s sovereign debts. The clause states that all creditors must be treated equally. According to Griesa (uniquely), this means that if any creditor or vulture fund refuses to participate in a debt writedown, no such agreement can be reached and the sovereign government cannot pay any bondholders anywhere in the world, regardless of what foreign jurisdiction the bonds were issued under.

This bizarre interpretation of the “equal treatment” principle has never been strictly applied. Inter-governmental debts owed to the IMF, ECB and other international agencies have not been written down in keeping with private-sector debts. Russia’s loan was carefully framed in keeping with London rules. But U.S. diplomats have been openly – indeed, noisily and publicly – discussing how to “stiff” Russia. They even have thought about claiming that Russia’s Ukraine loans (to help it pay for gas to operate its factories and heat its homes) are an odious debt, or a form of foreign aid, or subject to anti-Russian sanctions. The aim is to make Russia “less equal,” transforming the concept of pari passu as it applies to sovereign debt.

Just as hedge funds jumped into the fray to complicate Argentina’s debt settlement, so speculators are trying to make a killing off Ukraine’s financial corpse, seeing this gray area opened up. The Financial Timesreports that one American investor, Michael Hasenstab, has $7 billion of Ukraine debts, along with Templeton Global Bond Fund.[3] New speculators may be buying Ukrainian debt at half its face value, hoping to collect in full if Russia is paid in full – or at least settle for a few points’ quick run-up.

The U.S.-sponsored confusion may tie up Russia’s financial claims in court for years, just as has been the case with Argentina’s debt. At stake is the IMF’s role as debt coordinator: Will it insist that Russia take the same haircut that it’s imposing on private hedge funds?

This financial conflict is becoming a new mode of warfare. Lending terms are falling subject to New Cold War geopolitics. This battlefield has been opened up by U.S. refusal in recent decades to endorse the creation of any international body empowered to judge the debt-paying capacity of countries. This makes every sovereign debt crisis a grab bag that the U.S. Treasury can step in to dominate. It endorses keeping countries in the U.S. diplomatic orbit afloat (although on a short leash), but not countries that maintain an independence from U.S. policies (e.g., Argentina and BRICS members).

Looking forward, this position threatens to fracture global finance into a U.S. currency sphere and a BRICS sphere. The U.S. has opposed creation of any international venue to adjudicate the debt-paying capacity of debtor nations. Other countries are pressing for such a venue in order to save their economies from the present anarchy. U.S. diplomats see anarchy as offering an opportunity to bring U.S. diplomacy to bear to reward friends and punish non-friends and “independents.” The resulting financial anarchy is becoming untenable in the wake of Argentina, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and other sovereign debtors whose obligations are unpayably high.

The IMF’s One-Two Punch leading to privatization sell-offs to rent extractors            

IMF loans are made mainly to enable governments to pay foreign bondholders and bankers, not spend on social programs or domestic economic recovery. Sovereign debtors must agree to IMF “conditionalities” in order to get enough credit to enable bondholders to take their money and run, avoiding haircuts and leaving “taxpayers” to bear the cost of capital flight and corruption.

The first conditionality is the guiding principle of neoliberal economics: that foreign debts can be paid by squeezing out a domestic budget surplus. The myth is that austerity programs and cuts in public spending will enable governments to pay foreign-currency debts – as if there is no “transfer problem.”

The reality is that austerity causes deeper economic shrinkage and widens the budget deficit. And no matter how much domestic revenue the government squeezes out of the economy, it can pay foreign debts only in two ways: by exporting more, or by selling its public domain to foreign investors. The latter option leads to privatizing public infrastructure, replacing subsidized basic services with rent-extraction and future capital flight. So the IMF’s “solution” to the deb problem has the effect of making it worse – requiring yet further privatization sell-offs.

This is why the IMF has been wrong in its economic forecasts for Ukraine year after year, just as its prescriptions have devastated Ireland and Greece, and Third World economies from the 1970s onward. Its destructive financial policy must be seen as deliberate, not an innocent forecasting error. But the penalty for following this junk economics must be paid by the indebted victim.

In the wake of austerity, the IMF throws its Number Two punch. The debtor economy must pay by selling off whatever assets the government can find that foreign investors want. For Ukraine, investors want its rich farmland. Monsanto has been leasing its land and would like to buy. But Ukraine has a law against alienating its farmland and agricultural land to foreigners. The IMF no doubt will insist on repeal of this law, along with Ukraine’s dismantling of public regulations against foreign investment.

International finance as war

The Ukraine-IMF debt negotiation shows is why finance has become the preferred mode of geopolitical warfare. Its objectives are the same as war: appropriation of land, raw materials (Ukraine’s gas rights in the Black Sea) and infrastructure (for rent-extracting opportunities) as well as the purchase of banks.

The IMF has begun to look like an office situated in the Pentagon, renting a branch office on Wall Street from Democratic Party headquarters, with the rent paid by Soros. His funds are drawing up a list of assets that he and his colleagues would like to buy from Ukrainian oligarchs and the government they control. The buyout payments for partnership with the oligarchs will not stay in Ukraine, but will be moved quickly to London, Switzerland and New York. The Ukrainian economy will lose the national patrimony with which it emerged from the Soviet Union in 1991, still deeply in debt (mainly to its own oligarchs operating out of offshore banking centers).

Where does this leave European relations with the United States and NATO?

The two futures

A generation ago the logical future for Ukraine and other post-Soviet states promised to be an integration into the German and other West European economies. This seemingly natural complementarity would see the West modernize Russian and other post-Soviet industry and agriculture (and construction as well) to create a self-sufficient and prosperous Eurasian regional power. Foreign Minister Lavrov recently voiced Russia’s hope at the Munich Security Conference for a common Eurasian Union with the European Union extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok. German and other European policy looked Eastward to invest its savings in the post-Soviet states.

This hope was anathema to U.S. neocons, who retain British Victorian geopolitics opposing the creation of any economic power center in Eurasia. That was Britain’s nightmare prior to World War I, and led it to pursue a diplomacy aimed at dividing and conquering continental Europe to prevent any dominant power or axis from emerging.

America started its Ukrainian strategy with the idea of splitting Russia off from Europe, and above all from Germany. In the U.S. playbook is simple: Any economic power is potentially military; and any military power may enable other countries to pursue their own interest rather than subordinating their policy to U.S. political, economic and financial aims. Therefore, U.S. geostrategists view any foreign economic power as a potentially military threat, to be countered before it can gain steam.

We can now see why the EU/IMF austerity plan that Yanukovich rejected made it clear why the United States sponsored last February’s coup in Kiev. The austerity that was called for, the removal of consumer subsidies and dismantling of public services would have led to an anti-West reaction turning Ukraine strongly back toward Russia. The Maidan coup sought to prevent this by making a war scar separating Western Ukraine from the East, leaving the country seemingly no choice but to turn West and lose its infrastructure to the privatizers and neo-rentiers.

But the U.S. plan may lead Europe to seek an economic bridge to Russia and the BRICS, away from the U.S. orbit. That is the diplomatic risk when a great power forces other nations to choose one side or the other.

The silence from Hillary

Having appointed Valery Nuland as a holdover from the Cheney administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined the hawks by likening Putin to Hitler. Meanwhile, Soros’s $10 million on donations to the Democratic Party makes him one of its largest donors. The party thus seems set to throw down the gauntlet with Europe over the shape of future geopolitical diplomacy, pressing for a New Cold War.

Hillary’s silence suggests that she knows how unpopular her neocon policy is with voters – but how popular it is with her donors. The question is, will the Republicans agree to not avoid discussing this during the 2016 presidential campaign? If so, what alternative will voters have next year?

This prospect should send shivers down Europe’s back. There are reports that Putin told Merkel and Holland in Minsk last week that Western Europe has two choices. On the one hand, it and Russia can create a prosperous economic zone based on Russia’s raw materials and European technology. Or, Europe can back NATO’s expansion and draw Russia into war that will wipe it out.

German officials have discussed bringing sanctions against Ukraine, not Russia, if it renews the ethnic warfare in its evident attempt to draw Russia in. Could Obama’s neocon strategy backfire, and lose Europe? Will future American historians talk of who lost Europe rather than who lost Russia?

Michael Hudson’s book summarizing his economic theories, “The Bubble and Beyond,” is now available in a new edition with two bonus chapters on Amazon. His latest book is Finance Capitalism and Its Discontents.  He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. He can be reached via his website, [email protected]

Notes:

[1] Fin min hopes Ukraine will get new IMF aid in early March – Interfax, http://research.tdwaterhouse.ca/research/public/Markets/NewsArticle/1664-L5N0VN2DO-1

5:40AM ET on Friday Feb 13, 2015 by Thomson Reuters

[2] “The west needs to rescue the Ukrainian economy,” Financial Timeseditorial, February 12, 2015.

[3] Elaine Moore, “Contrarian US investor with $7bn of debt stands to lose most if Kiev imposes haircut,” Financial Times, February 12, 2015.

It’s that time of year again! President’s Day, a time to honor America’s two greatest presidents in history (at least from history book consensus) – George Washington our first and Abraham Lincoln our sixteenth president. By conveniently combining the nearest weekend midpoint between their birthdays (22^nd and 12^th respectively) and lopping in Valentine’s Day and the NBA All Star Weekend to make it a post-Super Bowl Bonanza for everyone, kind of like what the three-day MLK weekend is to the yearend holiday extravaganza. But between our Presidents’ Day sales, popcorn and beer, this President’s Day 2015 might also be an opportune time to pause and reflect on our presidents over this last century. President’s Day then becomes a sober reckoning of how the fate of our cherished democratic republic was lost and stolen by today’s totalitarian oligarchy. A chronicle of this last century’s presidents offers us Americans a greater understanding of the diminished role our figurehead presidents have played as a mere public face to the shrouded power elite puppet masters pulling their strings. What follows is a presentational overview providing a step-by-step thread of continuity that has led us to the New World Order burgeoning today.

1913 was a pivotal year that brought to fruition the meticulously laid out agenda conspired in total secrecy of the Jekyll Island Coup d’Etat that culminated with the Federal Reserve Act signed by President Woodrow Wilson establishing the deceptively covert, privatized central banking cabal of the Federal Reserve Board. The other illegal 1913 coup that was part of the low-blow, one-two near knockout punch against the American people was the birth of the federal income tax. Thus the foundation of today’s globalist Ponzi scheme on the verge right now of implosion gained its lethal foothold into our lives just one year before “the war to end all wars.”

A handful of extremely powerful men including prominent New York Senator Nelson Aldrich, Paul Warburg (representing the Rothschilds of Europe), Jacob Schiff  (with also longtime Rothschild ties) of Kuhn, Loeb & Company and a few others like Benjamin Strong representing the financial interests of America’s most elite money barons and industrialists like John D. Rockefeller met at J.P. Morgan’s hunting club on a Georgia Island in 1910 to iron out the strategy to take over America’s government by usurping the power of the US Treasury to produce currency.

In his autobiography during the same year the Ponzi scheme was launched, then former President Theodore Roosevelt wrote:

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

With one of the Jekyll Island participants Colonel Edward M. House acting as President elect Woodrow Wilson’s personal advisor, the robber barons had plucked the Princeton University president from relative obscurity, planted him in office as the Governor of New Jersey in 1911 and then had him elected president the following year. His predecessor President Taft who had opposed a central bank was easily replaced by the naïve and pliable Wilson. Thus when he took his oath of office in January 1913, Colonel House was the elitist insider who was able to easily manipulate Wilson to further serve the interest of the banking cabal. House’s instrumental role of influence and power over Woodrow Wilson might be analogous to what Zbigniew Brzezinski’s was to President Jimmy Carter and Henry Kissinger to President Nixon. But the former Ivy League president was an intelligent man who had written a book published the same year he became president showing he was fully aware of the shadowy bankster cabal. Based on the quote below from his 1913 The New Freedom, Wilson knew a transformation of power was underway, making him all the more culpable when he proceeded to do everything the elite wanted and expected of him. In some ways knowing what he knew, signing the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Income Tax Act the same year his book was published made him a traitor to Americans:

Some of the biggest men in the US, in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, 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…. We have been dreading all along the time when the combined power of high finance would be greater than the power of government….

Yeah, if you’re as weak as putty in their hands. To show just how much President Wilson was the first puppet president to be used by oligarchs, dancing gleefully to their diabolical tune, Wilson actually uttered:

Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one. If I were in his place I would do just as he suggested… if anyone thinks he is reflecting my opinion by whatever action he takes, they are welcome to the conclusion.

