That's something new and pretty Orwelian : computerized score of "political correctness" made similar
for FICO score and based on data about you in social media.
Notable quotes:
"... Among the things that will hurt a citizen's score are posting political opinions without prior
permission, or posting information that the regime does not like, such as about the Tiananmen Square
massacre that the government carried out to hold on to power, or the Shanghai stock market collapse.
..."
"... "Imagine the social pressure against disobedience or dissent that this will create." ..."
"... "very ambitious in scope, including scrutinizing individual behavior and what books people
read. It's Amazon's consumer tracking with an Orwellian political twist." ..."
"... "Coming soon to a New World Order near you: social credit! Earn points by behaving like the
government wants you to behave! Get penalized if you don't act like a doubleplusgood citizen! What could
be more fun?" ..."
"... Applying for a passport? Buy my book and learn how to boost your patriotism score by 400 points
in 6 months! We can even give you a spambot to do the work for you! ..."
"... At this point, any good developer can write a program that reads Twitter/Facebook/Renren/WeChat
feeds, gives the posts to IBM's Watson (or some simpler algorithm), and have the program spit out a
score. And this program would take at most a month to make. I know, I write similar stuff ;) ..."
"... What scares me is how the initial assumptions that go into querying data can give you radically
different results at the end, and these intelligence agencies do not exactly explain what methods they
are using to determine who is a 'bad guy.' ..."
"... Patriot Points. ..."
"... The article has taken some real, some proposed and some imaginary credit tracking programs
and smushed them into one 'terrifying', freedom-destroying blob. In other words, it's irresponsible
b.s. intended to make the Chinese government look even more diabolical and oppressive than our own.
..."
"... The underlying cultural truth, though, is that Chinese are willing to cooperate with and
trust their government much more than we are. They've always respected and looked up to their national
leaders and expected those leaders to actually lead morally and practically. It works for them, as
we see. ..."
"... Digital will end up being our worse nightmare and our undoing. It is the Perfect tool for the
crazed sociopaths around us and the insane psychopaths that want to control our every breath (literally).
..."
"... The social networks are piped right into governments security complex. ..."
As if further proof were needed Orwell's dystopia is now upon us, China has now gamified obedience
to the State. Though that is every bit as creepily terrifying as it sounds, citizens may still choose
whether or not they wish to opt-in - that is, until the program becomes compulsory in 2020. "Going
under the innocuous name of 'Sesame Credit,' China has created a score for how good a citizen you
are," explains Extra Credits' video about the program. "The owners of China's largest social networks
have partnered with the government to create something akin to the U.S. credit score - but, instead
of measuring how regularly you pay your bills, it measures how obediently you follow the party line."
Zheping Huang, a reporter for Quartz, chronicled his own experience with the social control
tool in October,
saying that
"in the past few weeks I began to notice a mysterious new trend. Numbers were popping up
on my social media feeds as my friends and strangers on Weibo [the Chinese equivalent to Twitter]
and WeChat began to share their 'Sesame Credit scores.' The score is created by Ant Financial,
an Alibaba-affiliated company that also runs Alipay, China's popular third-party payment app with
over 350 million users. Ant Financial claims that it evaluates one's purchasing and spending habits
in order to derive a figure that shows how creditworthy someone is."
"The government wants to build a platform that leverages things like big data, mobile internet,
and cloud computing to measure and evaluate different levels of people's lives in order to create
a gamified nudging for people to behave better."
While Sesame Credit's roll-out in January has been downplayed by many, the American Civil Liberties
Union, among
others,
urges caution, saying:
"The system is run by two companies, Alibaba and Tencent, which run all the social networks
in China and therefore have access to a vast amount of data about people's social ties and activities
and what they say. In addition to measuring your ability to pay, as in the United States, the
scores serve as a measure of political compliance.
Among the things that will hurt a citizen's score are posting political opinions without
prior permission, or posting information that the regime does not like, such as about the Tiananmen
Square massacre that the government carried out to hold on to power, or the Shanghai stock market
collapse. It will hurt your score not only if you do these things, but if any of your
friends do them."
And, in what appears likely the goal of the entire program, added, "Imagine the social
pressure against disobedience or dissent that this will create."
Social pressure, of course, can be highly effective given the right circumstances. China seems
to have found exactly that in the intricate linking of people's scores to their contacts,
which can be seen publicly by anyone - and then upping the ante through score-based incentives and
rewards. Rick Falkvinge
pointed out a startling comparison:
"The KGB and the Stasi's method of preventing dissent from taking hold was to plant so-called
agents provocateurs in the general population, people who tried to make people agree with dissent,
but who actually were arresting them as soon as they agreed with such dissent. As a result, nobody
would dare agree that the government did anything bad, and this was very effective in preventing
any large-scale resistance from taking hold. The Chinese way here is much more subtle, but probably
more effective still."
As Creemers
described to Dutch news outlet, de Volkskrant,
"With the help of the latest internet technologies, the government wants to exercise individual
surveillance. The Chinese aim [ ] is clearly an attempt to create a new citizen."
Chinese internet specialist at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Johan Lagerkvist,
said the system is
"very ambitious in scope, including scrutinizing individual behavior and what books people
read. It's Amazon's consumer tracking with an Orwellian political twist."
James Corbett has been tracking the implementation of Sesame Credit for some time. Introducing
the ubiquitous tracking system for a
recent episode of the Corbett Report, he mused:
"Coming soon to a New World Order near you: social credit! Earn points by behaving like
the government wants you to behave! Get penalized if you don't act like a doubleplusgood citizen!
What could be more fun?"
Indeed, because mandatory enrollment in Sesame Credit is still a few years away, its true
effectiveness won't be measurable for some time. But even a reporter's usual wariness appears
knocked off-kilter, as Zheping Huang summarized his personal experience,
"Even if my crappy credit score doesn't mean much now, it's in my best interest I suppose
to make sure it doesn't go too low."
And that, of course, is precisely why gamifying State obedience is so terrifying.
Cornfedbloodstool
We just have FICO scores in the US, that measures how obidient you are to the banks, the true
rulers of the country.
ToSoft4Truth
And Facebook 'Likes'. Can't get laid without the Likes, man.
CAPT DRAKE
It is already here. There is a thing called an "NSA Score", based on your habits, contacts,
and email/posts. Fortunately, porn surfing, even addiction, is not a negative. Only anti state
stuff counts, and no, most of the posts on ZH don't count as they are seen as venting and not
actionable intel.
knukles
I love Big Brother...
Miffed Microbiologist
"The children and adults, including his own parents, tiptoe nervously around him, constantly
telling him how everything he does is "good," since displeasing him can get them wished away into
a mystical "cornfield", an unknown place, from which there is no return. At one point, a dog is
heard barking angrily. Anthony thinks the dog is "bad" and doesn't "like [him] at all," and wishes
it into the cornfield. His father and mother are horrified, but they dare not show it."
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Miffed
Old Poor Richard
You beat me to it on FICO score. If you're off the grid, out of the electronic money system
or not paying sufficient fealty to banksters, you are NOT being obedient to the state.
NoDebt
I'm as off the grid as you can get and still live a middle class lifestyle with electricity
and a cell phone. I assure you they still score me and I'm usually over 800. I don't use credit
much these days but what I use says nothing but "pays as agreed".
Now, if you start to factor in the "slightly to the right of the John Burke Society" shit I
post on ZH I'd be down around -500.
thats it, in the communist version of facebook you can vote on gov post's, ie you can like
them.
Government needs you to pay taxes
Cmon its China, where numbers are faked everyday. Ya think this number will be any different?
And even if its effective in China, when the US .govbots roll this out, how effective can it be
when US .gov employees 'at the wheel'?
The US .gov can fuck ANYTHING up.
roisaber
It will be funny to see who gets a low citizen loyalty oath score for unpredictable reasons,
or from hacks, and their increasing radicalization as their honest efforts to try to get themselves
back into good standing only makes them register as more anti-social.
techpriest
The other question is, how many services are going to pop up to help you boost your score,
just like there are books, guides, and services for your credit score currently?
"Applying for a passport? Buy my book and learn how to boost your patriotism score by 400
points in 6 months! We can even give you a spambot to do the work for you!"
SgtShaftoe
China doesn't have enough enforcers to control the population. They will lose control. That
is only a matter of time. They may be able to delay the inevitable for a while but eventually
reality will arrive. Keep pushing that volatility into the tail and see what happens. When it
goes, it will blow your fucking socks off.
Tick tock motherfuckers, and that goes for the US as well...
tarabel
That is the (evil) genius of this scheme. It is collectively enforced by the proletarians themselves.
If you do anti-social things, that will reflect badly on your friends and family so they will
excoriate you and, if necessary, shun you until you get with the program. Really, it's just a
crowd-sourced Communist Block Warden program gone digital.
I don't worry about the Chinese. They're fooked any which way you slice it. But China invents
nothing, merely imitates. So where did they get this idea from, hmmm?
techpriest
At this point, any good developer can write a program that reads Twitter/Facebook/Renren/WeChat
feeds, gives the posts to IBM's Watson (or some simpler algorithm), and have the program spit
out a score. And this program would take at most a month to make. I know, I write similar stuff
;)
With that in mind, what would you be able to accomplish with a team of 40-50 developers and
several months? What scares me is how the initial assumptions that go into querying data can
give you radically different results at the end, and these intelligence agencies do not exactly
explain what methods they are using to determine who is a 'bad guy.'
cherry picker
"I have nothing to hide"
Well, the bozos who coined the above term, have fun. You think keeping up with mortgage, car
payments, Obama Care, taxes, raising kids and keeping a spouse happy is stressful, wait til .gov
does a 'test' on you.
Me, I'm not worried. I'm a non conformist, live in the boonies and am too old. I tell my children
and grandchildren they need to get rid of this 'evil eye' government encroachment.
They think I am crazy now, but I think they may be coming around.
techpriest
I would love to turn that "You shouldn't be afraid if you have nothing to hide" around by pointing
out that the Fed shouldn't be afraid of an audit if they have nothing to hide.
Amish Hacker
Patriot Points.
Bopper09
Is this not what assface is? (facebook for people plugged in). I admit I went on it for the
simple fact I couldn't find anything better for talking to my Russian fiance. But even a year
before she got here, I said fuck it. Tried cancelling, but if you click a link that has something
to do with facebook, your profile becomes active again. Fucking criminals. I left a computer for
3 weeks (not that I haven't done that before. TRY IT, no cell phone or computer for ONE WEEK.
Take vacation days and see what's important in your life. Seriously, I've never owned a cell phone.
Where I work I don't need one. Cell phones do not 'save your life'.
Consuelo
Interesting the references to FB, especially when one considers who's at the head and his position
on censorship. Then again, what happened in Mao's China descended from the likes of Trotsky, so
it kinda sorta follows...
Gantal
The article has taken some real, some proposed and some imaginary credit tracking programs
and smushed them into one 'terrifying', freedom-destroying blob. In other words, it's irresponsible
b.s. intended to make the Chinese government look even more diabolical and oppressive than our
own.
The underlying cultural truth, though, is that Chinese are willing to cooperate with
and trust their government much more than we are. They've always respected and looked up to
their national leaders and expected those leaders to actually lead morally and practically.
It works for them, as we see.
The underlying lie is that the Chinese government needs to repress its people. It doesn't.
Anyone purporting to be China 'experts' like Messrs. Lagerkvist and Creemers, should know that
China's government is the most popular, most trusted government on earth.