With the formation of the Federal Reserve, wealth and power in the United States was instantly consolidated within a few Eastern Establishment families that would ensure their offspring were always educated at the finest Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia. Upon graduation they would enter Wall Street banking firms, global corporations and eventually infiltrate into key positions in the government. This power grab resulting in control over the flow of money through loans to the federal government, and then collecting interest on those loans, guaranteed loan repayment by income tax collection. This new monetary system was predicated on an invisible elite taking control of the government. What a coup, not unlike what 9/11 is to totalitarianism.

Thus creation of the perfect pyramid scheme for the rich remained by law unaccountable to government oversight and control to the extent that the Federal Reserve was immune from all audits for its first 98 years in existence! Finally in 2011 in its very first audit it was revealed that the Federal Reserve secretly paid $16 trillion in bailouts to the top elitist banks both domestic and foreign. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) commented, “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.” In view of the fact that since 1913 the Federal Reserve has created so much new money out of thin air that it has purposely devalued the US dollar by 95%, the banking crime syndicate needs to be destroyed. As if such fiscal irresponsibility isn’t bad enough, a few years later as of last week the so called modern day champion of economic reform Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) herself stopped short of demanding another Fed audit per Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) “Audit the Fed” Bill, calling it “Congressional meddling.” Another instance of a politician who claims to represent the people selling out.

The creation of the Federal Reserve Board intentionally deceiving the public by misrepresenting itself as an extension of the government was the ideal means by which the elite central banking cabal could ruthlessly eliminate competition from smaller banks and corporations while controlling the federal government by loaning money to big government to wage big war. And as no surprise, less than a year later, enter World War I, the bloodiest war in human history up to that time with 10 million soldiers and 7 million civilians killed and 20 million injured. But hey, like every war it was a boom to the psychopathic oligarchs in charge as governments plunged deeper into debt and between accrued interest and collected taxes guaranteeing repayment, life was and still is mighty good for the ruling elite.

Establishing an income tax to soak the middle class into funding the elite’s wars, initially passed on a short-lived promise that taxpayers earning under $20,000 a year (the vast US majority in 1913) would only pay 1% of their annual income. But of course a short time later the middle class found itself heavily taxed, by design creating a formidable protective barrier restricting upward class mobility. That way, it ensured that the rich got richer and over time everyone else would get poorer in a debtor economy. The rich a hundred years ago in 1915 were no different from the rich in control today in 2015 since concentrated wealth has seamlessly remained insulated in that same handful of families a full century later. The only difference is their wealth has grown exponentially at the expense of the rest of us who increasingly struggle in this new global age of fiscal austerity. Currently the richest 1% on earth own near half the global wealth.

Through offshore tax loopholes and financing endowment foundations and extravagant elitist think tanks that have always been totally self-serving in supplying tremendous tax breaks, the wealthy ruling elite and its transnational corporations have gotten away with not bearing any tax burden. Thus these sinister anti-democratic, anti-free enterprise machinations enacted a century ago were designed to kill democracy in America, replacing it with the oligarchy we’re currently stuck with today. The coup of 1913 was a mere replication of the wealth and power structure that had been governing Europe’s central banking cabal since the 1600’s. In fact a year before passage of the Federal Reserve Act, in a speech before world bankers, Meyer Nathaniel Rothschild bragged, “Let me control a people’s currency and I care not who makes their laws.” Global rulers consisting of only eight families in US and Europe that own the Federal Reserve envisioned a hundred years ago complete control over a centralized one world government through their central banking cabal. And here in the twenty-first century their diabolical scheme has tragically materialized right before our eyes.

The chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency from 1920 to 1931, Congressman Louis McFadden, would later gloat in 1932:

When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here – a super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is – the Fed has usurped the government.

Industrialist Henry Ford put it this way, “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Maintaining control over the press by disseminating lies and disinformation and education through rewriting history and omitting certain glaring facts, the power elite for many centuries has been brainwashing generation after generation of Americans. Taken in by the countless lies and illusions, we’ve always been taught that our democratic republic was supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people (as Abe eloquently reminded us in his Gettysburg Address), and that through clean honest elections the will of the people is guaranteed by power of choice. The Founding Fathers preached equality and justice for all. But for whom? Only for a minority of the total population – free white men, definitely not for people of darker skinned races or half the population that were women or the growing segment within a debtor nation. The cold hard reality is the ruling elite was always in command right from the start in the United States of America. And in 1913 they were dancing in their mansions when consolidation of power was placed forevermore into fewer hands with passage of both the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve private banking cabal that has only led directly to the unsustainable global theft that elite’s absolute power and control currently driving the pending economic collapse. As a private collection agency it bilks about $400 billion a year off the backs of US taxpayers and another $300 billion in interest alone. The 10 private banks that make up the Federal Reserve is a pyramid scam that has us Americans paying out while they simply collect on what is owed, never having to pay out themselves.

In 1916 President Wilson was an avid proponent pushing the notion that the world needed a League of Nations, a one world governmental body acting as global “peace enforcer,” using the rationale that it would prevent another major war from recurring. And then once World War One ended in 1918, at the Paris Peace Conference the stage was set for the first attempt at a one world government with the founding of the League of Nations on January 10, 1920. However, the League never got off the ground in the US with the Senate voting to not become a member.

As a mediator between clashing nations during the 1920’s, the League of Nations is credited with several instances of successful conflict resolution. At its height in the early 1930’s it boasted 58 nation members. But as the decade progressed, it began losing its power and credibility when nations like Poland refused to comply and Italy eventually walked out. When the polarizing world was militarizing as World War II loomed ominously closer, the League fell apart and disbanded. Of course a decade later after the Second World War, the United Nations reemerged as the primary global body of one world government in-the-making.

The next big day the elitists could celebrate in their NWO conquest was the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1921. This organization was the intended functionary liaison between the oligarchs dictating to the US federal government what it should do particularly in international foreign policy and global movement toward one world government. Many of the same Jekyll Island party-goers were founding members like Col. House, Paul Warburg, Warren Harding lasted only two years (1921-1923) in the White House before keeling over. His late night drinking and playing poker with the boys, his unsavory cronies from home state of Ohio, had him even betting away the White House china on a bad poker night. Historians regard Harding as one the worst presidents in US history. He was a do-nothing, middle-of-the-roader who never made enemies because he never took a stand on any major issues. The elite chose him because one, Harding had been a requisite Freemason for two decades and two, the oligarchs knew he would completely sign off on their globalist agenda. His secretary of state was leading internationalist Charles Evans Hughes who worked closely with Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover and Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon to switch international trade financing away from British bankers to American banks like Rockefeller’s Chase National Bank.

It did not take long for the newly formed CFR to declare its globalist objective in its magazine Foreign Affairs as Philip Kerr wrote on December 15, 1922:

Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as [the earth] remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states until some kind of international system is created…The real problem today is that of the world government.

Harding’s Vice President, Calvin Coolidge, suddenly became head man from 1923-1929. He was a welcome relief after the scandalous prone Harding administration. “Silent Cal” was a quiet, unassuming, frugal New Englander who opposed big government and the League of Nations. Though he too was a Freemason, the Roaring Twenties were defined more as a period of isolationism than globalism. As a conservative hero of the small businessman, Coolidge harkened on the wisdom and values espoused in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights rather than any progressive modern movement toward socialism and one world government that the Council on Foreign Relations and power elite were steadfastly promoting.

October 1929 brought the Wall Street stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression that went global for the next 10 years. It was purely a fleecing purposely staged by the ruling elite. The monetary system of the centralized banking cabal feeds off the intentionally induced, erratic ebb and flow of booms and depressions, with each cycle strengthening its profit and control. The Hegelian Dialectic has been repeatedly played out by the globalists. It consists of a three stage process, first the elite creates the problem, in this case the worldwide economic depression. The second phase involves controlling the reaction and then finally offer the solution.

The newly elected CFR member and “Skull & Bones” man (the infamous secret Yale society) President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) was a longtime globalist who sought making inroads partnering big government with big business. He called upon the Senate in his inaugural address to accept the globalist creation of the World Court. In some ways despite being “a company man,” Hoover became the fall guy as the elite turned to another one of its own in Franklin Delano Roosevelt who defeated Hoover in the 1932 election. Even FDR in a genuine moment of candor stated, “Presidents are selected, not elected.”

To maximize the cabal’s fleecing, interest rates were increased while wages fell by 42%, the annual GDP was cut in half and more than a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. Talk about predatory behavior.

FDR (1933-1944) was credited with the New Deal, an ambitious big government program that was unprecedented in expanding the domain of the globalist federal agenda into every American’s personal life. Roosevelt had campaigned for president on his New Deal as phase two of the Hegelian Dialectic – deliverance of the necessary fix to the Great Depression. Essentially the New Deal assumed responsibility for the welfare of the United States heading us down the path to full frontal corporatism and out of control deficit spending, now well over 18 trillion in the rabbit hole and counting. At the height of the Depression in 1933 Roosevelt, a 32 degree Freemason, a Skull and Bones operator and a CFR member, wrote one of the key architects of this monetary system nightmare CFR founder Col. House lamenting:

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson … The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States – only on a far bigger and broader basis…

The president was having second thoughts about following House’s big government New Deal advice, wanting to reign the banks in, but it was too late, he’d already given them what they wanted, largely a socialist government patterned after Mussolini’s fascism. FDR’s take on the Depression and how it was manufactured:

The depression was the calculated ‘shearing’ of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market… The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the US via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.

Of course the same can be said for World War II. The international globalists financed both Hitler and the Allies to ensure more death, domination and control, not to mention profit. Prescott Bush, H.W.’s father, sunk millions into Hitler’s rise. With each world war the oligarchs gained another giant step closer to their one world government vision. And similar to the First World War, even as the bloodiest war in human history still raged on with 15 million dead soldiers, 45 million civilians killed and 25 million wounded, the one world governmental apparatus known as the United Nations was formed. A strong League of Nations advocate, FDR played a seminal role in formulating the blueprint to the United Nations that gained its charter just six monthsafter the longest running president’s death in 1944.

Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman (1944-1953), was also unabashed when it came to promoting big government socialism, calling his version “The Fair Deal.” And also like FDR, Truman was a 33 degree Freemason also held membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. And he too led the centralized government assault as both provider and controller over the country’s population and resources. Finally, it was Truman who has the dubious, shameful distinction of being the only country’s president in the history of the world to drop the atom bomb over two Japanese cities knowing that Japan was ready to surrender. The excuse that it saved lives is a disgraceful lie.

In June 1945 Harry Truman gave his globalist position away when he declared:

It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in a republic of the United States.

Incidentally, original Jekyll Island-Federal Reserve-CFR co-founder Paul Warburg’s son James still spouted the cocky arrogance his resolute dad exhibited while testifying exactly 65 years ago today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.” From appearances based on today’s developments, James Paul Warburg is close to being correct on both accounts.

Retired General Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) had impeccable credentials when he was elected US President in 1952. The West Point educated Columbia University president had been WWII Supreme Allied Commander responsible for the largest amphibious land invasion in human history that successfully defeated the German Nazis on the Western front. He also became the first NATO Supreme Commander, the military machine designed to fight Soviet Communism in Europe. As a Council on Foreign Relations member, he surrounded himself with fellow CFR guys including John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State totaling 19. Way back in 1939 CFR fixture Dulles boldly suggested that the US “lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.” Of course his future commander-in-chief was later the first general in charge of the continental army of Europe called NATO.

Every year President Eisenhower happily sent members of his administration to the annual Bilderberg meeting to formally discuss the latest globalist agenda. During Ike’s years as president the ruling elite made monumental strides under the cloak of the cold war that they themselves covertly created as a means towards the New World Order end. Of course it was also the ex-general who warned America in his Farewell Address in January 1961 of the coming threat to our civil liberties and freedom that the war profiteers of the military industrial complex posed. The elite’s power to create enemies and make incessant war designed to increase American Empire global hegemony in sole interests of transnational corporations and the central banking cabal is the endgame result he warned us about.

After 1000 days in office President John Kennedy (1961-1963) was gunned down by elements within his own government because he proved too much a threat to the status quo power structure. He was bent on deflating if not eliminating the CIA’s covert autonomy around the world, was planning to bring back all the US military advisors so as to avoid the Vietnam War altogether, and made movement to unhinge the Federal Reserve banking cabal by bringing back the greenback dollar and reinstating the Treasury Department with authority over the flow of fiat currency. These three actions openly opposed the entire globalist agenda as well as would have severely undercut its power. Thus he was eliminated and the cover-up of murdering factions of rogue government insiders continues unabated to this day. Kennedy outed these shadowy elements in a speech less than seven months prior to his assassination in an April 1963 speech. Kennedy’s father Joe was once quoted in a 1936 New York Times article claiming that “fifty men have run America, and that’s a high figure.” His son turned those same fifty’s sons against him and paid the price.

President Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969), a CFR-Freemason, has been implicated by some as a co-conspirator in the Kennedy murder. He most definitely had both motive and the means. Following the CFR “wise guys” lock, stock and barrel as his advisors both in and out of his cabinet, Johnson plunged the US on yet another false flag headlong into its longest war in its history in Vietnam. Rather than supporting independence and actual economic opportunity in the inner cities of America, Johnson’s “Great Society” and “War on Poverty” proceeded to turn the United States into a welfare state which only mushroomed an underclass of disenfranchised poor. LBJ’s tax exempt status to religious organizations while on his watch only weakened and silenced their free speech rights to actively oppose big government’s march toward invasive power and control for fear of wrath from IRS militants. Johnson cooked the books to conceal exponential growth and absorbent costs of expanding government into the lives of Americans.

Under President Richard Nixon (1969-1974) the pace dramatically accelerated toward the New World Order. His closest security advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger openly and matter-of-factly spoke repeatedly and still speaks of the coming NWO as his fine-tuned globalist agenda, always spinning it in palatable terms as good for humanity, not just the ruling elite. A case in point, while speaking before the UN General Assembly in 1975, Kissinger promised, “Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order.”

Reflecting on his foreign policy triumph over his recent trip to China, in a February 1972 New York Times article President Nixon is quoted referring to both the US and China’s mutual interest in “building a New World Order.” No doubt with NWO still fresh on his mind, in that same month Nixon signed Executive Order 11647 that authorized UN jurisdiction over 10 regions within the 50 states. It reads like a precursor to UN Agenda 21 two decades later.

Nixon entertained both the idea and the plan to lock up dissidents in detention camps, again the blueprint for today’s FEMA camps. In fact, all the totalitarian police state contingencies were first formulated by this reactionary tyrant who became the only president in US history who resigned from office in disgrace over the illegal wiretapping, breaking and entering and dozens of violations to the US Constitution that are now the oppressive security state we’re living in. He and Kissinger were also traitors that undermined a peace settlement the Johnson administration was working on that would have ended the Vietnam War in 1968. Instead it dragged on for more than four years killing thousands of more humans. Needless to say, Tricky Dick and his war criminal sidekick Henry were card carrying Council on Foreign Relations members with a saturated cabinet and advisors who were also likeminded totalitarian CFR globalists.

Kissinger spilled the beans at the 1991 Bilderberg meeting:

Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an “extraterrestrial” invasion], whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.

Spoken like a true NWO fanatic. Three years later Kissinger entitled his book How to Achieve the New World Order.

Gerald Ford (1974-1977) immediately pardoned his predecessor for all his crimes against humanity. As a regular Bilderberger, 33 degree Mason and CFR man, President Ford moved the globalist agenda right along. While a member of the Warren Commission investigating the JFK assassination, Ford inserted words into the report that reinforced the preposterous notion of the single magic bullet that went through Kennedy into Texas Governor Connelly. During the cover-up Ford played his part in defense of protecting the guilty. But then Gerry was always a loyal company man. Finally, Ford selected globalist kingpin Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president.

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) like Obama came from out of nowhere as the cherry-picked leading presidential candidate of his party, only reinforcing the veracity of FDR’s admission that presidents are selected, not elected. And then Carter was also a member of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg and Council on Foreign Relations. His socialism agenda masquerading as his Southern Baptist charm reflects the longstanding globalist point of view.

And his very own Kissinger-esque security advisor was none other than brazen CFR globalist agenda cheerleader Zbigniew Brzezinski who with David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973. It was Brzezinski who introduced Carter to Rockefeller and the peanut farmer from Georgia was catapulted straight to the top. Even prior to becoming the leader of the free world’s right hand man, Brzezinski’s NWO roots were expressed prophetically loud and clear in his 1970 book Between Two Ages, America’s Role in the Technotronic Era:

The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.

He goes on with more of his brave new world ranting:

Speaking of a future at most only decades away, an experimenter in intelligence control asserted, ‘I foresee a time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain.’

President Reagan allowed himself to be used by the globalist machine bent on destroying everything Ronnie pretended to stand for – traditional values, honesty, courage, strength. Reagan complained about the top 19 positions filled by Trilateral Commission members in the Carter administration criticizing that it too closely aligned with banks and transnationals, yet after elected Reagan turned around and employed10 Trilateralists in his transition team and in his top posts too like his CFR-Trilateralist VP George H.W. Bush. A lifelong devotee of FDR, Reagan started off as a liberal Democrat. Ronald Reagan had a pervasive pattern of staying in stride with the changing wind of the times, becoming a hardened Soviet hater during the cold war. He rode this high horse mantra to legendary fame as the oligarch appointed leader and declared cold war winner in the behind the scenes arrangement East-West oligarchs made to collapse the Soviet Empire in favor of free world raping by the West that opened the floodgate to Russian mafia plundering. The real name of the game was globalization and privatization that arrived as transnational corporate-IMF exploitation. Reagan ignored the AIDS epidemic, a grotesque lapse of caring about those mostly afflicted that happened to be gay.

Also following suit with his fellow GOP SoCal buddy Nixon, as a private citizen Reagan treasonously tampered in off limit foreign affairs, secretly making a deal with Iran to hold off handing over the American hostages until after he got elected. And then when the corrupt unlawful depravity of gun running for crack cocaine Iran-Contra affair was exposed, Reagan suddenly showed his first signs of dementia in his failure to recall much of anything when it came to his favorite Marine Corp criminal Ollie North. Vice President Bush as former CIA director was in charge. Despite Reagan’s “freedom fighters” being murdering marauders killing thousands of their own in the Central American countryside, as long as they were on the right team, Reagan’s anti-Commie busters, they were the good guys. He was complicit in giving the green light to genocide in Guatemala. Reagan used the same lying tactics to demonize Nicaraguan Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega as Obama team is still doing today with Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and Russian President Putin. Yet Ortega and longtime so called Communist enemy Cuban Fidel Castro have been courted guests at the Council on Foreign Relations on several occasions.

Though Reagan publicly championed small government, in reality he was big government all the way, adding bureaucracy, not taking it away as promised. He was revered for his tax-cutting yet Americans were paying more taxes by the end of his eight years than before he began. In the end his budget was 50% higher than Carter’s and the budget deficit had tripled. All this belied his hyper-inflated glory because he was spending more on arms and the military than any time since WWII. Reagan was a B actor in Hollywood and an A actor in Washington though the phony veneer was not difficult to detect. But the populace that longed for the traditional values of the good old days would do it all over again voting against their own best interest defenselessly smitten by the disingenuous charm of a two-bit actor from the West. We all lose while once again the New World Order leaps forward in bounds especially when the torch is handed off to the Bush NWO crime syndicate.

No other president in the history of the United States has made his views toward one world government more public than globalist Skull and Bones man George H.W. Bush (1989-1993). He signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) deal with Mexico that was good for only big business resulting in lost jobs and destroying small businesses in the US. Making continental and regional alliances and trade deals are the globalist steppingstone to New World Order and world government. Bush is big believer in the globalist vision of the UN and world court as the closest manifestation to his one world government. He signed the UN Agenda 21 along with leaders in 178 nations that is the globalist plan for their New World Order under the guise of sustainability. So every chance he got Bush was promoting his NWO:

The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind.

After giving Saddam Hussein the go-ahead to invade Kuwait, the first Bush used the first Gulf War to promote the self-interests of both the globalists and their transnational corporations in the Middle East, but always in a self-righteous moralistic tone:

If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we’ve all worked toward for so long.

When he bombed Iraqi water treatment plants and hospitals that caused a half million children to needlessly die, Bush senior’s moral compass pointed straight to demonic hell because that’s where this psychopath lives. The Bush crime family pass their evil down from one generation to the next. His involvement in child sex trafficking is yet one more can of worms in his family closet.

CFR Skull and Bones man Bill Clinton (1993-2001) with a dozen cabinet members his fellow CFR props just goes to show us that regardless of political party, Democrat or Republican, the globalist agenda is one and the same. He too signed NAFTA selling Americans down the river. Andrew Reding of the World Policy Institute said:

NAFTA will signal the formation, however tentatively, of a new political unit — North America. With economic integration will come political integration. By whatever name, this is an incipient form of international government. Following the lead of the Europeans, North Americans should begin considering formation of a continental parliament.

Clinton’s under Secretary of State Strobe Talbot was quoted in a 1992 Time article predicting that in this century “nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

Yet another Skullduggerist George W. Bush’s (2001-2009) war crime policy that placed the US on a collision course with the New World Order after the treasonous neocon inside job of 9/11 has been followed to the T by Obama. This tells us that the invisible powerbrokers behind the public faces are calling the shot regardless of party puppet. And of course Hillary is the same as Bill is the same as Obama is the same as Bush Jr. is the same as Jeb is the same as Bush senior is the same as Woodrow Wilson is the same as FDR and every other president over this last full century.

For 100 years now the globalist movement has been out to usurp our national sovereignty, replacing it with a one world government with one currency soon eclipsed by a microchip. There has been a war on both religion and family in this country just as individual rights are being attacked. Loyalty to the collective group above all else has been taught in the federalized public education brainwash called Common Core. Secrecy abounds in a totalitarian state. The militant Orwellian arm of child protective services and the thoroughly broken foster care system in this country are also at war with the American family. Obama and company have been busy making secret deals with the UN as part of the preparation for enactment of the Agenda 21. Still another NWO policy in both North America and Europe is the free anduninterrupted flow of immigration, pitting races, classes, religions and nationalities against each other.

Since the CFR’s founding in 1921, there have been 21 secretaries of defense or war, 19 secretaries of the treasury, 17 secretaries of state, and 15 CIA directors all taking their marching orders from the Council on Foreign Relations, the government offshoot of the globalist agenda of one world government. With all these NWO plants saturating every presidential administration for a century now, their invisibility is now shattered. The plain truth that our government has been taken over and hijacked by criminal psychopaths whose only loyalty is to the oligarchs that own and control them. Of course what’s been happening to America has also been happening to Europe with the European Union. The proliferation of regional trade agreements are expediting this one world agenda all over the globe.

All the globalists worldwide are traitors to their constitutional oaths they once swore to uphold and protect as well as traitors to the people that they also took oaths to serve. They are brazenly now violating the US Constitution, every citizen’s civil liberties and pursuit of happiness and security because they are at war with the American people. The militarized police state makes us all easy targets by the shadow rogue government now in crime syndicate power carrying out a globalist eugenics plan to drastically reduce the human population on earth. Whether by soft kill or hard, it doesn’t much matter to them, the endgame is the same – lower the current 7.2 billion of us down to a half to one billion people that will be the zombie class of subservient lackeys left serving the needs of the ruling elite. In the face of what we are now up against, honoring our dishonorable treasonous presidents no longer seems like a good idea. Waking up and rejecting their tyranny does.

US President Barack Obama previously commented on the Ukrainian conflict, claiming Russian President Vladimir Putin was speeding past all the “off ramps” offered by the US and its NATO military alliance to end the violence. And just as it appeared the US and the rest of NATO were about to take their own advice and use the Minsk accord as their own face-saving “off ramp,” they’ve decided to put the pedal to the metal instead.

Of course, considering NATO’s long history of eastward expansion, global militarism and extraterritorial aggression, there was little hope of anything positive coming out of Minsk. Instead, NATO has used it as a means to draw an arbitrary line their media monopolies will claim in the near future Russia has “crossed,” thus justifying greater measures still to escalate the conflict, increase bloodshed and help their client regime in Kiev cling to power a little longer.

A similar tactic is being employed simultaneously in Syria, where President Obama has attempted to receive broader authorization to wage war “on ISIS.” Of course, barring any actual attempt to target ISIS’ state sponsors, such a war is bound to fail. And while President Obama’s measures are aimed at “stopping ISIS” by waging wider war in Iraq and Syria, the Pentagon has already admitted ISIS has spread as far as Afghanistan. Once again, even at face value, the narrative concocted by the US doesn’t add up.

This is important to remember, and the parallels between Ukraine and Syria should not be dismissed easily. The enduring chaos in Syria portends the fate of Ukraine. Essentially, it is a nation destined to be burned completely to the ground before allowing NATO’s agenda to be rolled back. And considering this parallel, one could have easily predicted ahead of time that any good will expressed by the EU before the meeting in Minsk was disingenuous, and the daggers of additional sanctions, expanded military aid for the junta in Kiev and additional NATO posturing along Russia’s borders were all but inevitably brought along.