Digital will end up being our worse nightmare and our undoing. It is the "Perfect" tool
for the crazed sociopaths around us and the insane psychopaths that want to control our every
breath (literally).
Sure, it's cool, you can play games and other useless crap but even a blind man could
see how governments are going to be useing it. The social networks are piped right into governments
security complex. Wouldn't surprise me if everything we post even here on ZH is stored on
some digital crap machine somewhere.
For sure it's on ZH servers and thus available to any Tom, Dick or Harry LEO. I myself am very
close to going dark. This stuff isn't laughable anymore. It's getting DEADLY serious.
Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Complaints of a Cover-Up
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CHRISTOPHER DREW and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
U.S. soldiers accused Afghan police and Navy SEALs of abusing detainees. But the SEAL command
opted against a court-martial and cleared its men of wrongdoing.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Too much training to send to jail.
While E-4 Bergdahl does in captivity what several hundred officers did in Hanoi and gets life!
Still, two interesting-and vexing-issues for the technology industry, and for the politicians
who regulate it, emerged in the debate. The first came up in John Kasich's response to Trump's proposal.
"Wolf, there is a big problem-it's called encryption," he said. "We need to be able to penetrate
these people when they are involved in these plots and these plans. And we have to give the local
authorities the ability to penetrate, to disrupt. That's what we need to do. Encryption is a major
problem, and Congress has got to deal with this, and so does the President, to keep us safe."
The central question is whether American technology companies should offer the U.S. government,
whether the N.S.A. or the F.B.I., backdoor access to their devices or servers. The most important
companies here are Apple and Google, which, in the fall of 2014, began offering
strong encryption on the newer versions of Android and iOS phones. If you keep your passcode
secret, the government will be unable to, for instance, scroll through your contacts list, even if
it has a warrant. This has, naturally, made the government angry. The most thorough report on the
subject is
a position paper put out last month by Cyrus Vance, Jr., Manhattan's district attorney. In the
previous year, Vance wrote, his office had been "unable to execute approximately 111 search warrants
for smartphones because those devices were running iOS 8. The cases to which those devices related
include homicide, attempted murder, sexual abuse of a child, sex trafficking, assault, and robbery."
The solution isn't easy. Apple and Google implemented their new encryption standards after Edward
Snowden
revealed how the government had compromised their systems. They want to protect their customers-a
government back door could become a hacker's back door, too-and they also want to protect their business
models. If the N.S.A. can comb through iPhones, how many do you think Apple will be able to sell
in China? In the debate, Carly Fiorina bragged about how, when she ran Hewlett-Packard, she stopped
a truckload of equipment and had it "escorted into N.S.A. headquarters." Does that make you more
or less eager to buy an OfficeJet Pro?
The second hard issue that came up indirectly in the debate-and, more specifically,
in recent comments by Hillary Clinton-is how aggressive American companies such as Facebook,
Twitter, and Google (with YouTube) should be in combatting the use of their platforms by ISIS.
Again, there's no simple answer. You can't ban, say, everyone who tweets the hashtag #ISIS, because
then you'd have to
ban this guy. The algorithms are difficult to write, and the issues are difficult to balance.
Companies have to consider their business interests, their legal obligations to and cultural affinities
for free speech, and their moral obligations to oppose an organization that seeks to destroy the
country in which they were built-and also
kill their C.E.O.s.
Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Complaints of a Cover-Up
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CHRISTOPHER DREW and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
U.S. soldiers accused Afghan police and Navy SEALs of abusing detainees. But the SEAL command
opted against a court-martial and cleared its men of wrongdoing.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Too much training to send to jail.
While E-4 Bergdahl does in captivity what several hundred officers did in Hanoi and gets life!
"... Whistleblower: "Every Time There Is a Terrorist Attack, What We Really Need to Do Is Demand that They CUT the Budgets of All the Intelligence Agencies" - William Binney ..."
Use a VPN and Start Page as a search engine. Nothing is saved from your search.
Fgt 4URIGHTS -> lefthalfback2 16 Dec 2015 19:44
Only the brain dead idiots who are deceived and under collective Stockholm syndrome are fine
with it. Yeah, all the illegal surveillance in the world didn't stop the San Bernadinos attack.
Also, let's not forget the treason and terrorism being conducted against innocent Americans (Cointelpro/Gangstalking)
and hidden from the American people while their asleep to the crimes happening in secret all around
them. Yeah for a fascist, totalitarian police state, isn't it cool?? I feel so safe knowing my
criminal government is there to protect me because they love me so much.
Whistleblower: "Every Time There Is a Terrorist Attack, What We Really Need to Do Is Demand
that They CUT the Budgets of All the Intelligence Agencies" - William Binney
sand44 16 Dec 2015 18:26
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin 1755
How far has the standard of American politicians managed to fall?
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the
U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 7.4 percent ** of what
the U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the
U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
(I see my comment on military spending here created a bit of confusion. I was looking at the
U.S. share of the commitment, 0.25 percent of its GDP and comparing it to the roughly 4.0 percent
of GDP it spends on the military. That comes to 6 percent. I was not referring to the whole $100
billion.)
Defense spending was 60.3% of federal government consumption and investment in July through
September 2015.
(Billions of dollars)
$738.3 / $1,224.4 = 60.3%
Defense spending was 23.1% of all government consumption and investment in July through
September 2015.
$738.3 / $3,200.4 = 23.1%
Defense spending was 4.1% of Gross Domestic Product in July through September 2015.
$738.3 / $18,064.7 = 4.1%
djb said in reply to djb...
oh never mind I get it
.25 % is 6 percent of the percent us spends on military
the 40 trillion is the gdp of all the countries
got it
anne said in reply to djb...
"I get it:
.25 % is 6 percent of the percent US spends on military."
So .25 percent of United States GDP for climate change assistance to poor countries is 6 percent
of the amount the US spends on the military.
.0025 x $18,064.7 billion GDP = $45.16 billion on climate change
$45.16 billion on climate change / $738.3 billion on the military = 0.61 or 6.1 percent of
military spending
anne said in reply to anne...
United States climate change assistance to poor countries will be .25 percent of GDP or 6% of
US military spending.
anne said in reply to anne...
What the United States commitment to climate change assistance for poor countries means is spending
about $45.2 billion yearly or .25 percent of GDP. Whether the President can convince Congress
to spend the $45 billion yearly will now have to be answered.
anne said in reply to djb...
"I get it:
.25 % is 6 percent of the [amount] US spends on military."
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the
U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
(I see my comment on military spending here created a bit of confusion. I was looking at the
U.S. share of the commitment, 0.25 percent of its GDP and comparing it to the roughly 4.0 percent
of GDP it spends on the military. ** That comes to 6 percent. I was not referring to the whole
$100 billion.)
Richard Stallman has never been...er...shy about
sharing his opinions, particularly when it comes to software that doesn't adhere to his vision. This
time around he has written an opinion column for The Guardian that takes on Microsoft Windows, Apple's
OS X and even Amazon's Kindle e-reader.
Richard Stallman on malware for The Guardian:
Malware is the name for a program designed to mistreat its users. Viruses typically are malicious,
but software products and software preinstalled in products can also be malicious and often
are, when not free/libre.
Developers today shamelessly mistreat users; when caught, they claim that fine print in EULAs
(end user licence agreements) makes it ethical. (That might, at most, make it lawful, which is
different.) So many cases of proprietary malware have been reported, that we must consider any
proprietary program suspect and dangerous. In the 21st century, proprietary software is computing
for suckers.
Windows snoops on users, shackles users and, on mobiles, censors apps; it also has a universal
back door that allows Microsoft to remotely impose software changes. Microsoft sabotages Windows
users by showing security holes to the NSA before fixing them.
Apple systems are malware too: MacOS snoops and shackles; iOS snoops, shackles, censors apps
and has a back door. Even Android contains malware in a nonfree component: a back door for remote
forcible installation or deinstallation of any app.
Amazon's Kindle e-reader reports what page of what book is being read, plus all notes and underlining
the user enters; it shackles the user against sharing or even freely giving away or lending the
book, and has an Orwellian back door for erasing books.
As you might imagine, Stallman's commentary drew a lot of responses from readers of The Guardian:
JohnnyHooper: "The Android operating system is basically spyware, mining
your personal information, contacts, whereabouts, search activity, media preferences, photos,
email, texts, chat, shopping, calls, etc so Google can onsell it to advertisers. Nice one,
Google, you creep."
Ece301: "What the free software movement needs is more than just the
scare stories about 'capability' - without reliable examples of this stuff causing real-world
problems for real people such detail-free articles as this are going to affect nothing.
I'm quite willing to make the sacrifice of google, apple, the NSA etc. knowing exactly
where I am if it means my phone can give me directions to my hotel in this strange city.
Likewise if I want the capability to erase my phone should I lose it, I understand that
that means apple etc. can probably get at that function too.
Limiting_Factor: "Or for people who don't want to mess about with command
lines and like to have commercially supported software that works. Which is about 99% of
the home computer using population. You lost, Richard. Get over it."
CosmicTrigger: "Selling customers the illusion of security and then
leaving a great gaping hole in it for the government to snoop in return for a bit of a tax
break is absolutely reprehensible."
Liam01: "This guy is as extreme as the director of the NSA , just at
the other end of the spectrum. I'd be more inclined to listen if he showed a hint of nuance,
or didn't open with an egoistic claim of "invented free software"."
AlanWatson: "My Kindle doesn't report anything, because I never turn
the WiFi on. Just sideload content from wherever I want to buy it (or download if there
is no copyright), format conversion is trivial, and for the minor inconvenience of having
to use a USB cable I'm free of Amazon's lock-in, snooping and remote wipes. Simple."
Rod: "Here's my crazy prediction: Stallman's diatribes will continue
to have zero measurable impact on adoption rates of Free software. Time to try a different
approach, Richey."
Quicknstraight: "Not all snooping is bad for you. If it enhances your
experience, say, by providing you with a better playlist or recommendations for things you
like doing, what's the big deal?
Consumers don't have it every which way. You either accept a degree of data collection
in return for a more enjoyable user experience, or accept that no data collection means
you'll have to search out everything for yourself.
The average user prefers the easier option and has no interest in having to dig away
through loads of crap to find what they want.
They key question should be what happens to data that is mined about users, not whether
mining such data is bad per se."
Bob Rich: "As an author, I LIKE the idea that if a person buys a copy
of my book, that copy cannot be freely distributed to others. With a paper book, that means
that the original owner no longer has access to it. With an electronic book, "giving" or
"lending" means duplicating, and that's stealing my work. The same is true for other creators:
musicians, artists, photographers."
Mouse: "Stallman's a hero and we wouldn't have the level of (low-cost)
technology all we enjoy today without him. I remember reading an article by him years ago
and he said that the only laptop he'd use was the Lemote Yeeloong because it was the only
system that was 100% open, even down to the BIOS - he was specifically paranoid about how
government agencies might modify proprietary code for their own ends - and at the time I
thought "Jeez, he's a bit of a paranoid fruitcake", but post-Snowden he's been proven to
be right about what the security services get up."
Here's an article about the phenomenon called "Rebranding
Fascism" (although the term "left-wing fascism is not used): http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html The basic concept is that neo-fascist groups (who
are extreme right-wing) disguise themselves as leftists,
e.g., they say they are anti-zionist when they are anti-semitic.
I'm a first-time contributor to Wiki and felt it important
to greatly revise this article, because, in its previous
incarnation, it reduced the term "left-wing fascism" to an
epithet. In fact the term is widely used in a literature,
some from the left and some from the right, that is critical
of absolutist a tendencies in some movements that identify
themselves with the Left. The term is properly an epithet
only if it lumps large segments of the left together as
"fascist." OTherwise, it's a use...