“Good Cop, Bad Cop”

If the US is slapping Russia around in the interrogation room, the EU is the more reasonable of a duo working in concert to break Russia’s will. The EU speaks softly, offers Russia concessions and compromise, but ultimately has the exact same end game in mind as the US. To illustrate this, with the Minsk accord agreed to, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has shifted gears and is taking a hard line on enforcing sanctions against Russia, apparently to ensure Russia’s part of the deal is implemented.

The post-accord antics included NATO’s new client state’s prime minster, Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk of the dubious “Fatherland” Party, threatening Russia from the confines of the German Council on Foreign Relations. The New York Times would publish several of his accusations aimed at Russia, along with Chancellor Merkel’s demands that Russia meet all of the requirements first before any good will is shown by the EU’s lifting of sanctions.

In fact, not only will existing sanctions not be lifted, but sanctions already scheduled will be put into effect as planned despite the signing of the accord.

Those familiar with the concept of bargaining would realize how untenable this posture is, and that such a posture is the intentional and immediate sabotaging of an accord agreed to by both parties. In reality, the EU has already violated it, and willfully allowed its client regime in Kiev to continue making inflammatory, adversarial remarks aimed not at easing tensions, but to ratchet them up.

The EU is thus revealed to be just as belligerent and unconditionally unreasonable as the US. Russia was likely already aware of the absolute lack of real will and good faith behind any attempt to end a war the West cannot even frame with any degree of honesty.

Demanding Russia Stop A Conflict NATO Started?

Beginning with the violent NATO-backed overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government during the 2013-2014 Euromaidan mobs, the conflict grew into a full-fledged civil war as literal Neo-Nazi brigades were deployed east to force the rest of Ukraine to accept the newly installed junta. These Neo-Nazi militants are now documented by even the West’s own human rights advocacy groups to be committing atrocities on par with ISIS.

Newsweek, hardly “Kremlin propaganda,” would even publish a report literally titled, “Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing ‘ISIS-Style’ War Crimes,” admitting that “Groups of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists [loyal to Kiev] are committing war crimes in the rebel-held territories of Eastern Ukraine, according to a report from Amnesty International, as evidence emerged in local media of the volunteer militias beheading their victims.“

While the US and EU pretend their own human rights advocacy groups are not recording the horrors being carried out by their own client regime in Kiev, they have repeatedly claimed the entire conflict is instead the result of “Russian aggression.” They demand that this “aggression” cease, but such demands do not account for the grisly violence their own forces are committing along Russia’s borders.

And this is precisely the root of the problem.

The conflict is directly on Russia’s borders, with any sort of “buffer zone” between NATO and Russia all but dissolved by constant, aggressive eastward expansion by both NATO and its political component, the EU. The conflict is not looming on Brussels’ or Washington’s doorsteps, but on Moscow’s.

The US and EU’s intentional dismissal of this simple fact, or any reasonable acknowledgement over the disadvantage NATO has Russia at, or the imperative Russia possesses to ensure stability directly along its borders is indicative of the dishonesty the EU went to the Minsk meeting with. Chancellor Merkel’s inability to show any good will toward Russia by relieving sanctions even partially is simply yet another attempt to propagate a dishonest and destructive narrative, driven by the very same dishonesty and ill-will that triggered this confrontation in the first place.

Russia has attempted to be reasonable by agreeing to the Minsk accord. It, for its part, can begin incrementally putting it into affect. If the EU seriously wants the conflict to draw to an end, it must likewise make good incrementally on its part of the deal. A supranational entity that played a central part in the overthrow of Ukraine’s government in 2013-2014 cannot simply be “trusted.” The good will and trust the EU believes it is simply entitled to must instead be earned. Chancellor Merkel’s comments and the antics that took place directly after the accord showcases an EU no more sophisticated than the global marauders just across the Atlantic.

While the EU seemed to be softening on sanctions against Russia ahead of the accord, we now see they were simply playing “good cop.” They appeared to be departing from the irrational and self-destructive agenda pushed by Washington, but appear now to have instead doubled down.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Tenure for K-12 teachers has been under attack from the Right for a long time. In many states, like Virginia, it does not exist. But now a new attack is being mounted by an ex-news anchor named Campbell Brown. Brown claims that THE cause of bad education in bad schools is bad teachers. And then she goes on to claim that THE solution to getting rid of bad teachers is to end tenure. Of course, the substitute for no tenure would presumably mean no protections of any kind for teachers, against arbitrary firings. They could be done by whomever would then be in charge of the firings. However, details on the latter do not seem to be on Brown’s agenda for description.

But critics of the Brown type, and the Joe Klein type, don’t often get into the programs that they propose to substitute for the programs they wish to eliminate (like the Repubs. on Obamacare, but that’s another matter.) Joe Klein, you may remember, is the businessman that Mayor Mike Bloomberg of New York City first put in charge of the city schools. He did prove one thing: someone with no background in education other than his own is unlikely to be able to effectively lead the nations’ largest school system (and one of the worlds largest, to boot).

The main argument here is that indeed there are bad teachers in every school system whether they have tenure protections or not. Of course there are bad news anchors who cannot hold a job and there are businessmen who cannot effectively run a school system, but that’s another matter too. Not that there are that many bad teachers, possibly up to 5 percent. But, and this is the big BUT, getting rid of tenure would in no way ensure that bad teachers would be gotten rid of.

If there were fewer bad teachers and even more good ones (95% ain’t bad, although doctors and lawyers do better; only somewhere around 1 in 57 doctors and 1 in 97 lawyers lose their licenses at some point during their careers), U.S. education would likely be marginally better than it is. One wonders if, once tenure were to be gone, Ms. Brown and Mr. Klein would be running around the country speaking and writing books about arbitrary firings by principals, school boards, politicians, and what have you, with possibly no effect on the overall quality of teachers. That is because, of course, there is no guarantee that the new teacher-firing system would do any better than the present one.

Yes, the tenure protection system could be significantly improved. But it must be recalled that what can be complex procedures for removing under-performing teachers were put in place, not by the teachers’ unions alone, but by the collectively bargained negotiations between the unions and the employer local school boards and governments.  The latter were often happy to provide for rather byzantine removal processes in exchange for concessions on wages, working conditions, and pensions.  At the same time, the more progressive unions, like the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, have made proposals to make them less byzantine, without getting rid of tenure protections. But, as noted, getting rid of tenure would be no guarantee to getting rid of bad teachers. In fact, depending upon how one defines “bad,” there might be more of them in non-tenure systems than in systems with tenure. Randy Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, has pointed out “that the states with the best protections for teachers also have the best academic performance.”

So why, really, the attack on tenure? First of all, somehow there always (or, OK, almost always) seems to be an association with the anti-tenure folks and the charter school folks. In most states (but not all, Maryland is one exception) teachers in charter schools do not have union protections. So there would seem to be an association between destroying tenure and destroying the teachers’ unions. Doing so would remove one of the last remaining redoubts of trade unionism that has been under the assault of the US ruling class since the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. Trade union membership in this country has never been very high, reaching a peak of about 35% right after World War II. By 2013 it had declined to about 11% and it continues to decline. But it is the public employee sector that still has the highest percentage of union membership and that’s the one the Kochs and like-minded members of the ruling class are going after.

Further, as profit opportunities for US capital in the US continue to decline (collateralized mortgage obligations/derivatives, anyone?) it is looking sheep’s-eyes at the education system. Could it be a coincidence that many Wall-Streeters are on the side of destroying the unions to get at public education and replace it with for-profit charter schools? At the same time, polls show that tenure protection is so important to teachers who have it, that their salaries would have to be increased by up to half were it to be taken away (Richard Kahlenberg, Carnegie Foundation). Of course that wouldn’t happen, so what kinds of teachers do you think would be working for less?

The ultimate tragedy for parents of children receiving poor education in their schools who have become Brown followers is that they have been tricked into thinking that getting rid of tenure to “get rid of bad teachers” (which it might very well not do anyway) is going to solve the problem of bad schools. That is when the additional major causes range from class size, to antiquated buildings, to the lack of basic supplies, equipment, and library books) to, in order to save money, the mainstreaming of children who really require special help and in regular classes become regularly disruptive, to not enough teachers (at the height of the Bush Great Recession and the same decline in the local and state tax revenues that support public education, 700,000 teachers had lost their jobs). But these are tough targets so Brown and Klein target the easy one. What was that about sitting in an Ivory Tower?

Postscript: On Teach for America (from a New York Times article that appeared after I had written the original Commentary). It turns out that TfA is: a)closely affiliated with the charter school movement, sending many of the people to them, b) surprise, surprise, also closely linked with mandatory testing standards, the linkage of teacher performance evaluations to student test results, and “weakening of teacher tenure,” and c) as the overall employment market for college graduates improves, applications for TfA declined for the second year in a row. In a separate critique of TfA, candidates get five weeks of teacher training before being thrust into the classroom and in most places stay on the job for just two years. This is preparing college graduates for careers in education? This is supposed to improve overall teacher standards in the US? Why no. But it sure does help charter schools fill their slots that fully qualified teachers wouldn’t take.

 January 25th, Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left) formed a government in Greece with the help of the ANEL (Independent Greeks). Within 24 hours direct attacks, threats and provocations aimed at the Greek government, about to begin negotiations with EU and Eurozone leaders, began. The attacks were pre-emptive strikes against efforts to find a quick, viable and productive solution to the Greek debt problem that continues to strangle the Greek economy and society; time is very short and everyone is aware that it is working against the efforts of the Greek government that needs to reach an agreement by February 16 or February 28 at the latest.

First came the German Defense Minister, Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen, who warned that when you request solidarity you are expected to show solidarity. The warning referring to the objections that Athens raised on the first day of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras on the job, that the new government was not even asked in the EU’s decision to extend sanctions on Russia. The German minister also took the unprecedented step to warn that the place of Greece in NATO might be at stake if it continues to ‘support’ Russia. Greece however did no more than protest for not being consulted before such a serious decision was taken.

But the main battlefront is in Germany. On February 4th the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt stated that as of February 11th, 2016 it would stop accepting Greek bonds as collateral for granting liquidity. While Greek banks would still receive emergency funding from the Greek Central Bank through the Emergency Liquidity Assistance, the Greek government and the Greek finance minister tried to keep their cool and not raise the temperature higher than it already was. Regardless of the composed response the warning – if not blackmail – is very clear. The ECB decision gives to the Greek government six days to comply and ‘capitulate’ even though negotiations have barely started. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and officials know that time works against them in one respect; leaders in Europe and beyond (see Obama’s interview on the need to end austerity in Europe) may soon realize the value of the Greek proposal to pay the debt when the country’s economy begins to grow and not spend tens of billions of euros in the next two years that could be invested in the real economy.

Negotiating with Creditors

The ECB of course follows its rules; Mario Draghi stated that it could not continue to provide liquidity since the austerity-based program for Greece has been effectively discontinued. The demand however by the ECB and EU officials that the Syriza-led government continues the previous government’s policy is an offence to democracy and the clear mandate of the Greek people in the elections of January 25. The assumption that a government elected with the mandate to negotiate a different plan for Europe (that is possible) and an end to austerity in Greece will renege on its promises that call for a more democratic and socially just Europe is historically naïve, politically dangerous and morally unacceptable.

But why is the Greek government’s rather sensible and modest plan is an anathema for the German government and economic circles in Frankfurt, Brussels and most European capitals, especially Madrid? These attacks aim not at the Greek government’s solutions to its debt and liquidity problems but at the rise of an anti-austerity party in government that generates hope for a rise of the Left around Europe. The expected rise of the Podemos party in Spain (elections to be held in November) threatens the right wing government and will challenge even more strongly Chancellor Merkel’s intransigence. This is why German policy needs to stop the Syriza-led government from achieving what will amount to a relative victory, no more than an easing of the current debt repayment obligations, which is what the Greek government is asking and especially more time (up to six months) to devise an alternative program that will crack down on tax evasion as previous governments failed to do so. Who would disagree – European governments included – that the fight against the corrupt Greek oligarchs is long overdue?

Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister, has already conceded that instead of asking for debt forgiveness the Greek government will focus on balanced and surplus budgets (of no more than 1 to 1.5% of GDP, instead of the insane 4.5% agreed by the previous government). Instead of a stand-off however a tough negotiation and an agreement is more likely. Concessions from Frankfurt or Berlin and expressed at the next Eurozone members meeting on Monday February 16 will reach a ‘bridging agreement.’ What is at stake is an alternative strategy for the EU and the Eurozone or the intransigence of the German government and its allies; the Greek government’s plan to restore economic stability and generate growth in the continent, for economic, moral but above all political reasons is not only viable, but indeed necessary.

The role of France and Italy in the conflict is crucial and President François Hollande may grasp the opportunity he has been looking for. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi can no longer be considered left in Europe and right-wing in Italy, as he complained when Tsipras visited him in Rome; but all social democrats have more to lose from parties like Syriza because they are exposed for failing to combat austerity-driven policies that have dragged Europe into deflation. The historic victory of a Left party with an explicitly anti-neoliberal programme represents a threat for the neoliberal/conservative bloc that dominates European politics at the moment. The failure of the austerity agenda is evident to all but very difficult to admit and above all ‘sell’ the U-turn to German, Dutch and other north-European electorates and even Spanish conservative voters. It is not an exaggeration to predict that from the battle between the first explicitly anti-austerity government of the Left in a Eurozone country and a very powerful bloc of other member states the future of the Left everywhere in the continent will be decided.

The Return of the Politics of Dignity

In some ways however the most significant battle has been won. The intense and hopeful campaign of Syriza before the elections against the politics of fear won over middle-aged voters, the unemployed, the young, even the more conservative countryside. Syriza represents the promise of a new social contract with Greek society, since the party is untainted by corruption, mismanagement, failed promises and a disastrous handling of the crisis. Today the Greek government states emphatically that it will not be blackmailed and will not renege on its pre-election commitments. Despite the tense negotiations underway people in the country, in Athens and elsewhere, feel more confident, hopeful and not afraid; in an unusual show of solidarity to the Greek government a few thousand gathered on February 5th and more on February 11th and 15th around the country, but also in many cities around the world, to proudly state that they support the politics of dignity. It has been a very long time since a pro-government demonstration has taken place in Greece.

Beyond the economics of the conflict, most Greeks are hopeful because they elected a government that seeks to restore their dignity and respond to the racist stereotypes of corrupt, lazy and profligate Greeks. The first poll a few days after the elections shows the overwhelming majority of Greeks – not only those who voted for Syriza – approve of the dignified stance that the Greek government has taken in the negotiations. The Greek government in its first few weeks enjoys levels of popularity that reach 60 to 80 per cent, as people approve the strategy of tough but fair negotiating line that the Greek delegation and Tsipras personally follow. Such a return to politics was more than necessary in a country that has been divided for too long, has been scared for too long. Given the state of the country’s economy and society it is not curious why Greeks elected a Left government, it is astonishing that they took so long.

Sakis Gekas is a professor in the History Department at York University, Toronto.

Corporate-funded think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, in their magazine Foreign Affairs, recently published an article titled, “Silencing the Shinawatras.” In it, author Matthew Wheeler encapsulates current US policy toward Thailand regarding the recent ousting by military coup of its proxy regime headed by Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra.

Wheeler claims:

At a time when the nation needs compromise, stability, and engagement across the political spectrum, Yingluck’s impeachment appears to many as a settling of scores, and its partisan implications make the prospect of progress look ever further off.

Wheeler also warns:

The sitting military regime, calling itself the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), promised to “return happiness” to the Thai people, overcoming social divisions and political rifts. Yingluck’s impeachment risks signaling that the military has surrendered all pretensions of impartiality, increasing the possibility of future turmoil.

Wheeler argues throughout his piece that Thailand must compromise with the ousted Shinawatra regime or face further instability. He briefly touches on the unprecedented violence that resulted after the removal from power of Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006. He fails to mention the specifics of that violence, or the immense mass murder that took place while Shinawata was in power.

Indeed, while in power Shinawatra had some 3,000 innocent people extrajudicially executed in the streets over a 90 day period in 2003. The following year, he violently put down a demonstration in Thailand’s troubled southern provinces, killing 85 people in a single day. He also implemented a campaign of terror and assassinations that saw at least 18 human rights advocates killed or disappeared during his first term in office. At least two of his political opponents have been outright assassinated, and a third narrowly escaped a broad daylight attack that saw over 100 bullets riddle his car in the center of the city.

His “red shirt” street mobs have regularly gunned down, hacked to death, or otherwise brutalized Shinawatra’s critics, and much of the success his political movement has enjoyed has been on the back of the fear and intimidation these “red shirts” have until recently inspired.

In 2009 and again in 2010, Shinawatra backed violent “red shirt” riots in Bangkok. The 2010 riots also included some 300 heavily armed terrorists who triggered bloodshed that would see nearly 100 killed. And just recently, as the largest street demonstrations in recent Thai history sought to unseat Thaksin Shinawatra’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, from power, he once again deployed heavily armed terrorists to kill and maim nearly 30 unarmed men, women, and children, and left maimed over 800 more.

Wheeler then is basically saying that because Shinawatra is willing to use such violence, and if Thailand would like to avoid further bloodshed, it should capitulate to his demands and compromise, accommodating his desire to once again dominate Thailand’s political landscape. Or in other words, capitulate to threats of terrorism and violence. But what Wheeler actually illustrates, is precisely why a military coup was required – twice – to remove this corrosive, violent influence upon Thai society in the first place – and why it is absolutely impossible to afford this threat any further compromise or accommodation.

The United States is famous for its stated policy of never negotiating with terrorists. It appears that Thailand has learned after nearly 20 years, the merits of this policy. Appeasing and accommodating those who set no limit on what they are willing to do to advance their own agenda is to invite bloodshed and self-destructive instability that will compromise the country economically, politically, and socially for generations to come. The future of Thailand depends on uprooting Shinawatra and those like him from power permanently, and laying a framework that prevents the weeds of violent despotism and nationwide corruption to take root again.

While Wheeler insists that Thailand must compromise with Shinawatra, in reality Thailand cannot afford anything less than the complete and permanently uprooting of his regime and its political networks from Thailand’s political landscape.

It should be noted that Wheeler hails from the International Crisis Group, another corporate-funded think tank amongst whose membership also sits Kenneth Adleman, a lobbyist for Thaksin Shinawatra and a chairman for the US State Department’s “Freedom House” organization which along with the Naitonal Endowment for Democracy (NED) funds pro-Shinawatra propaganda networks inside of Thailand like the notorious online publication “Prachatai.” The International Crisis Group also includes as a member, George Soros, a convicted financial criminal and whose Open Society organization also funds Prachatai and other pro-Shinawatra fronts.

It is no surprise then, that Wheeler argues Shinawatra should be accommodated –  but despite his claims otherwise, such an accommodation is certainly not in Thailand’s best interests, but rather in the best interests of those that fund Wheeler’s think tank and his colleagues who have, over the years, painstakingly groomed and propped Shinawatra up politically at great cost to the Thai people.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Ohio anti-fracking activists. (Photo: Frack Free Ohio/Facebook)

In a blow to anti-fracking campaigners across the state, the Ohio Supreme Court said this week that the authority to regulate oil and gas drilling activities—and therefore, to ban fracking within municipal borders—lies with the state as opposed to cities, towns, or counties.

As the Akron Beacon Journal put it: “The decision takes local control of drilling away from communities and supports the state as the continued main overseer of drilling.”

Several Ohio cities, including Athens, Oberlin, and Mansfield, have passed similar ordinances to ban fracking—some as recently as November 2014—that may now be rendered moot by the court’s decision.

By a 4-3 vote, the justices ruled (pdf) that the state has “exclusive authority” over shale-extraction activities and that cities and counties can neither ban nor regulate fracking through zoning laws or other restrictions.

The decision came in a case brought by an Akron suburb against Beck Energy Corp., which received a state-required permit from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources in 2011 to drill a traditional well on private property in the northeast city of Munroe Falls. The city sued, saying the company illegally evaded local ordinances.

The state’s top court rejected Munroe Falls’ assertion that it was validly exercising ‘home rule,’ which lets communities enact local rules and regulations as long as they don’t conflict with general state law. The court found Munroe Falls’ ordinances amounted to an exercise of ‘police power,’ not self-government, and conflicted with state regulations first enacted in 2004.

According to the Columbus Dispatch:

Local governments’ home-rule powers stop short of the wellhead—overridden by the authority that lawmakers gave to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to license and regulate the location of wells, the court’s majority ruled.

The ruling was a victory for oil and gas producers, who no longer face local regulations, and a defeat for local governments that sought to protect residents from what they see as potential dangers from fracking.

At least one of the dissenting judges agreed that the victor in the court’s decision was the fossil fuels industry.

“Let’s be clear here,” Justice William O’Neill wrote in his dissenting opinion. “The Ohio General Assembly has created a zookeeper to feed the elephant in the living room. What the drilling industry has bought and paid for in campaign contributions they shall receive. The oil and gas industry has gotten its way, and local control of drilling-location decisions has been unceremoniously taken away from the citizens of Ohio.”

Environmentalists and local government officials both expressed dismay at the decision.

“It’s really sad and tragic for the citizens of Ohio,” Vanessa Presak, president of the Network for Oil and Gas Accountability and Protection, told the Beacon Journal. “The fact that communities cannot stop harmful industrial activities is tragic.”

Athens mayor Paul Wiehl echoed those concerns,telling The Post that it was unfair for the state to void Athens’ ban. “I guess that means the voice of the people doesn’t matter,” Wiehl told the independent, student-run newspaper. “We said ‘We want local control,’ and then they take it away.”

However, the court’s decision “was very close,” notes local activist Roxanne Groff, a member of the Athens County Fracking Action Network, in an email to Common Dreams.

“Justice [Terrence] O’Donnell in his decision does give thought to the constitutional rights of local governance,” she added. “Hopefully this decision will ignite local governments to fight back by demanding that our lawmakers restore those rights.”

In Ohio, fracking has been directly linked to an uptick in earthquakes. A spill and fire at a fracking well in mid-2014 forced evacuations and befouled a creek, resulting in dead crayfish, minnows, and smallmouth bass. And at the end of 2014, about 25 families in the eastern part of the state were unable to live in their homes for three days because of an out-of-control natural-gas leak at a nearby fracking well.

Associated Press reports that the Ohio case “has been closely watched nationally, raising a question in cities and towns where lucrative oil and gas is trapped in underground shale: Can regulations put in place by states eager for the jobs and tax revenues that come with drilling trump local restrictions on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that communities are enacting to protect against haphazard development.”

Across the United States, attempts to stymie the fracking boom on the local level have met with mixed results.

In July, New York’s highest court ruled that local governments can outlaw fracking, but in 2013, a Pennsylvania court said towns can regulate it but not outright ban it. Towns in Texas and California also banned fracking in last year’s election, but Texas officials haverefused to allow it to be enforced.

As U.S. imperialism loses its capacity to compete outside the military sphere, its foreign policy options shrink, accordingly. “Since the U.S. is superior to the rest of the world ONLY in military terms, Washington finds its ultimate advantage in turning the whole world into a battlefield.” Permanent War follows the same logic as a death cult. In fact, one created the other – literally.

President Obama is a master of military supply and demand. His operatives and allies supply jihadists with enough weapons, financing and, in the case of Libya, a Euro-American air force, to plunge vast tracts of Africa and Asia into bloody chaos, thus creating a demand for intervention by the planet’s only “indispensable” nation: the United States. It’s a diabolical formula for fomenting hell on earth, driven by a simple logic: Since the U.S. is superior to the rest of the world ONLY in military terms, Washington finds its ultimate advantage in turning the whole world into a battlefield. U.S. imperialism in terminal decay sees no salvation except through global war.

Of necessity, Obama is a flame-thrower, a fire-spitter, a pyromaniac on a mission to incinerate humanity’s capacity to resist – a vision shared by the jihadist death cults America has incubated for the past four decades.

ISIS, the Islamic State, begat by Al Qaida, which was begat by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the U.S. in Afghanistan, now declares sovereignty over portions of Libya, having occupied much of Syria and Iraq and planted the black flag in southern Yemen and the suburbs of Paris, where its token presence is enough to drive millions of Europeans into a decrepit Crusader palsy. A subcontinent of thieves who have plundered the planet for half a millennia vow to send the dark Others back to “their own countries” – as if Europe had not stolen these African and Asian homelands long ago. In the end, however, what Europe will send is more weapons to the jihadists, mimicking Uncle Sam.