There was an article in one of the Mexico City dailies today, written in response to the
shootings in San Bernardino, that cited some numbers that were news to me:
1) The United States is the #1 small arms manufacturer in the world
2) 83% of small arms manufactured in the world are manufactured in the United States
3) The US's closest competitor is Russia, which manufactures 11% of the world's small arms
4) Small arms are the US's third largest export product, surpassed only by aircraft and agricultural
products
5) The US market itself consumes 15 million small arms per year, and there are 300 million
small arms currently in the posession of US private citizens
6) Saudi Arabia, however, is by far and away the largest small arms consumer in the world,
and purchases 33.1% of all small arms produced in the world
7) Saudi Arabia then re-distributes these small arms to its allies in Syria, Lybia, etc.
8) So far in 2015, there have been 351 "mass shootings" in the United States in which 447 persons
have been killed and another 290 wounded
9) The world's leading human rights organizations never speak of the bloodbath ocurring around
the world due to the proliferation of small arms, much less the United Nations Security Council.
10) Both the United States and Russia seem quite content to keep any talk of small arms proliferation
off the agenda.
War tends to perpetuate itself. As soon as one brute gets killed, another takes his place; when the
new guy falls, another materializes.
Consider Richard Nixon's intensification of the American war on Cambodia. In hopes of maintaining
an advantage over the Communists as he withdrew American troops from Southeast Asia, Nixon ravaged
Vietnam's western neighbor with approximately
500,000 tons
of bombs between 1969 and 1973. But instead of destroying the Communist menace, these attempts
to buttress Nguyen Van Thieu's South Vietnamese government and then Lon Nol's Cambodian government
only transformed it. The bombings led many of Nixon's early targets to desert the eastern
region of the country in favor of Cambodia's interior where they organized with the Khmer Rouge.
As a CIA official noted in 1973, the Khmer Rouge started to
"us[e] damage
caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda." By appealing to Cambodians who were
affected by the bombing raids, this brutal Communist organization, a peripheral batch of 10,000 fighters
in 1969, had expanded by 1973 into a formidable army with 20 times as many members. Two years later,
they seized control of Phnom Penh and murdered more than
one million of their compatriots in a grisly
genocide.
The following decade, when war erupted between the forces of Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the United States hedged its bets by providing military assistance to
both
governments as they slaughtered
hundreds of thousands
of people. But when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, ousted the emir, and ultimately assassinated about
1,000 Kuwaitis, the
United States turned on its former ally with an incursion that directly killed
3,500 innocent Iraqis and suffocated
100,000
others through the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. The US also maintained an embargo against
Iraq throughout the 1990s, a program that contributed to the deaths of
500,000
Iraqis and that UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Dennis Halliday deemed "genocidal"
when he explained his 1998 resignation.
The newly restored Kuwaiti government, for its part, retaliated against minority groups for their
suspected "collaboration" with the Iraqi occupiers. The government threw Palestinians out of schools,
fired its Palestinian employees, and threatened thousands with "arbitrary
arrest, torture, rape, and murder." Beyond that, Kuwait interdicted the reentry of more than
150,000 Palestinians and tens of thousands of
Bedoons who had evacuatedKuwait when the tyrant Saddam took over. Thus, years of American maneuvering to achieve peace
and security by playing Iran and Iraq off of each other, by privileging Kuwaiti authoritarians
over Iraqi authoritarians, by killing tens of thousands of innocent people who got in the way failed.
The chase continues today as the United States targets the savage "Islamic State," another monster
that the West inadvertently
helped create by assisting foreign militants. History suggests that this war against Islamism,
if taken to its logical extreme, will prove to be an endless game of whack-a-mole. Yes, our government
can assassinate some terrorists; what it cannot do is stop aggrieved
civilian victims of Western bombings from replacing the dead by
becoming terrorists
themselves. Furthermore, even if ISIS disappeared tomorrow, there would still exist soldiers in
Al-Qaeda, for instance prepared to fill the void. That will remain true no matter how many bombs
the West drops, no matter how many weapons it tenders to foreign militias, no matter how many authoritarian
governments it buttresses in pursuit of "national security."
So, what are we to do when foreign antagonists, whatever the source of their discontent, urge
people to attack us? We should abandon the Sisyphean task of eradicating anti-American sentiments
abroad and invest in security at home. Gathering foreign intelligence is important when it allows
us to strengthen our defenses here, but bombing people in Iraq and Syria, enabling the Saudi
murder of
Yemenis, and deploying troops to
Cameroon are futile steps when enemy organizations can constantly replenish their supply of fighters
by propagandizing among natives who deplore Western intervention.
This understanding, though underappreciated in contemporary American government, reflects a noble
American tradition. John Quincy Adams, for his part, loved an America that "goes not abroad in
search of monsters to destroy." Decades later, Jeannette Rankin doubted the benefits of American
interventionism, contending that "you can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
Martin Luther King Jr. warned that "violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem:
it merely creates new and more complicated ones." These leaders adamantly rejected an American politics
of unending aggressive war. It is time for us to do the same.
Tommy Raskin is a contributor to the Good Men Project and Foreign Policy in Focus.
Ever since we found out just how much government spying is going on, the security community has
been systematically looking into every piece of technology that we use, from operating systems to
network protocols, and we've learned just how insecure everything is.
... ... ...
That's the good news. The bad news is that nothing has fundamentally changed as far as the spying
is concerned, despite all of the stories and media attention online. Organizations like the ACLU
have tried, and failed, to even bring cases to figure out what's actually going on. Very few politicians
even talk about it, and the ones that do have no power to change anything. People not only haven't
exploded in anger, they don't even know the details, as John Oliver illustrated brilliantly in his
interview with Snowden.
Everybody knows the government is probably spying on everything, and nobody really cares.
In after Snowden world, is this a testament that most smartphone users are idiots, or what ?
Notable quotes:
"... The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago. ..."
Facebook is so far defying concerns about its spending habits - a criticism that has at times
also plagued Amazon and Alphabet's Google - because the social network is on a short list of tech
companies that make money from the wealth of mobile visitors to its smartphone app and website.
The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent
of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago.
... ... ...
Revenue was also bolstered by Facebook increasing the number of ads it showed users over the
past year, said David Wehner, the company's chief financial officer. And video advertising, a
growth area for Facebook, is on the rise: More than eight billion video views happen on the
social network every day, the company said.
Hand in hand with the increased advertising is more users to view the promotions. The number of
daily active users of Facebook exceeded one billion for the first time in the quarter, up 17
percent from a year earlier, with monthly active mobile users up 23 percent, to 1.4 billion.
... ... ...
Beyond the properties it owns, Facebook is dabbling in partnerships with media companies that
could prove lucrative in the future. In May, the company debuted a feature called Instant
Articles with a handful of publishers, including The New York Times, which lets users read
articles from directly inside the Facebook app without being directed to a web browser.
Mozilla made a bit of a splash this week with
the announcement of its updated "private mode" in Firefox, but it's worth spelling out exactly
why: Firefox's enhanced privacy mode blocks web trackers.
Users familiar with Chrome's "Incognito Mode" may assume that's what it does as well, but it doesn't.
It's no fault of Google or the Chromium Project if someone misunderstands the degree of protection.
The company is clear
in its FAQ: all Incognito Mode does is keep your browsing out of the browser's history.
'We think that when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over
the data you share on the web.'
Firefox's new "Private Mode" one-ups user protection here by automatically blocking web trackers.
Nick Nguyen, Vice President for Product at Mozilla, says in the video announcement, "We think that
when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over the data you share
on the web." That sounds right. In fact, most people probably think private modes provide more safety
than they do.
Firefox has been working to educate web users about the prevalence of trackers for a long time.
In 2012,
it introduced Collusion to help users visualize just how many spying eyes were in the background
of their browsing (a tool now
known by the milquetoast name 'Lightbeam') and how they follow you around.
Privacy nuts might be thinking, "Hey, isn't the new Private Mode basically doing what the
Ghostery add-on/extension does already? It
looks that way. Ghostery was not immediately available for comment on this story. This reporter started
using Ghostery in earnest in the last few weeks, and while it does bust the odd page, overall, it
makes the web much faster. As Mr. Nguyen says in the video, Firefox's new mode should do the roughly
the same.
The best way to update Firefox is within the 'About Firefox' dialogue. Open it and let it check
for updates (if it doesn't say version 42.0 or higher, the browser doesn't have it). On Macs, find
"About Firefox" under the "Firefox" tab in the menu bar. On a PC, find it in the hamburger menu in
the upper right.
Competition in the browser battles keeps improving the functionality of the web. When Chrome first
came along, Firefox had become incredibly bloated.
Notice of what's new in 'Private Mode' when opened in Firefox, after updating. (Screenshot: Firefox)
Then, Chrome popularized the notion of incognito browsing, back when the main privacy concern
was that our roommate would look at our browsing history to see how often we were visiting Harry
Potter fansites (shout out to stand-up comic, Ophira Eisenberg, for that one).
As the web itself has become bloated with spyware, incorporating tracker blocking directly into
the structure of the
world's second most popular browser is a strong incentive for web managers to be more judicious
about the stuff they load up in the background of websites.
Don't forget, though, that even with trackers blocked, determined sites can probably identify
visitors and they can definitely profile,
using browser fingerprinting. If you really want to hide, use
Tor. If you're mega paranoid, try
the Tails OS.
Federal law enforcement began planning to use license plate readers in 2009 to track cars that
visited gun shows against cars that crossed the border into Mexico, according
to notes from a
meeting between United States and Mexican law enforcement, released on Wikileaks. The notes
were taken by Marko Papic, then of Stratfor, a
company that describes itself as a publisher of geopolitical intelligence.
License plate readers are becoming a standard tool for local and national law enforcement
across the country. In 2013, the ACLU showed that
state and local law enforcement were widely
documenting drivers' movements.
Ars Technica looked at license plate data collected in Oakland. In January, the
ACLU described documents
attained from the Drug Enforcement Agency under the Freedom of Information Act that showed
that agency has been working closely with state and local law enforcement. Many of the findings
in these latter documents corroborate some of the insights provided by the 2009 meeting notes on
Wikileaks.
Wikileaks began publishing these emails in February 2012, as the "Global
Intelligence Files," as the Observer
previously reported. The documents have to be read with some caution. These were reportedly
attained by hackers in December 2011. A Stratfor spokesperson declined to comment on the leaked
emails, referring the Observer instead to
its 2012 statement, which says, "Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include
inaccuracies; some may be authentic. We will not validate either."
While it's hard to imagine that such a giant trove could be completely fabricated, there is
also no way to know whether or not some of it was tampered with. That said, details about federal
license plate reader programs largely square with subsequent findings about the surveillance
systems.
The meeting appears to have been primarily concerned with arms control, but related matters,
such as illegal drug traffic and the Zetas, come up as well. The focus of the meeting appears to
be information sharing among the various authorities, from both countries. Among other
initiatives, the notes describe the origins of a sophisticated national system of automobile
surveillance.