This week, as happens every year, France, Britain, Italy and other piratical European states join the U.S. Africa Command’s military Flintlock exercise, designed to deepen African militaries’ dependence on western weaponry, training and finance. Chad, a client state of both Washington and Paris, is the nominal host of the exercise – as if any of the African participants could actually say No to an imperial proposal. The Flintlock maneuvers have converged with a regional military offensive against Boko Haram, the northern Nigerian jihadists that have gained so much ground since the U.S. and NATO turned Libya over to the tender mercies of Arab jihadists, in 2011. Libyan weapons flooded south across the Sahara desert, bringing instability to the vast Sahel region – which is like honey to the Pentagon bee. The U.S. military has announced that it will “share communications equipment and intelligence” with the five nations preparing to battle Boko Haram around oil-rich Lake Chad – imperial double-speak for putting the Americans in charge of the command-and-control mechanisms of the armies of Chad, Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon and Benin. Boko Haram has proven quite useful to the consolidation of U.S. military dominance in West Africa.

Meanwhile, the jihadist rampage has come full circle in Libya, where both ISIS and Al Qaida have multiple strongholds. Jihadist “ultras” are most deeply entrenched in Derna, a port city east of Benghazi that accounted for the most jihadists killed or captured in Iraq during the American occupation. When U.S. and NATO finally destroyed Muammar Gaddafi’s forces after seven months of bombing, hundreds of jihadists were sent to Syria, hoping to repeat the process against President Bashar al-Assad. Many have since returned to Libya, bringing the black flag of the Islamic State with them.

Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a supporter of one of three rump “governments” in Libya, bombed ISIS targets in Derna after the decapitation of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christian migrant workers. The atrocity, combined with a declaration of allegiance to ISIS by some Islamic rebels on Egypt’s Sinai peninsula, prompted el-Sisi to call for the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS to put Libya on its bombing list– an invitation from the world’s most populous Arab nation for the U.S. to extend the scope of its military operations to Egypt’s western border.

Jihad is truly a blessing for U.S. imperial objectives – but there is nothing coincidental about it. The U.S. installed jihadists in power in Libya, leading directly to the destabilization of vast lands to the South, which in turn facilitated the U.S. Africa Command’s mission to militarily dominate the continent. The U.S.-led jihadist proxy war against secular Syria was the incubator for ISIS, providing the U.S. with a new portal into Iraq, an excuse to operate openly in Syria, and now a possible chance to re-enter Libya cloaked as a savior from the jihadist hordes that the U.S. armed, financed and empowered only four years ago.

ISIS has been such a boon to U.S. war-fomenting strategy, Obama has been emboldened to demand that Congress give him three years of virtually unlimited, renewable powers to reboot the War on Terror. Like George Bush before him, Obama refuses to put geographic limits on the scope of his crusade against ISIS and its “associates.” The world is his live-fire chessboard, he can call the pieces by whatever name he wants, and make up the rules along the way. Every move is calculated to lead to greater militarization of relations among nations and peoples, because the military is America’s strongest suit – in fact, its only suit.

The truth is, the rulers of the United States are as much a death cult as the Islamic State, although U.S. imperialism is infinitely more dangerous. Let us do our best to send them both to their respective Paradises.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].

Prosperity Requires Privacy

Privacy is a prerequisite for a prosperous economy. Even the White House admits:

People must have confidence that data will travel to its destination without disruption. Assuring the free flow of information, the security and privacy of data, and the integrity of the interconnected networks themselves are all essential to American and global economic prosperity, security, and the promotion of universal rights.

Below, we discuss five ways that mass surveillance hurts our economy.

1. Foreigners Stop Buying American

Foreigners are starting to shy away from U.S. Internet companies, due to the risk that American spooks will spy on them.

American tech companies – including Verizon, Cisco, IBM and others – are getting hammered for cooperating with the NSA and failing to protect privacy. The costs to the U.S. economy have been estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And see this and this.

That doesn’t even take into account the just-revealed NSA program of infecting virtually all popular Western hard drives with spyware.  This will cause huge markets like China to insist that locally-produced hard drives be used, to make it harder for the NSA to hack into them.

So the NSA’s shenanigans are hurting dual pillars of the U.S. tech sector: computers and Internet.   (The sale of mobile devices might not be far behind.)

2. Trust and the Rule of Law – Two Main determinants of Prosperity – Are Undermined By Surveillance

Trust is KEY for a prosperous economy. It’s hard to trust when your government, your internet service provider and your favorite websites are all spying on you.

The destruction of privacy by the NSA directly harms internet companies, Silicon Valley, California … and the entire U.S. economy (Facebook lost 11 millions users as of April mainly due to privacy concerns … and that was before the Snowden revelations). If people don’t trust the companies to keep their data private, they’ll use foreign companies.

And destruction of trust in government and other institutions is destroying our economy.

A top cyber security consultant points out:

If privacy is not protected while performing mass surveillance for national security purposes, then the people’s level of trust in the government decreases.

We noted in 2012:

Personal freedom and liberty – and freedom from the arbitrary exercise of government power – are strongly correlated with a healthy economy, but America is descending into tyranny.

Authoritarian actions by the government interfere with the free market, and thus harm prosperity.

U.S. News and World Report notes:

The Fraser Institute’s latest Economic Freedom of the World Annual Report is out, and the news is not good for the United States. Ranked among the five freest countries in the world from 1975 through 2002, the United States has since dropped to 18th place.

The Cato institute notes:

The United States has plummeted to 18th place in the ranked list, trailing such countries as Estonia, Taiwan, and Qatar.

***

Actually, the decline began under President George W. Bush. For 20 years the U.S. had consistently ranked as one of the world’s three freest economies, along with Hong Kong and Singapore. By the end of the Bush presidency, we were barely in the top ten.

And, as with so many disastrous legacies of the Bush era, Barack Obama took a bad thing and made it worse.

But the American government has shredded the constitution, by … spying on all Americans, and otherwise attacking our freedoms.

Indeed, rights won in 1215 – in the Magna Carta – are being repealed.

Economic historian Niall Ferguson notes, draconian national security laws are one of the main things undermining the rule of law:

We must pose the familiar question about how far our civil liberties have been eroded by the national security state – a process that in fact dates back almost a hundred years to the outbreak of the First World War and the passage of the 1914 Defence of the Realm Act. Recent debates about the protracted detention of terrorist suspects are in no way new. Somehow it’s always a choice between habeas corpus and hundreds of corpses.

Of course, many of this decades’ national security measures have not been taken to keep us safe in the “post-9/11 world” … indeed, many of them [including spying on Americans] started before 9/11.

And America has been in a continuous declared state of national emergency since 9/11, and we are in a literally never-ending state of perpetual war. See this, this, this and this.

***

So lawlessness infringement of our liberty is destroying our prosperity.

Put another way, lack of privacy kills the ability to creatively criticize bad government policy … and to demand enforcement of the rule of law. Indeed, 5,000 years of history shows that mass surveillance is always carried out to crush dissent. In other words, mass surveillance is the opposite of the principle of the rule of law (in distinction to the rule of men) upon which America was founded.

Free speech and checks and balances on the power of government officials are two of the main elements of justice in any society. And a strong rule of law is – in turn – the main determinant of GDP growth.

3. The Free Flow of Information Requires Privacy

Moreover, surveillance hampers the free flow of information as many people begin to watch what they say. The free flow of information is a core requisite for a fast-moving economy … especially an information economy, as opposed to economies focused on resource-extraction or manufacturing.

As quoted above, the White House states:

Assuring the free flow of information [is] essential to American and global economic prosperity, security, and the promotion of universal rights.

Mass surveillance makes people more reluctant to share information … and thus hurts the economy.

4. Mass Surveillance Hurts Productivity

Top computer and internet experts say that NSA spying breaks the functionality of our computers and of the Internet. It reduces functionality and reduces security by – for example – creating backdoors that malicious hackers can get through.

Remember, American and British spy agencies have intentionally weakened security for many decades. And it’s getting worse and worse. For example, they plan to use automated programs to infect millions of computers.

How much time and productivity have we lost in battling viruses let in because of the spies tinkering? How much have we lost because “their” computer programs conflict with “our” programs?

Microsoft’s general counsel labels government snooping an “advanced persistent threat,” a term generally used to describe teams of hackers that coordinate cyberattacks for foreign governments. It is well-known among IT and security professionals that hacking decreases employee productivity. While they’re usually referring to hacking by private parties, the same is likely true for hacking by government agencies, as well.

And the spy agencies are already collecting millions of webcam images from our computers. THAT’S got to tie up our system resources … so we can’t get our work done as fast.

Moreover, the Snowden documents show that the American and British spy agencies launched attacks to disrupt the computer networks of “hacktivists” and others they don’t like, and tracked supporters of groups such as Wikileaks.

Given that the spy agencies are spying on everyone, capturing millions of screenshots, intercepting laptop shipments, creating fake versions of popular websites to inject malware on people’s computers, launching offensive cyber-warfare operations against folks they don’t like, and that they may view journalism, government criticism or even thinking for one’s self as terrorism – and tend to re-label “dissidents” as “terrorists” – it’s not unreasonable to assume that all of us are being adversely effected to one degree or another by spy agency operations.

Bill Binney – the high-level NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, a 32-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, the senior technical director within the agency, who managed thousands of NSA employees – tells Washington’s Blog:

The other costs involve weakening systems (operating systems/firewalls/encryption). When they do that, this weakens the systems for all to find. Hackers around the world as well as governments too.

These costs are hard to count. For example, we hear of hackers getting customer data over and over again. Is that because of what our government has done?

Or, how about all the attacks on systems in government? Are these because of weakened systems?

5. Creativity – A Prime Driver of Prosperity – Requires Privacy

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada – Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D. – noted recently:

Privacy is Essential to … Prosperity and Well-Being

• Innovation, creativity and the resultant prosperity of a society requires freedom;

• Privacy is the essence of freedom: Without privacy, individual human rights, property rights and civil liberties – the conceptual engines of innovation and creativity, could not exist in a meaningful manner;

• Surveillance is the antithesis of privacy: A negative consequence of surveillance is the usurpation of a person’s limited cognitive bandwidth, away from innovation and creativity.

The Financial Post reported last year: “Big Brother culture will have adverse effect on creativity, productivity“.

Christopher Lingle – visiting professor of economics at ESEADE, Universidad Francisco Marroquín – agrees that creativity is a key to economic prosperity.

Edward Snowden points out:

The success of economies in developed nations relies increasingly on their creative output, and if that success is to continue we must remember that creativity is the product of curiosity, which in turn is the product of privacy.

Silicon Valley is currently one of the largest drivers of the U.S. economy. Do you think Bill Gates and Steve Jobs could have tinkered so creatively in their garages if the government had been watching everything they do?

Everyone who has every done anything creative knows that you need a little privacy to try different things before you’re ready to go public with it. If your bench model, rough sketch or initial melody is being dissected in real time by an intrusive audience … you’re not going to be very creative.  And see this.

Dees Illustration

“Discoveries and inventions are not terminals; they are fresh starting points from which we can climb to new knowledge.” – Dr. Willis R. Whitney, founder of General Electric Laboratories

After so many years of watching airplanes produce the lines in the sky, largely without knowing of what this Project consists or why, we have recently gained an understanding. Evidence suggests that today’s chemtrail spraying operations consist of airplanes saturating our atmosphere with nano-sized particles influenced by electromagnetic energy for the purpose of weather modification.

U.S. patent #4,686,605 “Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere and/or Magnetosphere” shows how stratospheric and tropospheric aerosols can be manipulated using electromagnetic energy in order to modify the weather. The ground-based antennas (known as ionospheric heaters) needed to produce the appropriate electromagnetic energy exist. For a detailed discussion, please see the author’s previous article “Smoking Gun: The HAARP and Chemtrails Connection.” 

The 1996 U.S. military document “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” outlines a program using aerosols sprayed from airplanes which are then manipulated with electromagnetic energy in order to modify the weather. This document will be discussed shortly.

The common thread here is weather modification; or as the Library of Congress calls it, “weather control.” Lots of other evidence supporting this assertion exists as well, but these two documents are the most salient.

Motives are plenty. Most notably, significant direct benefits can be gained by playing financial markets which rise and fall with the weather such as the weather derivatives and catastrophe reinsurance markets; not to mention agricultural and energy commodities. Enron pioneered the markets. With foreknowledge of the weather, so many scams could be concocted that it boggles the mind. Weather routinely changes the course of Human history. It determines what we do every day. It determines the outcomes of wars and influences elections. Control of the weather is God-like power. Money and power junkies want it.

Controlling Earth’s weather would necessarily require a gigantic scientific effort. Oddly enough, when one looks for a National effort in weather modification, one finds a lot. Specifically, if one looks, one can find a history of weather control programs involving electromagnetic energy and atmospheric particles; all in a coherent chronological order.

This paper is the result of thousands of dollars and countless hours spent researching many thousands of pages of source, organizational and Government documents related to weather modification and the atmospheric sciences. This article serves as the foundation for a series of shortly forthcoming articles detailing the history and current state of this Project. May this work help end the spraying. For the fact that these environmental modifications have been done without our informed consent, may this work contribute to the largest class-action lawsuit in history.

This paper examines the origins and development of this; the first planetary level scientific endeavor. Now is our opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the New Manhattan Project.

The Origins of Weather Modification

People have been attempting to modify the weather for ever. Most commonly, man has gone about making it rain; especially in times of drought. The earliest recorded efforts were those of mystics. Local shaman would be called upon to ingest a certain concoction in order to communicate with the weather gods and ask for help. In some cases, the sacrifice of certain animals in certain fashions may have been the thing to do. Sometimes a good old rain dance may have done the trick.

Some early Western efforts to stop destructive weather are outlined in professor James Fleming’s book Fixing the Sky. On page 78 he writes, “In ancient Greece, the official ‘hail wardens’ of Cleonae were appointed at public expense to watch for hail and then signal the farmers to offer blood sacrifices to protect their fields: a lamb, a chicken, or even a poor man drawing blood from his finger was deemed sufficient.”

A little later professor Fleming writes, “In Austria, it was traditional to ring ‘thunder bells’ or blow on huge ‘weather horns’ while herdsmen set up a terrific howl and women rattled chains and beat milk pails to scare away the destructive spirit of the storm.”

Much of the early Western attempts at weather modification involved the detonation of explosive charges in the lower atmosphere. It was hypothesized that atmospheric explosions cause precipitation.

Early American Involvement

Although there has been much international participation, this article focuses on America’s participation in the New Manhattan Project. Throughout the development of the New Manhattan Project, America was the world’s technological leader; especially in the area of military technology. America led the way and developed most of this Project. America continues to lead the Project today. Therefore the early history of weather modification in America is relevant.

James Pollard Espy (1785-1860) also known as “The Storm King” was the first meteorologist in U.S. government service. Although he never received Federal funding for it, he suggested that forest fires can produce rainfall and that experiments in this area should be carried out. His magnum opus was a book called The Philosophy of Storms. This book contains a long section entitled “Artificial Rains.”

The first Federally funded weather modification field effort took place in Texas in 1891, with funds appropriated by the Congress in the amount of nine thousand dollars through the Department of Agriculture. The experiment involved weather modifier Robert St. George Dyrenforth (1844-1910) attacking the atmosphere with balloons, kites, dynamite, mortars, smoke bombs and fireworks. The results were inconclusive, but you can bet that the atmosphere was absolutely terrified!

From these early efforts until the beginning of the scientific era in 1946, the realm of weather modification was inhabited largely by a motley collection of pseudo-scientists and con artists similar to Dyrenforth. These people, who referred to themselves as “rainmakers,” traveled around the Country (mostly the West), going where local governments were willing to pay for their services. If a certain region was experiencing a severe drought, people were often desperate for solutions. These rainmakers’ activities often involved the mixing and open air release of dangerous chemicals. Some of these efforts were Federally funded. Since the days of Robert Dyrenforth, the Federal money has not stopped flowing.

Nikola Tesla

In the late 1800s, inventor Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) popularized the use of electromagnetic energy. In his 1905 United States patent number 787,412 “Art of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through the Natural Mediums” Tesla describes how electromagnetic energy may be sent and received through the atmosphere. The Supreme Court found that U.S. patent #645,576 “System of Transmission of Electrical Energy” proves he invented radio; not Marconi. He pioneered radar. He invented wireless signal and power transmission. Yes, power can be transmitted wirelessly; we’ll have more about that later.

Tesla’s musings and scientific discoveries pioneered what are today’s ionospheric heaters which use electromagnetic energy to cause atmospheric perturbations from great distances and play a defining role in the New Manhattan Project. Specifically, he pioneered the use of a certain type of electromagnetic energy called extremely-low frequency (ELF). This is a specific type of energy known to be used in the New Manhattan Project; the other being very-low frequency (VLF) electromagnetic energy.

In her book Tesla: Man Out of Time, Margaret Cheney writes that he did a good deal of theorizing about weather control. She also writes that he theorized that the entire earth might be illuminated by shooting electromagnetic energy 35,000 feet up into the atmosphere. 35,000 feet is about the altitude of today’s offending airplanes.

The Beginning of the Scientific Era

The scientific era of weather modification began famously in 1946 with a trio of scientists from General Electric Laboratories: Irving Langmuir, Vincent Schaefer and Bernard Vonnegut. Leading the group was the world famous Nobel Peace Prize winning scientist Irving Langmuir (1881-1957). This trio popularized the fact that, under certain circumstances, dumping substances from airplanes into clouds causes precipitation. Early experiments used dry ice while later experiments pioneered the use of silver iodide. Also invented were silver iodide generation equipment and many other weather related scientific instruments. Much of this trio’s work here was done in cooperation with the Office of Naval Research and the Air Force. Although others had previously dumped stuff out of airplanes in attempts to modify the weather, the G.E. scientists practiced a sound scientific method previously unseen in the field.

Schaefer, Langmuir & Vonnegut, image source: General Electric Laboratories

Following the famous scientific weather modification efforts of the G.E. Labs trio, the public’s imagination was sparked and a government regulated weather modification industry flourished. To this day, the government-regulated weather modification industry (or “conventional” weather modification industry as we will call it) expels dry ice, lead iodide or silver iodide (usually silver iodide) from airplanes.

However, the conventional weather modification industry is distinct from the New Manhattan Project and therefore is not the focus of this article. The New Manhattan Project employs electromagnetic energy to manipulate dispersed particles while conventional weather modifiers do not. Also, conventional weather modification efforts are conducted on a regional basis while the New Manhattan Project is global.

Not long after the scientific breakthroughs of the G.E. Labs trio, fueled by high level political rhetoric and popular interest, the United States federal government began pouring hundreds of millions of dollars annually into basic atmospheric research. Since then, the United States government is admitted to have spent many tens of billions of dollars on weather modification and the atmospheric sciences. Much of that was expended in 1950s, ’60s and ’70s dollars. If one is to control the weather, one must know how the atmosphere works. Or as geoengineer Dr. Clement J. Todd wrote in 1970, “Our ability to manage precipitation depends upon four factors: (1) understanding the physical processes of the atmosphere, (2) real-time knowledge of the weather we wish to manipulate, (3) devising the optimum treatment material and technique, and (4) delivery of that treatment to the cloud where and when we wish.”

The majority of the vast expanses of literature pertaining to weather modification and the atmospheric sciences is geared towards conventional weather modification. However, both the New Manhattan Project and conventional weather modification are supported by basic atmospheric research. So, buried in this body of literature, one may find glimpses of the New Manhattan Project. The rest of this paper recounts these glimpses.

Bernard Vonnegut

One member of the G.E. Labs trio, Bernard Vonnegut (1914-1997) went on to pioneer weather modification research involving the use of artificial electric charges and atmospheric aerosols. His work in this area was performed under Government contracts outsourced to a research and development firm called Arthur D. Little Inc.

Bernard Vonnegut, image source: Life Magazine

The earliest recorded instances of electricity being intentionally used to modify particles in the atmosphere can be found in the 1884 experiments of Sir Oliver Lodge (1851-1940). The 1918 U.S. patent #1,279,823 “Process and Apparatus for Causing Precipitation by Coalescence of Aqueous Particles Contained in the Atmosphere” by J.G. Balsillie built upon Lodge’s work. Using this knowledge as a basis, Mr. Vonnegut resumed Lodge’s work; this time with massive funding and modernized scientific equipment.

Beginning in 1953, Bernard Vonnegut, Arthur D. Little et al., conducted experiments involving stainless steel wires miles long strung from the tops of telephone poles, connected to a power supply and discharging corona. The coronal discharge’s effect upon ambient aerosols and the clouds above was monitored and analyzed. Through 1961, these experiments were carried out in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, Illinois and New Mexico. These types of experiments are referred to as “space charge” experiments. The U.S. Signal Corps and the U. S. Coast Guard provided support. Others performed similar experiments.

Space charge experiment, image source: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The 1958 “Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control” contained an article by Bernard Vonnegut, Vincent Schaefer, J. S. Barrows and Paul MacCready titled “The Future.” In it they outline an atmosphere saturated with “chemicals” and “altering” atmospheric electrical variables. It reads:

When the nature of thunderstorm electrification is understood it may prove possible to control this process by the introduction of chemicals into the atmosphere or by altering electrical variables. Such variables might be atmospheric conductivity, field, and space charge, or perhaps the corona giving properties of the earth’s surface.

When we become sufficiently sophisticated concerning the dynamics of the atmosphere it is possible that weather may be controlled by the large scale release of chemical or more probably thermonuclear heat energy.

In 1961, Bernard Vonnegut, Arnold W. Doyle and D. Read Moffett wrote a paper for Arthur D. Little titled “Research in Electrical Phenomena Associated with Aerosols.” This was a report about their experiments of the previous 3 months involving the effects of electromagnetic energy upon a grounded sphere in a small chamber surrounded by gas. Please consider the implications of that. We will revisit this paper much later.

If you are wondering… yes, Bernard Vonnegut was related to the novelist Kurt Vonnegut. They were brothers.

***

In 1958 the chief White House advisor on weather modification, Captain Howard T. Orville, said the U.S. defense department was studying “ways to manipulate the charges of the earth and sky and so affect the weather” by using an electronic beam to ionize or de-ionize the atmosphere over a given area.

***

The Department of Commerce Weather Bureau reported in 1960 that they were conducting a weather modification study in which, “Chemicals are introduced into the cloud which noticeably changes the surface tension of the droplets. Electrification effects are being observed by artificially electrifying the droplets and subjecting them to impressed electric fields.”

***

For better or for worse, this super secret program had a prophet. His name was United States Navy Admiral William Francis Raborn (1905-1990).

William Francis Raborn, image source: United States Navy

In the January 1963 edition of the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Admiral Raborn outlined a program using electromagnetic energy to modify the weather. His article was entitled “New Horizons of Naval Research and Development.” In this paper, underneath the heading of ‘Environmental Warfare’ he wrote:

The possibilities for the military employment of the “weather weapon” may be as diverse as they are numerous. An ability to control the weather could introduce greater changes in warfare than those which occurred in 1945 with the explosion of the first nuclear weapons.

A severe storm or hurricane striking a naval force may well inflict greater damage than could an enemy. The capability to change the direction of destructive storms and guide them toward enemy concentrations may exist in the future arsenal of the naval tactical commander.

Ground, sea, air and amphibious operations might be supported by the dissipation of fog or clouds, or by the production of rain or drought. Conversely, the creation of solid, low overcasts might be used to conceal troop concentrations, movements, and task force deployments. Large-scale weather control techniques might be used to cause extensive flooding in strategic areas or even to bring a new “ice age” upon the enemy. By influencing the ionosphere and atmosphere simultaneously, magnetic, acoustic, and pressure effects might be generated in such a way that ocean-wide sweeping of mines would occur.

Creating or dissipating atmospheric temperature/humidity ducts might modify the refractive index of the atmosphere enough to influence radar or radio transmission. Artificially-induced ionospheric storms might produce a blackout of communications.

Certain electromagnetic waves are unable to pass through an area of precipitation. A cloud seeding generator could be employed under appropriate meteorological conditions to produce precipitation that would interfere with the operation of radio-guided or remotely-controlled devices or vehicles. We already have taken our first steps toward developing an environmental warfare capability. We are using satellite weather data from Tiros II for current, tactical operations and more accurate, long-range weather predictions. Some experiments in fog dissipation have shown promise, and some exploratory research has been conducted on ways to change the heading of major storms.

For these reasons – and because our advances in science make it reasonable – we are now engaged in planning a ten-year, comprehensive study of the atmosphere, a study which we will designate ATMOS. This plan will be co-ordinated with our TENOC oceanographic studies.

About the ATMOS program, the author has failed to find any other significant information. The author has looked over a 1961 report pertaining to the Navy TENOC (Ten Year Program in Oceanography) program. Although it did not contain any specific information pertinent to the New Manhattan Project, it did make mention of another, classified TENOC report.

It is notable that the title of Raborn’s article includes the word “horizon” because the type of electromagnetic energy to which he refers is akin to “over the horizon radar.” This type of radar is called “over the horizon” because it is bounced off the ionosphere and therefore is effective far beyond the range of the forty miles or so (depending on terrain) afforded by previous radar systems. Forty miles is approximately the distance one can see over flat land or sea before the curvature of the Earth obscures points beyond. Over the horizon radar, on the other hand, is effective to thousands of miles. Today’s ionospheric heaters evolved as over the horizon radar.