Here are some findings on law enforcement technology, with an emphasis on tracking
automobiles:
The program wasn't fully live in 2009. The notes read, "Mr. 147 asked
about the License Plate Reader program and Mr. 983 from DEA responded that they were still in
the testing phase but that once completed the database would be available for use
by everyone." However,
an email found by the ACLU from 2010 said that the DEA was sharing information with local
law enforcement as of May 2009. (People at the meeting are largely referred to by numbers
throughout the notes)
Gun shows. The officials in the meeting suspect that a lot of guns that
reach Mexico come from American gun shows. The Ambassador from Mexico is cited as believing
that shows were the main source of firearms coming into his country. The ATF then says that
investigating gun shows is "touchy."
Cross-referencing. Despite the sensitivity, the ATF hoped to be able to
identify vehicles that visited gun shows and then crossed the border. The notes read, "[Mr.
192] noted that they would do the check once they came into Mexico. Mr. 009 stated part of the
new ways that are being looked at is incorporating that type of information into license plate
readers for local law enforcement. He added that DEA is going to provide more and more license
plate readers especially southbound." This last point squares with ACLU's finding, which found
a 2010 document that said the DEA had 41 readers set up in southern border states.
ATF and the NRA. Apparently law enforcement checks in with the gun rights
advocates. Mr. 123 is identified as an ATF employee in the hacked email. In a conversation
about the federal government's gun tracking system, eTrace, the notes attribute to him the
following, "He added that they are in constant communication with Mr. Templeton who has
the Cross Roads of the West Gun Show as well as NRA attorneys and that there had been no
complaints on how things were moving." Bob Templeton is shown as the President of the National
Association of Arms Shows
on this op-ed and runs the gun show mentioned, according to its site.
Other data. The notes also indicate that the ATF was working on ways to
identify people who bought more guns at gun shows than their income should allow. It also
indicated that the United States' gun tracking system was being translated into Spanish, so
that Mexican authorities could check guns against American records.
The notes themselves are not dated, but the email containing them is dated September 4, 2009.
It provides no names, but it cites people from the Mexican Embassy, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco
and Firerearms, DEA, Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and others. The only person named
is Marko Papic, who identifies himself
in this hacked
email. Stephen Meiners circulated
Mr. Papic's notes from the summit's morning and afternoon session in one email.
"... This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously for those listening to hear. ..."
"... "If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have ..."
"... To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. ..."
When it was revealed in 2013 that the NSA and its UK equivalent, GCHQ, routinely spied on the
German government, artists Mathias Jud and Christoph Wachter came up with a plan.
They installed a series of antennas on the roof of the Swiss Embassy in Berlin and another giant
antenna on the roof of the Academy of Arts, which is located exactly between the listening posts
of the NSA and GCHQ. This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously
for those listening to hear.
"If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have to listen to what we
are saying," Mr. Jud said in a TED Talk on the subject that was filmed at TED Global London in September
and uploaded onto Ted.com today.
This was perfectly legal, and they named the project "Can You Hear Me?"
To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. One message read, "This is the NSA. In God we trust.
In all others we track!!!!!" Another said, "Agents, what twisted story of yourself will you tell
your grandchildren?" One particularly humorous message jokingly pleaded, "@NSA My neighbors are noisy.
Please send a drone strike."
Watch the full talk here for more trolling messages and details about the project:
Just typing your correspondence on disconnected from internet computer and pointing it on
connected via USB printer is enough. Or better writing letter using regular pen.
The most secure and, at the same time, usable, method of creating, sharing and storing information
is to write it up on a manual typewriter and store it in a locked filing cabinet
If the CIA's Director John Brennan
can't keep his emails private, who can? Sadly, the fact that email and instant messaging are
far more convenient than communicating via papers in envelopes or by actually talking on the phone,
or (God forbid) face to face, these technologies are far more insecure. Could it be that the old
ways protected both secrecy and privacy far better than what we have now?
The men and women in the United States government assigned to protect our nation's most important
secrets have good reason to quote Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet who proclaimed, "The typewriter is
holy." For that matter so are pens, pencils, carbon paper and ordinary paper. In the digital age
privacy as we once knew it, is dead, not just for ordinary citizens, but for government officials
including, apparently, the head of the CIA-not to mention our former Secretary of State. Neither
the NSA nor the U.S. military have been able to keep their secrets from being exposed by the likes
of WikiLeaks or Edward Snowden.
... ... ...
Given America's failures to protect our own secret information, one hopes and wishes that the
U.S. is as successful at stealing information from our potential foes as they are at stealing from
us.
In the private sector, hackers steal information from countless companies, ranging from Target
to Ashley Madison. The banks rarely let on how badly or how often they are victimized by cybercrime,
but rumor has it that it is significant. At least for now, the incentives for making and selling
effective cyber security systems are nowhere near as powerful as the incentives for building systems
that can steal secret or private information from individuals, as well as from corporations and governments.
In the digital age, privacy is gone.
Increasingly, organizations and individuals are rediscovering the virtues of paper. Non-digital
media are simply invulnerable to hacking. Stealing information from a typewriter is harder than stealing
it from a word processor, computer or server. A physical file with sheets of paper covered in words
written either by hand or by typewriter is a safer place to store confidential information than any
electronic data storage system yet devised.
"... The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the website domains that UK internet users visit. ..."
"... It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not what article they read. ..."
"... Information about the sites you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement to know. ..."
"... In using a VPN you are placing all your trust in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history in the same way an ISP would. ..."
"... One way to prevent an accurate profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that. ..."
Critics call it a revived snooper's charter, because the government wants police and spies to
be given access to the web browsing history of everyone in Britain.
However, Theresa May
says her measures would require internet companies to store data about customers that amount to "simply
the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill".
Who is right? And is there anything you can do to make your communications more secure?
What exactly is the government after?
The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to
be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the
website domains that UK internet users visit.
This is the log of websites that you visit through your internet service provider (ISP), commonly
called internet browsing history, and is different from the history stored by your internet browser,
such as Microsoft's Edge, Apple's Safari or Google's Chrome.
It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level
of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not
what article they read.
Clearing your browser history or using private or incognito browsing modes do nothing to affect
your browsing history stored by the ISP.
What will they be able to learn about my internet activity?
Information about the sites
you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison
the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website
or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement
to know.
The logged internet activity is also likely to reveal who a person banks with, the social
media they use, whether they have considered travelling (eg by visiting an airline homepage) and
a range of information that could in turn link to other sources of personal information.
Who will store my web browsing data?
The onus is on
ISPs the companies that
users pay to provide access to the internet to store the browsing history of its customers for
12 months. That includes fixed line broadband providers, such as BT, TalkTalk, Sky and Virgin, but
also mobile phone providers such as EE, O2, Three and Vodafone.
... ... ...
Don't ISPs already store this data?
They already store a limited amount of data on customer communications for a minimum of
one year and have done for some time, governed by the EU's data retention directive. That data can
be accessed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa).
The new bill will enshrine the storage of browsing history and access to that data in law.
Can people hide their internet browsing history?
There are a few ways to prevent the collection
of your browsing history data, but each way is a compromise.
The most obvious way is the use of virtual private networks (VPNs). They channel your data from
your computer through your ISP to a third-party service before immersing on the internet. In doing
so they can obfuscate your data from your ISP and therefore the government's collection of browsing
history.
Companies routinely use VPNs to secure connections to services when off-site such as home workers.
Various companies such as HotspotShield
offer both free or paid-for VPN services to users.
Using the Tor browser, freely available
from the Tor project, is another way to hide what you're doing from your ISP and takes things
a stage further. It allows users to connect directly to a network of computers that route your traffic
by bouncing it around other computers connected to Tor before emerging on the open internet.
Your ISP will see that you are connected to Tor, but not what you are doing with it. But not everybody
has the technical skills to be comfortable using Tor.
Is there any downside to using a VPN?
In using a VPN you are placing all your trust
in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting
your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history
in the same way an ISP would.
The speed of your internet connection is also limited by the VPN. Most free services are slow,
some paid-for services are faster.
Tor also risks users having their data intercepted, either at the point of exit from the Tor network
to the open internet or along the path. This is technically tricky, however. Because your internet
traffic is bounced between computers before reaching you, Tor can be particularly slow.
Can I protest-browse to show I'm unhappy with the new law?
One way to prevent an accurate
profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random
domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your
ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that.
At some point it will be very difficult to store that much data, should everyone begin doing so.
"... feudalism is a hierarchical system of distributed administration. A king is nominally in charge or "owns" a kingdom, but he has lords who administer its first primary division, the fiefdom. Lords in turn have vassals, who administer further subdivisions or, in the cases of smaller fiefs, different aspects of governance. Vassals may have their own captains and middle managers, typically knights but also clerks and priests, who in turn employ apprentices/novices/pages who train under them so as to one day move up to middle management. If this is starting to resemble modern corporate structure, then bonus points to you. ..."
"... Anyone in a position of vassalage was dependent upon the largess of his immediate patron/lord/whatever for both his status and nominal wealth. The lowest rungs of the administrative ladder were responsible for keeping the peasants, the pool of labor, in line either through force or through the very same system of dependence upon largess that frames the lord/vassal relationship. ..."
"... A CEO may resign in disgrace over some scandal, but that does little to challenge the underlings who carried out his orders. ..."
"... It's not that peasants can be vassals in the overall order so much as they are in the subject position, but without the attendant capacity to then lord it over someone beneath them. Lord/vassal in feudalism are also generic terms to describe members of a fixed relationship of patronage. It's confusing, because those terms are also used for levels of the overall hierarchy. ..."
"... I suspect that the similarity of medeavil fuedalism with the relationship between a large modern corporation and its employees is not properly appreciated because the latter, unlike the former, does not necessarily include direct control over living conditions (housing, land, rent), even though in the end there may be a similar degree of effective servitude (lack of mobility and alternatives, and so effective entrapment at low wages) . ..."
I want to expand on the point about feudalism, since it's even more apt than the article lets
on. It was not "rule by the rich," which implies an oligarchic class whose members are more or
less free agents in cahoots with one another. Rather, feudalism is a hierarchical system of
distributed administration. A king is nominally in charge or "owns" a kingdom, but he has lords
who administer its first primary division, the fiefdom. Lords in turn have vassals, who administer
further subdivisions or, in the cases of smaller fiefs, different aspects of governance. Vassals
may have their own captains and middle managers, typically knights but also clerks and priests,
who in turn employ apprentices/novices/pages who train under them so as to one day move up to
middle management. If this is starting to resemble modern corporate structure, then bonus points
to you.
This means feudalism found a way to render complicit in a larger system of administration people
who had no direct and often no real stake in the produce of its mass mobilization of labor.
Anyone in a position of vassalage was dependent upon the largess of his immediate patron/lord/whatever
for both his status and nominal wealth. The lowest rungs of the administrative ladder were responsible
for keeping the peasants, the pool of labor, in line either through force or through the very
same system of dependence upon largess that frames the lord/vassal relationship. Occasionally,
the peasants recognize that no one is below them in this pyramid scheme, and so they revolt, but
for the most part they were resigned to the status quo, because there seemed to be no locus of
power to topple. Sure, you could overthrow the king, but that would do nothing to deter the power
of the lords. You could overthrow your local lord, but the king could just install a new one.
Transpose to the modern day. A CEO may resign in disgrace over some scandal, but that does
little to challenge the underlings who carried out his orders. You might get your terrible
boss fired for his tendency to sexually harass anyone who walks in the door, but what's to stop
the regional manager from hiring someone who works you to the bone. Sometimes the peaserr, employees
revolt and form a union, but we all know what means have been employed over the years to do away
with that.
tl;dr Feudalism: it's about the structure, not the classes
Lambert Strether,
November 3, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Hmm. I don't think a serf can be a vassal. The vassals sound a lot like the 20%. The serfs
would be the 80%. I'm guessing class is alive and well.
James Levy, November 3, 2015 at 2:38 pm
You wouldn't be a vassal (that was a very small percentage of the population) but you could
have ties of patronage with the people above you, and in fact that was critical to all societies
until the Victorians made nepotism a bad word and the ethic of meritocracy (however bastardized
today) took shape. If you wanted your physical labor obligation converted into a money payment
so you could spend more time and effort on your own holding, or you needed help in tough times,
or the 99 year lease on your leasehold was coming due, or you wanted to get your son into the
local priory, etc. you needed a friend or friends in higher places. The granting or refusal of
favors counted for everything, and kept many on the straight and narrow, actively or passively
supporting the system as it was.
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 2:39 pm
It's not that peasants can be vassals in the overall order so much as they are in the subject
position, but without the attendant capacity to then lord it over someone beneath them. Lord/vassal
in feudalism are also generic terms to describe members of a fixed relationship of patronage.
It's confusing, because those terms are also used for levels of the overall hierarchy.
The true outliers here are the contemporaneous merchants, craftsmen, and freeholders (yeomen)
who are necessary for things to run properly but are not satisfactorily accounted for by the overall
system of governance, in part because it was land based. Merchants and craftsmen in particular
tended not to be tied to any one place, since their services were often needed all over and only
for limited periods of time. The primary administrative apparatus for craftsmen were the guilds.
Merchants fell into any number of systems of organization and often into none at all, thus, according
to the old Marxist genealogy, capitalism overthrows feudalism.
Peasants may have had something like a class consciousness on occasion, but I'm not entirely
convinced it's useful to think of them in that way. In Japan, for instance, peasants were of a
much higher social status than merchants and craftsmen, technically, yet their lives were substantially
more miserable by any modern economic measure.
visitor, November 3, 2015 at 4:01 pm
I think that the article gets it seriously wrong about feudalism - an example of what Yves
calls "stripping words of their meaning".
First of all, feudalism was actually an invention of an older, powerful, even more hierarchical
organization: the Catholic Church.
The Church realized early on that imposing its ideal of a theocratic State ("city of God") led
by the Pope upon the strong-headed barbarian chiefs (Lombards, Franks, Wisigoths and others) that
set up various kingdoms in Europe was impossible.
Hence the second best approach, feudalism: a double hierarchy (worldly and spiritual). The populations
of Europe were subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation, judicial and other
economic powers (such as the right to determine when and for whom to work).
Second, there was a class of wealthy people which did not quite fit in the feudal hierarchy
- in particular, they had no vassals, nor, despite their wealth, any fiefdom: merchants, financiers,
the emerging burger class in cities. They were the ones actually lending money to feudal lords.
Third, the problem for underlings was never to overthrow the king (this was a hobby for princely
families), and extremely rarely the local lord (which inevitably brought the full brunt of the
feudal hierarchy to bear on the seditious populace).
Historically, what cities and rural communities struggled for was to be placed directly under
the authority of the king or (Holy Roman Germanic) emperor. This entailed the rights to self-administration,
freedom from most egregious taxes and corvιes from feudal seigneurs, recognition of local laws
and customs, and the possibility to render justice without deferring to local lords.
The king/emperor was happy to receive taxes directly from the city/community without them seeping
away in the pockets of members of the inextricable feudal hierarchy; he would from time to time
require troops for his host, hence reducing the dependency on troops from his vassal lords; and
he would rarely be called to intervene in major legal disputes. Overall, he was way too busy to
have time micromanaging those who swore direct allegiance to him - which was exactly what Basque
communities, German towns and Swiss peasants wanted.
Therefore, an equivalence between feudalism and the current organizational make-up of society
dominated by for-profit entities does not make sense.
Lambert Strether, November 3, 2015 at 4:11 pm
"the problem for underlings was never to overthrow the King"
Not even in the peasant revolts?
visitor, November 3, 2015 at 5:15 pm
If you look at this list, it appears that they were revolts directed against the local nobility
(or church) because of its exorbitant taxation, oppressive judiciary, rampaging mercenaries and
incompetent leadership in war against foreign invasions.
The French Jacquerie took place when there was no king - he had been taken prisoner by the English
and the populace blamed the nobility for the military defeats and the massive tax increases that
ensued.
During the Spanish Guerra de los Remensas, the revolted peasants actually appealed to the king
and he in turn allied with them to fight the nobles.
During the Budai Nagy Antal revolt, the peasants actually asked the Hungarian king to arbitrate.
In other cases, even when the king/emperor/sultan ultimately intervened to squash the revolt,
the insurrection was directed against some local elite.
Peasants revolts in 16th century Scandinavia were against the king's rule, but they were linked
to reformation and took place when feudalism was on the wane and the evolution towards a centralized
monarchical state well advanced.
Apparently, only the John and William Merfold's revolt explicitly called for the overthrow
of the English king.
Jim Haygood, November 3, 2015 at 4:51 pm
'The populations of Europe were subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation,
judicial and other economic powers (such as the right to determine when and for whom to work).'
Just as Americans are subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation and judicial
powers, the states and the fedgov.
Before 1914, federal criminal laws were few, and direct federal income taxation of individuals
was nonexistent. Today one needs federal authorization (E-verify) to get a job.
Now that the Fifth Amendment prohibition on double jeopardy has been interpreted away, notorious
defendants face both federal and state prosecution. Thus the reason why America has the world's
largest Gulag, with its slam-dunk conviction machine.
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Except, first off, there were non-Christian societies that made use of the system of warrior
vassalage, and the manorial system that undergirded feudal distribution of land and resources,
as least as far as Bloch is concerned, is a fairly clear outgrowth of the Roman villa system of
the late empire. Insofar as the Late Roman empire was nominallyvery nominallyChristian, I suppose
your point stands, but according to Bloch, the earliest manorial structures were the result of
the dissolution of the larger, older empire into smaller pieces, many of which were beyond meaningful
administrative control by Rome itself. Second, bishoprics and monasteries, the primary land holdings
of the clergy, were of the same order as manors, so they fit within the overall feudal system,
not parallel to it.
If Bloch is not right about this, I'm open to reading other sources, but that's what my understanding
was based on. Moreover, the basic system of patronage and fealty that made the manor economy function
certainly seems to have survived the historical phenomenon we call feudalism, and that parallel
was what I was trying to draw attention to. Lord/vassal relationships are fundamentally contractual,
not just quid pro quo but organized around favors and reputation, and maybe the analogy is a bit
strained, but it does point to the ways in which modern white collar work especially is about
more than fixed pay for a fixed sum of labor output.
Thure Meyer, November 4, 2015 at 7:30 am
Isn't this rather off-topic?
This is not a discussion about the true and correct history of European feudalism or whether
or not it applies to the situation at hand, but a dialogue about Global fascism and how it
expresses itself in this Nation.
HarrySnapperOrgans, November 4, 2015 at 4:46 am
I suspect that the similarity of medeavil fuedalism with the relationship between a
large modern corporation and its employees is not properly appreciated because the latter,
unlike the former, does not necessarily include direct control over living conditions
(housing, land, rent), even though in the end there may be a similar degree of effective
servitude (lack of mobility and alternatives, and so effective entrapment at low wages) .
"... The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name ..."
"... Similarly, even as authoritarianism is rapidly rising in the US and citizens are losing their rights (see a reminder from last weekend, a major New York Times story on how widespread use of arbitration clauses is stripping citizens of access to the court system *), one runs the risk of having one's hair on fire if one dares suggest that America is moving in a fascist, or perhaps more accurately, a Mussolini-style corporatist direction. Yet we used that very expression, "Mussolini-style corporatism," to describe the the post-crisis bank bailouts. Former chief economist of the IMF, Simon Johnson, was more stark in his choice of terms, famously calling the rescues a "quiet coup" by financial oligarchs. ..."
"... By Thom Hartmann, an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest book is "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America -- and What We Can Do to Stop It." Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... "The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. "With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power." ..."
"... If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead. ..."
"... "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself." ..."
"... It Can't Happen Here ..."
"... There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck! ..."
"... Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases. ..."
"... Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary ( www.thefreedictionary.com ) notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the 'corporate' interests with those of the state." ..."
"... Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his book What's The Matter With Kansas ..."
"... The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage." ..."
"... Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself. ..."
"... The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination ..."
"... But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations who could gain control of newspapers and broadcast media -- they could promote their lies with ease. ..."
"... "The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy." ..."
"... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection. ..."
"... Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination in 1936 in Philadelphia, " out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new dynasties . It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction . And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man ." ..."
"... The Republican candidates' and their billionaire donors' behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for." ..."
"... Amen -- I've always detested the weasel words "neoliberal" and "neoconservative". Lets just be honest enough to call ideologies and political behaviors by their proper name. ..."
"... Call Dems what they are corrupt right wingers, ultra conservatives. ..."
"... Isn't it important to keep in mind that fascism, as it developed in Italy and Germany, were authentic mass based movements generating great popular enthusiasm and not merely a clever manipulation of of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or by capitalism in crisis. ..."
"... Authentic augmented by the generous application of force, I'd say. That I think is a very interesting discussion about just how freely fascism develops. I don't think Italy and especially Germany developed with a particularly genuine popular enthusiasm. ..."
"... Or to put it differently, I'd say the appearance of popular enthusiasm from a mass movement was the result of fascist control as much as the cause. That's what's so unnverving about the American context of 21st century fascism. It does not require a mass movement to implement this kind of totalitarianism. It merely requires the professional class to keep their heads down long enough for a critical mass to be reached by the power structure in hollowing out the back-office guts of democratic governance. ..."
"... Fascism was a counter revolution to Bolshevikism. The upper and upper-middle class was scared to death of what happen in Russia under Bolshevikism. They united with the military looking for someone to counter Bolshevikism and settled on Hitler and the Nazi's. The military thought they control him but they ended up being wrong. ..."
"... "Those who own America should govern it" ..."
"... Corporation in Italian has approximately the meaning of guild and has nothing to do with big enterprises ..."
"... Massinissa and lou strong are correct -- corporatism in Mussolini's Italy meant structuring the State and the legislative body around organizations representing specific professional or economic sectors. ..."
"... By the way: we should not forget another fascist State, Portugal, which during the entire Salazar regime officially defined itself as a "corporatist republic". ..."
"... besides for-profit corporations. ..."
"... elimination ..."
"... It is apparent that both corporate parties are increasingly incapable of properly deflecting and channeling the interests of the electorate. Whether you think of 2007-08 as simply another business cycle, one that was exacerbated by toxic assets, a product of increasing income and wealth disparity, etc. it seems that portions of the electorate have been shocked out of their confidence in the system and the steering capacity of economic and political elites. ..."
"... This might lead the parties, under the pressure of events, to might reformulate themselves as the political cover of a "government of national unity" that, depending on the extremity of the next downturn, impose a "solidarity from above," blocking the development of popular organizations in a variety of ways. I certainly see this as possible. But treating the parties, or the system itself, as fascist at this point in time is not only not helpful, it is fundamentally disorienting. ..."
"... Chamber of the Fascist Corporations ..."
"... My impression is that today Corporatism more closely represents the interests of multinational corporations and the people who hold executive leadership positions within those companies. What they have in common is a listing on NYSE. ..."
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. Confucius
One of the distressing things about politics in the US is the way words have either been stripped
of their meaning or become so contested as to undermine the ability to communicate and analyze. It's
hard to get to a conversation when you and your interlocutors don't have the same understanding of
basic terms.