Also of note is the fact that the United States Navy, of which Mr. Raborn was an admiral, is today one of the managers of the HAARP facility in Alaska. The HAARP facility contains the world’s most powerful ionospheric heater which is documented to be able to modify the weather.

***

In the 1967 National Science Foundation’s ninth annual weather modification report, it reads, “ESSA [Environmental Science Services Administration] is also investigating the effect of cirrus clouds on the radiation budget of the atmosphere by studying aircraft-produced contrails which often spread into cirrus layers covering considerable fractions of the sky. One technique proposed for modifying lower cloud development has been the generation of a high level cirrus deck with jet aircraft. By intercepting solar radiation at high altitude it may be possible to influence larger scale cloud development elsewhere by reducing solar input and reducing convective cloud generation in areas where they are not needed.” This is essentially today’s geoengineering thesis.

A little later in that same report, it reads that their computer atmospheric simulations, or ‘models’ as they call them, might simulate, “…producing high-level cirrus cloud cover over an area by means of jet aircraft, inserting particulate matter into the upper atmosphere to alter the solar radiation balance and the like.”

***

In 1966, the Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences Select Panel on Weather Modification produced a document titled “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification.” On page 17 of this report, it reads, “It is anticipated that there will be a few large-scale facilities funded for the testing of modification schemes. Typical schemes might be the suspension of a spray nozzle over a valley between two mountain peaks to produce cloud-sized droplets into which electrical charges can be introduced in either polarity, contaminants can be introduced, and the drop size spectrum can be adjusted to any reasonable distribution.” The Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences subsequently agreed to proceed with the development of a National Weather Modification Program along the lines of this report.

The now defunct Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) was created by the Federal Council for Science and Technology in 1959 in order to oversee and coordinate a wide range of basic atmospheric research originating from many previously disparate government offices. Their focus was weather modification. Members of the ICAS included the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, Transportation and State as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. These are the government agencies which have been involved in weather modification all along.

The ICAS produced a series of semi-annual reports between 1960 and 1978. In these reports, ICAS member organizations’ weather related scientific activities and expenditures were recounted. The ICAS reports’ areas of study included: Earth’s natural geomagnetic energy, different ways clouds form and different ways they precipitate, lightning, hurricanes and other extreme weather, inadvertent weather modification, intentional weather modification and extra-planetary atmospheres. The ICAS is duly noted here because so much of the history of the New Manhattan Project is accounted for in the pages of their reports.

In the 1969 ICAS report, under the heading of “Cloud Electricity Modification,” it is written that the National Science Foundation is developing, “Means for injecting significant quantities of charge artificially into clouds…”

Again in this 1969 report, on page 37 it describes the Army’s intentions in the area of weather modification. It reads, “Studies will continue on upper atmospheric structure and dynamics, lasers and other electromagnetic propagation, and acoustic propagation. New approaches to atmospheric modification will be studied.”

On page 42 of the 1971 ICAS special report “A National Program for Accelerating Progress in Weather Modification,” the authors write of fog being cleared by airplanes releasing chemicals and ‘electrical methods’ of fog dissipation.

On page 79 of the 1973 ICAS report, it is written, “There is a great deal to be learned before we can with confidence say what effect can be produced by the injection of chemically active trace gasses and particulates into the lower stratosphere. New emphasis has been given to both dynamical and physical meteorological research relevant to this question.”

***

United States patent #5,003,186 “Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming” was filed by the Hughes Aircraft Corporation in 1991. The patent describes a method for dispersing particulates into the upper atmosphere in order to save us from global warming. The author David B. Chang suggests that aluminum oxide be used for this purpose. Lab tests from around the world have shown aluminum to be the number one chemtrail ingredient.”

One proposed solution to the problem of global warming,” it reads, “involves the seeding of the atmosphere with metallic particles. One technique proposed to seed the metallic particles was to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude.

“The first mention of aluminum occurs in this passage, “The method comprises the step of seeding the greenhouse gas layer with a quantity of tiny particles of materials characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity or reflectivity, in that said materials have high emissivities in the visible and far infrared wavelength region. Such materials can include the class of materials known as Welsbach materials. The oxides of metal, e.g., aluminum oxide, are also suitable for the purpose.”

The second mention of aluminum occurs a little later. It reads, “Another class of materials having the desired property includes the oxides of metals. For example, aluminum oxide (Al2O3) is one metal oxide suitable for the purpose and which is relatively inexpensive.”

The Hughes Aircraft Corporation was acquired by and is now integrated into Raytheon.

***

A 1994 document produced by Stanford Research International called “Multiple Instrument Studies of Chemical Releases and Heating at Arecibo” details three barium releases of 48 kilograms each over Puerto Rico. The barium clouds produced by these rocket-borne explosions were subsequently hit with man-made electromagnetic energy from an ionospheric heater and thus turned into a plasma. Barium has been found to be the number two chemtrail ingredient.

***

In 1996 the Air Force produced a previously mentioned document called “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025.” The document was produced by the Department of Defense and written as ordered by the chief of staff of the Air Force, Ronald R. Fogleman. “Owning the Weather” was but one in a series of 39 documents speaking to a great overhaul of Air Force operations to be achieved by the year 2025. The larger set of documents is called “Air Force 2025.” “Owning the Weather” describes a system of weather modification combining atmospheric aerosols with electromagnetic energy.

On page 2 the document reads, “Prior to the attack, which is coordinated with forecasted weather conditions, the UAVs begin cloud generation and seeding operations. UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] disperse a cirrus shield to deny enemy visual and infrared (IR) surveillance. Simultaneously, microwave heaters create localized scintillation to disrupt active sensing via synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems such as the commercially available Canadian search and rescue satellite-aided tracking (SARSAT) that will be widely available in 2025. Other cloud seeding operations cause a developing thunderstorm to intensify over the target, severely limiting the enemy’s capability to defend. The WFSE monitors the entire operation in real-time and notes the successful completion of another very important but routine weather-modification mission.”

The document mostly speaks to military combat applications, but there are some very interesting quotes. Here’s one, “In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications.” Let’s hear more about those “domestic applications”

On page 34 the document reads, “The ability to modify the weather may be desirable both for economic and defense reasons.”

Also in 1996, as part of the same series containing “Owning the Weather,” the Air Force produced a document entitled “An Operational Analysis for Air Force 2025” which briefly outlines something they call a “weather analysis and modification system.” This system is described as employing both particulate seeding and microwave energy for the purpose of weather modification.

Under the heading of “Weather Analysis and Modification System,” the document reads, “A global network of sensors provides ‘weather warriors’ with the means to monitor and accurately predict weather activities and their effects on military operations. A diverse set of weather modification tools allows manipulation of small-to-medium scale weather phenomena to enhance friendly force capabilities and degrade those of the adversary.”

***

In the mid-nineties, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories scientists Edward Teller, Lowell Wood and Roderick Hyde wrote a series of papers calling for the spraying of megatons of aluminum to save us from global warming. The mid-nineties was when reports of chemtrail spraying in American skies began pouring in. If you will recall, aluminum has been found to be the number one chemtrail ingredient.

In their 1997 paper “Global Warming and Ice Ages,” the Livermore Labs trio wrote, “It has been suggested that alumina injected into the stratosphere by the exhaust of solid-rocket motors might scatter non-negligible amounts of sunlight. We expect that introduction of scattering-optimized alumina particles into the stratosphere may well be overall competitive with use of sulfur oxides; alumina particles offer a distinctly different environmental impact profile.”

They continue to espouse the virtues of stratospheric alumina in the footnotes writing, “Alumina, like sulfate, is ubiquitous in the terrestrial biosphere, and its stratospheric injection seemingly poses no significant environment issues.”

In conclusion 

So there you have an evolutionary history of a project employing sprayed particles and the electrification of clouds for the purpose of weather modification. Is this a coincidence? Are all these examples simply isolated, one-off events not a part of a larger overall plan? What are the odds of these data points evolving in a chronological order such as they have without being part of a coordinated effort? One may be looking at something like a quadrillion to one; and that is conservative.

For five days only, from Thursday, February 19 through Monday, February 23, my ebook Chemtrails Exposed will be available for free from Amazon.

Stay tuned. God willing, this article is only the first of many coming in this year; 2015. The heavy lifting (studying the history of weather modification) is complete. The next papers will come much easier because they involve smaller topics and half or more of the work on each is already done. Although the topic will remain secret until publication, you can expect the next article in a couple of months, possibly sooner. Until then, keep firing in the information war. Thank you.

Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA author and activist. Check out the newly updated and expanded edition of his ebook Chemtrails Exposed. It’s still only 99¢, but not for long. 

Notes

Adventure into the Unknown: the first 50 years of the General Electric Research Laboratory by Laurence A. Hawkins, published by William Morrow & Company, 1950

U.S. patent #4,686,605 “Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere and/or Magnetosphere,” 1987

“Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” by Col. Tamzy J. House, Lt. Col. James B. Near, Jr., LTC William B. Shields (USA), Maj. Ronald J. Celentano, Maj. David M. Husband, Maj. Ann E. Mercer and Maj. James E. Pugh, published by the United States Air Force, 1996

The Smartest Guys in the Room by Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind, published by the Penguin Group, 2004

The Weather Changers by D.S. Halacy, Jr., published by Harper and Row, 1968

Fixing the Sky by James Roger Fleming, published by Columbia University Press, 2010

U.S. patent #787,412 “Art of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through the Natural Mediums,” 1905

U.S. patent #645,576 “System of Transmission of Electrical Energy,” 1900

Tesla: Man Out of Time by Margaret Cheney, published by Simon & Schuster, 1981

Early History of Cloud Seeding by Barrington S. Havens, published by the Langmuir Laboratory at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at the State University of New York at Albany and the Research and Development Center of the General Electric Company, 1978

Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences reports 1960-1978, published by the Federal Council for Science and Technology

“Department of the Interior Program in Precipitation Management for 1970” by Dr. Clement J. Todd as it appeared in the “Proceedings of the Twelfth Interagency Conference on Weather Modification” 1970

U.S. patent #1,279,823 “Process and Apparatus for Causing Precipitation by Coalescence of Aqueous Particles Contained in the Atmosphere”

“Technique for Introducing Low-Density Space Charge into the Atmosphere” by B. Vonnegut, K. Maynard, W.G. Sykes and C.B. Moore, published by Arthur D. Little and the Journal of Geophysical Research, volume 66, number 3, March, 1961

“The Future” by Bernard Vonnegut, Vincent Schaefer, J. S. Barrows and Paul MacCready, published in the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control, p201, 1958

Research in Electrical Phenomena Associated with Aerosols by Bernard Vonnegut, Arnold W. Doyle and D. Read Moffett, published by Arthur D. Little, 1961

Angels Don’t Play this HAARP: advances in Tesla technology by Jeane Manning and Dr. Nick Begich, published by Earthpulse Press, p78, 1995

1st National Science Foundation annual weather modification report, p14, 1960

“New Horizons of Naval Research and Development” by William Francis Raborn, published in U.S.Naval Institute Proceedings, January, 1963

“Ten Year Program in Oceanography: TENOC” by the U.S. Navy, March 13, 1961

9th National Science Foundation annual weather modification report, 1967

“Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification” by the Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences Select Panel on Weather Modification, 1966

Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences memorandum to Homer E. Newell dated June 21, 1966, as it appeared in the appendix to “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification” by the Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences Select Panel on Weather Modification, 1966

“The Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences: A Case History” by Robert E. Morrison

U.S. patent #5,003,186 “Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming,” 1991

“Multiple Instrument Studies of Chemical Releases and Heating at Arecibo” by Stanford Research International, published by Stanford Research International, 1994

“Air Force 2025” by the U.S. Air Force, published by the U.S. Air Force, 1996

“An Operational Analysis for Air Force 2025” by the U.S. Air Force, published by the U.S. Air Force as part of “Air Force 2025” by the U.S. Air Force, published by the U.S. Air Force, 1996

Global Warming and Ice Ages by Edward Teller, Lowell Wood and Roderick Hyde, published by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1997

Websites: 

worldcat.org
amazon.com
abebooks.com
google.com/patents
airforce.com
navy.mil
ge.com
weathermodification.org
adlittle.com
signal.army.mil
uscg.mil
commerce.gov
nsf.gov
noaa.gov
whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/nstc
usda.gov
defense.gov
doi.gov
dot.gov
state.gov
epa.gov
energy.gov
nasa.gov
raytheon.com
sri.com
llnl.gov
aircrap.org
globalskywatch.com