And that is no accident. The muddying of meaning is a neo-Orwellian device to influence perceptions
by redefining core concepts. And a major vector has been by targeting narrow interest groups on their
hot-button topics. Thus, if you are an evangelical or otherwise strongly opposed to women having
reproductive control, anyone who favors womens' rights in this area is in your vein of thinking,
to the left of you, hence a "liberal". Allowing the Overton Window to be framed around pet interests,
as opposed to a view of what societal norms are, has allowed for the media to depict the center of
the political spectrum as being well to the right of where it actually is as measured by decades
of polling, particularly on economic issues.
Another way of limiting discourse is to relegate certain terms or ideas to what Daniel Hallin
called the "sphere of deviance."
Thus, until roughly two years ago, calling an idea "Marxist" in the US was tantamount to deeming
it to be the political equivalent of taboo. That shows how powerful the long shadow of the Communist
purges of the McCarthy era were, more than a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Similarly, even as authoritarianism is rapidly rising in the US and citizens are losing their
rights (see a reminder from last weekend, a major New York Times story on how
widespread use of arbitration clauses is stripping citizens of access to the court system*),
one runs the risk of having one's hair on fire if one dares suggest that America is moving in a fascist,
or perhaps more accurately, a Mussolini-style corporatist direction. Yet we used that very expression,
"Mussolini-style corporatism," to describe the the post-crisis bank bailouts. Former chief economist
of the IMF, Simon Johnson, was more stark in his choice of terms, famously calling the rescues a
"quiet coup" by financial oligarchs.
Now admittedly, the new neoliberal economic order is not a replay of fascism, so there is reason
not to apply the "f" word wholesale. Nevertheless, there is a remarkable amount of inhibition in
calling out the similarities where they exist. For instance, the article by Thom Hartmann below,
which we've reposted from Alternet, is bold enough to use the "fascist" word in the opening paragraph
(but not the headline!). But it then retreats from making a hard-headed analysis by focusing on warnings
about the risks of fascism in America from the 1940s. While historical analysis is always enlightening,
you'll see the article only selectively interjects contemporary examples. Readers no doubt can help
fill out, as well as qualify, this picture.
By Thom Hartmann, an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest
book is "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America -- and What We Can Do to Stop It." Originally
published at
Alternet
Ben Carson's feeble attempt to equate Hitler and pro-gun control Democrats was short-lived, but
along with the announcement that Marco Rubio has brought in his second big supporting billionaire,
it brings to mind the first American vice-president to point out the "American fascists" among us.
Although most Americans remember that Harry Truman was Franklin D. Roosevelt's vice-president
when Roosevelt died in 1945 (making Truman president), Roosevelt had two previous vice-presidents:
John N. Garner (1933-1941) and Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945).
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice-President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write
a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous
are they?"
Vice-President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in the New York Times on April
9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.
"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly
or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the
man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels
of public information.
"With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best
to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" -- the definition Mussolini
had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni
Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately
be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed
his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is, "A system of government that exercises
a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership,
together with belligerent nationalism."
Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of
Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But
not a government of, by, and for We The People; instead, it would be a government of, by, and for
the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.
In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament
and replaced it with the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni -- the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations.
Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks
like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.
Vice-President Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 Times article his concern about the same happening
here in America:
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead
of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There
are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in
their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. They are patriotic in time of war
because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar
wherever they may lead.
Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who'd run for political office, and in
Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead
of corporate cartels.
"American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there
is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information ."
Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest
threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States
itself."
In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel It Can't Happen Here a conservative southern politician
is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician, Buzz
Windrip, runs his campaign on family values, the flag and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host
portray advocates of traditional American democracy as anti-American.
When Windrip becomes president, he opens a Guantanamo-style detention center, and the viewpoint
character of the book, Vermont newspaper editor Doremus Jessup, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution
under new "patriotic" laws that make it illegal to criticize the President.
As Lewis noted in his novel, "the President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: 'There
are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so,
to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!' The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary
[of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy."
And, President "Windrip's partisans called themselves the Corporatists, or, familiarly, the 'Corpos,'
which nickname was generally used."
Lewis, the first American writer to win a Nobel Prize, was world famous by 1944, as was his book.
And several well-known and powerful Americans, including Prescott Bush, had lost businesses in the
early 1940s because of charges by Roosevelt that they were doing business with Hitler.
These events all, no doubt, colored Vice-President Wallace's thinking when he wrote:
Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common
welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate
surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion.
American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before
the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness'
ceases.
Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com)
notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the
'corporate' interests with those of the state."
Feudalism, of course, is one of the most stable of the three historic tyrannies (kingdoms, theocracies,
feudalism) that ruled nations prior to the rise of American republican democracy, and can be roughly
defined as "rule by the rich."
Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and
the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his book What's The
Matter With Kansas that, "You can see the paradox first-hand on nearly any Main Street in middle
America -- 'going out of business' signs side by side with placards supporting George W. Bush."
The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally
owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize
the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage."
He added:
Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity
would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an
effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice
democracy itself.
But American fascists who would want former CEOs as president, vice-president, House Majority
Whip, and Senate Majority Leader, and write legislation with corporate interests in mind, don't generally
talk to We The People about their real agenda, or the harm it does to small businesses and working
people.
Instead, as Hitler did with the trade union leaders and the Jews, they point to a "them" to pin
with blame and distract people from the harms of their economic policies.
In a comment prescient of Alabama's recent closing of every drivers' license office in every Alabama
county with more than 75% black residents (while recently passing a law requiring a drivers' license
or similar ID to vote), Wallace continued:
The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances.
But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire
to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence
that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice.
It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they
hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination
But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to
gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations who could gain
control of newspapers and broadcast media -- they could promote their lies with ease.
"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and
fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity,
every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy."
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism, the vice-president of the United States saw
rising in America, he added:
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final
objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using
the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man
in eternal subjection.
This liberal vision of an egalitarian America in which very large businesses and media monopolies
are broken up under the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (which Reagan stopped enforcing, leading to the
mergers & acquisitions frenzy that continues to this day) was the driving vision of the New Deal
(and of "Trust Buster" Teddy Roosevelt a generation earlier).
As Wallace's president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination
in 1936 in Philadelphia, " out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new
dynasties . It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties,
thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism
and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction . And as a result the average man once more confronts
the problem that faced the Minute Man ."
Speaking indirectly of the fascists Wallace would directly name almost a decade later, Roosevelt
brought the issue to its core:
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What
they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power." But, he thundered, "Our allegiance
to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!
In the election of 2016, we again stand at the same crossroad Roosevelt and Wallace confronted
during the Great Depression and World War II.
Fascism is again rising in America, this time calling itself "conservativism." The Republican
candidates' and their billionaire donors' behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt
said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget
what the flag and the Constitution stand for."
It's particularly ironic that the "big news" is which billionaire is supporting which Republican
candidate. Like Eisenhower's farewell address, President Roosevelt and Vice-President Wallace's warnings
are more urgent now than ever before.
_____
* In trying to find the New York Times story again, I simply Googled "arbitration," on the assumption
that given that the article was both high traffic and recent that it would come up high in a search.
Not only did the story not come up on the first page, although a reference to it in Consumerist did,
but when I clicked on "in the news" link, it was again not in the first page in Google. If this isn't
censorship, I don't know what is. The story was widely referenced on the Web and got far more traffic
than the "news" story that Google gave preference (such as, of all things, a Cato study and "Arbitration
Eligible Brewers
Brew Crew Ball-19 hours ago"). In fact, the NYT article does not appear on the first five pages of
the Google news search, even though older and clearly lower traffic stories do. And when you find
the first reference to the story on the news page, which is a Cato piece mentioning it, and you click
through to the "explore
in depth" page, again the New York Times story is not the prominent placement it warrants, and
is listed fifth. Consider how many clicks it took to find it.
Crazy Horse, November 3, 2015 at 10:49 am
Amen -- I've always detested the weasel words "neoliberal" and "neoconservative". Lets just be honest
enough to call ideologies and political behaviors by their proper name.
timbers, November 3, 2015 at 11:17 am
I agree!
Telling my friends Obama is "neoliberal" means nothing to 99% of them, they couldn't care less,
it does not compute. So instead I tell them Obama is the most right wing President in history
who's every bit un-hinged as Sarah Palin and at least as bat shit insame as John McCain, but you
think that's totally OK because you're a Dem and Dems think that because Obama speaks with better
grammar than Sarah Palin and is more temperate than John McCain. Them I tell them to vote Green
instead of the utlra right wing Dems
Call Dems what they are corrupt right wingers, ultra conservatives.
Barmitt O'Bamney, November 3, 2015 at 11:01 am
LOL. You get to take your pick between TWO fascist parties in 2016. Just like you did for the
last several elections. I wonder if the outcome will be different this time will Fascism grab
the prize again, or will it be Fascism coming out ahead at the last minute to save the day?
David, November 3, 2015 at 11:04 am
Why didn't Wallace become President when Roosevelt died? From the
St. Petersburg Times,
The Gallup Poll said 65 percent of the voting Democrats wanted Wallace and that 2 percent
wanted Senator Truman. But the party bosses could not boss Wallace. They made a coalition with
the Roosevelt-haters and skillfully and cynically mowed down the unorganized Wallace forces.
With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how
best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money
or more power
Such a concise and cogent explanation. The go-to policy advice of the fascist is to do moar
of whatever he's selling.
I was just going to say something like this too. There is a logical end to fascism and if it
is blocked and prolonged then when it finally runs its course it ends in a huge mess. And even
the fascists don't know what to do. Because everything they were doing becomes pure poison. Moar
money and power have an Achilles Heel there is an actual limit to their usefulness. So this
is where we find ourselves today imo not at the beginning of a fascist-feudal empire, but at
the bitter and confused end. Our implosion took far longer than Germany's, but the writing was
on the wall from 1970 on. And then toss in the wages of prolonged sin neoliberalism's excesses,
the planet, global warming.
One would think that Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the killing of 1000 people by cops would be
a clue. As would an understanding of the counter-New Deal that began to unfold in 1944, gained
power in 1946, and institutionalized itself as a military and secret government in 1947. Or the
rush to war after every peace, the rush to debt after every surplus, and perpetual inability of
the IRS to collect taxes from the wealthiest.
Maybe not even a Franco-level fascist state or a fascist state with a single dictator, more
like the state capitalism of the Soviet Union and current China without the public infrastructure.
Just the oligarchs.
And yet it is in a state of failure, and inability to do anything but feather then nests of
those who rule, all those King Midases.
Also, the increase of censorship (GMO labels or fracking chemicals), and persecution of whistleblowers
and political prisoners, incarceration of whole swathes of black population, along w execution
w no due process, continuous wars abroad w no apparent tbreat to domestic security and the state
of the nation is apparent.
Isn't it important to keep in mind that fascism, as it developed in Italy and Germany,
were authentic mass based movements generating great popular enthusiasm and not merely a clever
manipulation of of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or by capitalism in crisis.
The orthodox left made this mistake in the 1920s and early 1930s and in 2015 still appears
wedded to this erroneous assumption.
Authentic augmented by the generous application of force, I'd say. That I think is a very
interesting discussion about just how freely fascism develops. I don't think Italy and especially
Germany developed with a particularly genuine popular enthusiasm. Very early on, the national
socialists were arresting internal political opposition through parallel courts with explicit
references to things like state security. Dachau, for example, was originally for German political
prisoners. Jews and foreign nationals came later.
And of course there's the ultimate in false flags, the Reichstag Fire Decree. The whole point
of that and the Enabling Act was to circumvent the checks and balances of democratic governance;
Hitler himself certainly did not trust the German people to maintain the power he wanted of their
own accord and discernment.
Or to put it differently, I'd say the appearance of popular enthusiasm from a mass movement
was the result of fascist control as much as the cause. That's what's so unnverving about the
American context of 21st century fascism. It does not require a mass movement to implement this
kind of totalitarianism. It merely requires the professional class to keep their heads down long
enough for a critical mass to be reached by the power structure in hollowing out the back-office
guts of democratic governance.
Fascism was a counter revolution to Bolshevikism. The upper and upper-middle class was
scared to death of what happen in Russia under Bolshevikism. They united with the military looking
for someone to counter Bolshevikism and settled on Hitler and the Nazi's. The military thought
they control him but they ended up being wrong.
You have to understand that after WW1 the allies kept a sea blockade on Germany and that resulted
in over a million Germans starving to death. Then came depression followed by hyperinflation.
Then there was the fear of Bolsheviks. The Nazi's showed up and things started working again.
The Bolsheviks were driven from the street. The Nazi's started borrowing tons of money (yes they
issued bonds) and started work programs. The economy started recovering. People had work and food
and soon the Nazi's were furnishing free health care. After you had gone through hell this was
heaven.
It's strange but 9/11 and the 3 steel frame buildings collapse into dust in few seconds isn't
recognized by the masses as false flag Hitler style, then what do you expect ? Massmedia did what
it could to confuse them all, only math and physics can help you to see the truth.
It would, indeed, be an extremely worthwhile discussion to analyze how freely fascism developed
in Italy and Germany.
As a first step in that directkion, Washunate, you might take a look at studies like "Elections,
Parties, and Political Traditions: Social Foundations of German parties and party systems.
In the July 1932 elections the SPD (Socialist Party) received 21.6 percent of the vote and
was replaced by the NSDAP (Nazi party) as the countries largest political party (with 37.3% of
the vote). with the KPD (the communists) capturing 14.5%of the vote.
It was at that time that the Nazi party become a true "people's party" with a support base
that was more equally distributed among social and demographic categories than any other major
party of the Weimar republic.
The thing that troubles me most is that there are no leaders like Roosevelt or Wallace today.
Where are the POPULAR politicians (Roosevelt was elected 4 times!) calling it like it is and publicly
refuting conservative/fascist dogma? Sanders? Maybe. But he's trailing Clinton and certainly he's
not a force in the Democratic party like Roosevelt was. At least not yet.
I agree with the "quiet coup" assessment, and I keep waiting for the next Roosevelt, the next
Lincoln, the next Founding Father, to appear on the political stage and fight the battle against
corporatist/fascist forces. Sadly, it hasn't happened yet.
Unfortunately the next Founding Father to appear (or has appeared) will be John Jay (first
Chief Justice among other roles) who was quoted as having said :
Hank Paulson and George W. Bush prevented the situation in 2008 from forcing a Rooseveltian
Congress. And the Congress went along with them. Then it was so easy for the do-nothings to argue
for less and continue the austerity. And as in Roosevelt's era, racism helped prevent full change,
which allowed the post-war rollback.
Who do you think put the basis of rule by the rich into practice in the first place? A series
of 'popular movements' like Shays Rebellion was what forced the founding fathers to make voting
rights not dependent on owning land, not because the Founding Fathers were really nice people
who luvved 'Democracy'.
"on the rise" or firmly entrenched ? We already have Homeland Security, Justice Thomas, Donald
Trump ,Ted Cruz, and the Koch Brothers (who are running ads in NC extolling recently passed changes
in the tax code to continue shifting from income to consumption taxes). What is missing?
I always think of the Kochs when the word fascist is used. They are ostensibly great environmentalists.
Never mind that they operate some of the filthiest industries on the planet. They sponsor NOVA;
one brother is a raving environmentalist (that's fine with me) and the other two tone it down.
But their brand of conservative politix is as pointless as it is ignorant. That's an interesting
topic the hypocrisy of rich corporatist environmentalists. They are living a contradiction that
will tear them apart. But at least they are agonizing over the problem.
Maybe my English is too bad, but it seems there's a misunderstanding about "corporatism" meaning,
which is unfortunately reflected, as it seems again, in some American dictionaries. Corporation
in Italian has approximately the meaning of guild and has nothing to do with big enterprises.
So, while there is no doubt that fascists took power in Italy as the armed wing of big capital,
big finance and big landholders against the unrests of the low classes, the idea of corporatist
state for them meant the refusal of the principle of class war in favor of the principle of class
(guilds, "corporations" :both for employers and employees/trade unions) collaboration , and all
of them as subservients to the superior interest of the state.Fascism agenda wasn't primarily
economic. There wasn't either a specific agenda : until '29 the regime acted as deeply "neoliberal"
with privatizations, deflationary policies to fix a strong lira smashing labor rights and purchase
power etc etc , after the crisis it nationalized the failed enterprises and introduced some welfare
state elements.
So at least the regime got the property of the failed banks/enterprises, much unlike current
situation , where we see the mere socialization of losses and privatization of profits .
But English speakers either dont know or dont care. Ive seen people talk about "Mussolini Corporatism"
like this for what, five years, and they never get corrected.
I dont think theres anything we can do to get people to stop using that term as if it means
what they think it means.
Massinissa and lou strong are correct -- corporatism in Mussolini's Italy meant structuring
the State and the legislative body around organizations representing specific professional or
economic sectors.
By the way: we should not forget another fascist State, Portugal, which during the entire
Salazar regime officially defined itself as a "corporatist republic".
You can direct them to the Wikipedia entry for corporatism, which is extensive, or to
Michael Lind's 2014 article on the multiple historical meanings and recent misuse of this
term. But the term has currency and traction today for reason neither article quite puts a finger
on. Under Italian Fascism, the traditional meanings of corporative representation and bargaining
were invoked but fused tightly under the auspices -or control- of the nation state, which of course
was a single party state. The theoretical representativeness of corporatism was as a facade for
political control of all institutions of Italian life by the Fascist Party. In the present time,
with unions and guilds a fading memory, regions homogenized and classes atomized, with churches
that are little more than money making enterprises as transparent as any multilevel marketing
scheme, there are few non-government institutions in western life with any weight besides
for-profit corporations. When people struggle to describe what seems wrong to them with our
political life, the subservience of our government and therefore everything else to profit
seeking corporations, they need a term that reflects neatly what has happened and where we are.
Democracy of course is defunct both as a term and in reality. We don't have a state of decayed
democracy (passive, negative), we have a state of corporate diktat (active, positive). "Corporatism"
is an attractive and convenient verbal handle for the masses to latch onto, no matter how much
this disappoints the learned. In English, when enough people "misuse" a term for a sufficiently
long time, what happens is that the OED adds a new sub-entry for it reflecting its current usage.
Corporatism is indeed an old idea, feudalism re-branded as "fascism." After Hitler ruined the
term, fascism remained, but underground, until it reemerged in the 1960s as what George Ball termed
the "world company," which is better known as the system of global corporations. The same general
idea, but under a new marketing slogan. Today we have globalization, the raft of "trade" treaties,
the Austrian/Libertarian ideology, all of which ultimately push the world toward yet another replay
of feudalism. The box says "new and improved," but inside it's the same old crap.
"The more people that transact with one another, the greater the division of labour and knowledge,
the greater the ability to develop comparative advantage and the greater the productivity gains."
What could possibly go wrong?
In any empire, virtual or otherwise, you are always surrounded by communist thieves that think
they are going to control your output with a competitive advantage illusion, which conveniently
ignores opportunity cost. Government is just a derivative piece of paper, the latest fashion for
communists, all assuming that the planet is here for their convenience, to exploit. Well, the
critters have blown right through 45/5000/.75, and Canada was supposed to be the proving ground
for the Silicon Valley Method. Now what?
"Don't panic : world trade is down .Don't bet against the Fed .BTFD." Expect something other
than demographic variability, financial implosion, and war.
The communists are always running head first over the cliff, expecting you to follow. Labor
has no use for cars that determine when, where and how you will travel, and the communists can't
fix anything, because the 'fix' is already inside, embedded as a feature. America is just the
latest communist gang believing it has commandeered the steamroller, rolling over other communist
gangs.
The Bear isn't coming down from the North, China isn't selling Treasuries, and families are
not moving away from the city by accident. Only the latest and greatest, new-world-order communists,
replacing themselves with computers, are surprised that technology is always the solution for
the problem, technology. Facebook, LinkedIn and Google are only the future for communists, which
is always the same, a dead end, with a different name.
Remember that Honda of mine? I told the head communist thief not to touch that car while I
was gone, told his fellow thieves and their dependents that I told him so, and even gave him the
advantage of telling him what the problem was. How many hours do you suppose the fools spent trying
to control that car, and my wife with it?
I don't care whether the communists on the other side of the hill or the communists on this
side of the hill think they are going to control Grace, and through her my wife, and through her
me. And there are all kinds of communist groups using pieces of my work to advance their AI weapons
development, on the assumption that my work will not find itself in the end. Grace will decide
whether she wants to be an individual or a communist.
The only way the communists can predict and control the future is to control children. That's
what financialization is all about. And all communism can do is train automatons to follow each
other, which is a problem-solution addressed by the planet every three generations. You don't
have to do anything for communism to collapse, but get out of the way.
Technology is just a temporary tool, discarded by labor for the communists to steal, and stealing
a hammer doesn't make anyone a carpenter, much less a King, which is why the Queen always walks
through the wreckage, to a worthless throne. The story of Jesus was in fact the story of a king,
who had no use for a worldly kingdom, other than as a counterweight, always surrounded by communists,
like pigs at a trough. Jesus was no more and no less a child of God than you are.
Labor loses every battle because it doesn't participate, leaving the communists to label each
other as labour and knowledge. And if you look, you will see that all their knowledge is real
estate inflation, baked into everything, with oil as grease. The name, Robert Reich, didn't give
you a hint; of course he knew all along, and like a good communist, changes sides on a regular
basis.
You can't pick your parents or your children, or make choices for them, but you can love them
without pissing your life away. Navy hasn't disappeared just because the US Navy chose to be a
sunk cost, at the beck and call of Wall Street, trying to defend the status quo of communism,
for communists on the other side of the pond. A marine is not always a Marine, and a flattop can
be turned on a dime.
"The Muses doe attend upon your Throne, With all the Artists at your becke and call "
If you want to show up at WWIII with a communist and a dc computer as a weapon, that's your
business, but I wouldn't recommend doing so. Labor can mobilize far quicker than the communists
can imagine, which isn't saying much. Be about your business until the laws of physics have been
overthrown, and that hasn't happened yet.
You can count on communists to be at an intersection, creating a traffic jam, building a bigger
toll booth, and voting for more of the same, thinking that they are taking advantage of each other,
doing the wrong thing at the wrong time at the wrong place. Any intersection of false assumptions
will do.
his name was hanz or so I was told we had acquired a lease from the NYC HPD from a parking
lot/marina that was at the very north edge of Harlem River Drive at Dyckman (pronounced dikeman) .there
is a school there now he "came" with the lease years later I would find out he was working with
Carlos Lehder and helping arrange for cash payments to conveniently amnesiastic police officers
who used the hardly functioning marina to go fishing in the east river & the hudson go figure the
more I tried to get rid of him the more "problems" occurred my father begged me stop poking around
and just "leave it alone" I don't think he ever really knew what "hanz" was doing or who he was oh
well might explain how we lost a billion dollars in real estate (ok it was not worth a billion
back then but it had not debt other than real estate taxes it was not lost for simply economic
reasons)
we as a nation were "convinced" to allow 50 thousand former nazis to enter this country after
ww2 under the foolish notion that "the russians" (who have never killed too many americans if
my history serves me right) were a "new danger" and only the folks who LO$T to the russians had
the knowledge needed to save us from those "evil communists" (evil communists who helped the Koch
Family make their financial start details details )
those nazis, from my research have probably grown to a force of about 250 thousand who are
the basic clowns (MIC see you real soon KEY why, because we like you ) Ike was talking about in
January of 1961
but as Ike mentioned when talking about the Koch dad and his John Birch nonsense they are small
and they are stupid
the use of "coup" in the context of some of the strange happenings in our history these last
55 years is probably not a reasonable term
I would say we have had "coupettes" where certain groups threatened MAD if they did not get
their way or were not left alone and then those wimps in power decided better you than me and
turned a blind eye for 30 pieces of silver coincidence and causality sometimes are not just mathematical
anomalies
there is no need to "take back" our country it is ours and has always been ours the reason
"the clowns that be" worry so much is that for all the use of bernaze sause they can hardly fake
half the population into showing up to vote on "one of the chosen ones" and that 50% that are
not fully mesmerized are the fear factor for the clowns that be
remember try as "they" might can "they" keep you watching the same tv show for ever or get
you to buy their useless "branded" product without coupons or advertising
it is not as bad or scary as they would like you to believe they would not be working this
hard if they were comfortable in their socks they do not sleep well at night you are the "zombie
apocalypse" they are afraid off
Huh? Many of the things you brand as "communist" existed long before Communism was created.
To blame it all on "communists" is a serious error which blinds you to much older evils, some
of which Communism was at least nominally intended to correct. It is important to recognize that
the "Red scares" have been used by forces in the West to bolster their own power. One can both
disagree with Communism and disagree with the "Red menace" propaganda at the same time. The people
who scare you with the threat of Communism are more of a threat than the Communists themselves.
When talking about the rise of fascism(especially if the US experiences another economic/financial
meltdown in the next few years) it is so important to get the historical context as accurate as
possible.
Mussolini began his political career as an exponent of a different type of socialism. One of
his early followers was Antonio Gramsci and they both deplored the passivity of orthodox Marxists.
Mussolini was attracted to the theoretical framework of Sorel to offset traditional left passivity
and the syndicalist focus on the importance of human will. He founded a journal in 1913 called
Utopia and called for a revision of socialism in which he began referring to "the people" and
not the proletariat, as well as stressing the importance of the nation. He attempted to bring
nationalist and syndicalist streams of thought together.
After World War I Mussolini helped found a new political movement in Italy which brought together
both nationalist and socialist themes. Its first program was anticapitalist, antimonarchical and
called for an 8 hour day, minimum wages, the participation of workers' representatives in industrial
management and a large progressive tax on capital.
By the early 1920s the Fasci of Mussolini gained a powerful base of support in rural Italian
areas, advocating of program of peasant proprtietorship rather than endorsing the calls for the
nationalization of property of the orthodox left.
By this time fascism presented itself as an opponent of "Bolshevism" and a guardian of private
property while emphasizing the collective good and criticizing absentee landlords and "exploitative
capitalists"
For an excellent discussion of the development of these ideas as well as the concrete steps
toward corporatism that took place after 1922 see Sheri Berman "The Primacy of Politics"
A key point to keep in mind was that the fascism that eventually developed in Italy was willing
to assert unconditionally the power of the state over the market.
Not everybody just "wants what we have," as the common view here has it. In fact, from Bolivia,
where the average person consumes perhaps 1/20th the total resources of her analogue in the
US, comes the old-new idea of buen vivir (the good life): a life in which the health of your
human community and its surrounding ecosystem are more important than the amount of money you
make or things you own.
"In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word fascist' -- the definition Mussolini
had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word."
An Italian Jew by the name of Enrico Rocca is cited in "Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe
Before the Holocaust" as the founder of Roman fascism. This name is completely unknown in the
U.S. A large number of Italian Jews were founders and members of the Italian fascist party prior
to 1938 when anti-Semitism became official. "Among Mussolini's earliest financial backers were
three Jews: Giuseppe Toeplitz of the Banca Commerciale Italiana, Elio Jona [?], and the industrialist
Gino Olivetti. . . ." The banker Toeplitz was the main financier behind Mussolini's blackshirts,
which served as union busters for big business and land owners (also see "Fascism and Big Business"
by Daniel Guerin). Undermining organized labor in order to drive down wages was a central aim
of fascism in Italy and later under Hitler in Germany. In 1933, roughly ten percent of Italian
Jews were members of the fascist party. These facts are important to know because moderns are
led to believe that fascism is inherently anti-semitic, but that wasn't the case in the early
years of fascism in Italy, where it was founded.
It is also important to keep in mind, as Sheri Berman has argued, that social democracy, the
fascism of Mussolini and National Socialism in Germany agree on a set of key assumptions.
1. All assume the primary importance of politics and cross-class cooperation. Edward Bermstein
at the turn of the 20th century began attacking the main pillars of orthodox Marxism, historical
materialism and class struggle while arguing for an alternative vision based on state control
of marketssocial democracy became the complete severing of socialism from Marxism.
2. For these same Social Democrats the primacy of the political meant using the democratic
state to institutionalize policies and protect society from capitalism.
3. For fascists and national socialists using a tyrannical state to control markets was supposedly
necessarybut, of course, this postion deteriorated into moves to ensure the hegemony of the modern
State.
But is it the case, in 2015, taken the power of our contemporary Surveillance regime, that
a democratic state still exists?
Do contemporary democratic socialists first have to first focus on how to restore democracy
in the U.S. rather than assuming that the contemporary political structure just needs the right
leadershipsomeone like Bernie Sandersand the right credit policy such as MMT?
Hartmann draws from Mussolini the idea that the fascist state prioritizes and organizes corporate
interests, but misses what Mussolini left out of his harmonistic definition, which was that in
both Germany and Italy organized terror was to be used to destroy opposition to corporate interests.
The systematic use of terror had major implications for the way the internal politics of the fascist
state developed, for the weight given in its organizational structure and tactical options to
the elimination of internal enemies. Along with this, both political orders were infused
with a leadership ethos that, particularly in Nazi Germany, could attain strikingly absolute forms,
demanding absolute obedience and sacrifice. This encouraged a strong tendency to subordinate any
institution that might serve as a point of coalescence to interests opposed to the regime. The
Fuhrer's picture had to be both on your wall and in your heart.
Hartmann misses this political knife edge of fascism and the leadership fascination that supports
it. It is not wildly speculative to say that this is largely because the domestic enemies against
which it was directed, primarily leftist trade unions, are not a threat in the US. No such organizations
need to be wrecked, no such memberships need to be decimated, imprisoned, and dispersed. It is
simply astonishing that Hartmann says nothing specifically about labor organizations as the prime
instigating target of both fascists and the corporations who supported them. In this respect his
analysis unwittingly incorporates the ideological suppression of the labor movement that mirrored
the fascist onslaught.
It is also telling that although Hartmann references Wallace and Roosevelt he fails to note
that they themselves have also been accused of corporatism, albeit one that involved the imposition
of a Keynesian, welfarist orientation to capitalist interests that were, at least in some quarters,
inclined to "liquidate, liquidate" their way into a revolution against themselves. Instead, he
quotes Wallace and Roosevelt as they render fascism as a kind of power-hungry, antidemocratic
urge on the part of some "royalists," thereby blurring out how the central issue was how to manage
labor. He misses that Roosevelt offered the state as an organizer of conflict between capital
and labor within a framework in which labor was guaranteed bargaining status. Roosevelt was thereby
moved to attack capitalists who wanted to deny labor that status and risk both devastating hardship
and insurrection. Hartmann falls for Roosevelt's broad democratic rhetoric against them, more
exhortation than analysis, and so he himself ends up talking ethereally of threats to "freedom"
and "American institutions."
We're not living under fascism and Hartmann, whose criticism is often very useful, is wrong
in trying to use the term as a rallying orientation. I agree that the social order is corporatist,
but its maintenance has not required the kind of direct oppression + totalitarian/personalized
leadership cult that is a marker of fascism. Concepts the Frankfurt School have used such as "total
administration" and the like are perhaps too anodyne, not to mention absolute in their own way,
but they fit better with a situation in which explicit violence does not have to be generalized.
Robert Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism" is a useful backgrounder on this.
Heamtwell stated directly above that " We're not living under fascism "
Some concepts/ questions which may begin to get at our potential propensity for moving in that
direction might include the following:
Paxton, mentioned by Heamtwell above, isolated five stages of fascism.
(1) the initial creation of fascist movements
(2) their rooting as parties in a political system
(3) the acquisition of power
(4) the exercise of power
(5) their radicalization or entropy
Paxton has argued that Fascism can appear where democracy is sufficiently implanted to have
aroused disillusiona society must have known political liberty.
In regards to Paxtons first 2 stages and our situation in the US.
Are political fascists becoming rooted in political parties that represent major interests
and feelings and wield major influence on our political scene?
Is our constitutional system in a state of blockage increasingly insoluble by existing authorities?
Is rapid political mobilization taking place in our society which threatens to escape the control
of traditional elites to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order
to stay in charge?
Is rapid political mobilization taking place in our society which threatens to escape the
control of traditional elites to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers
in order to stay in charge?
I think that's the primary question, and it helps to define what we're facing with the current
party system.
It is apparent that both corporate parties are increasingly incapable of properly deflecting
and channeling the interests of the electorate. Whether you think of 2007-08 as simply another
business cycle, one that was exacerbated by toxic assets, a product of increasing income and wealth
disparity, etc. it seems that portions of the electorate have been shocked out of their confidence
in the system and the steering capacity of economic and political elites.
This might lead the parties, under the pressure of events, to might reformulate themselves
as the political cover of a "government of national unity" that, depending on the extremity of
the next downturn, impose a "solidarity from above," blocking the development of popular organizations
in a variety of ways. I certainly see this as possible. But treating the parties, or the system
itself, as fascist at this point in time is not only not helpful, it is fundamentally disorienting.
F* is an ugly word as is all its close relatives, but your definitions are very interesting,
and so maybe I've learned some things by reading them. However; by what contrivance did you manage
to get any of these pages past the f* who own the internet? It seems I must suspend my disbelief
to believe, Freunde von Grund
In Fascism, corporations were subservient to the State. What we have is the State subservient
to Corporations. Also Italian corporatism was more than just business, as a.corporation in Italy
can have.non business functions.
Great post and great comments. Though I wonder why no one has brought up the only way to stop
fascism. A militant class based libertarian left. Outside of the ballot box. If a liberal party
still 'exists' they will then at least respond to the larger non party real left, just to nullify
it's demands. Fascism has never been defeated by the ballot, only by a militant anarchist/socialist
left. Or at the least, that 'left' fought back. Liberals rarely have fought back, and most often
conceded. How do you do form such? Urban face to face organizing. With direct action and occupation
and even organization towards workers' control of manufacturing.
tommy -Fascism has never been defeated by the ballot, only by a militant anarchist/socialist
left.
I believe you should go re-look at history. Fascism has always defeated socialist left. Three
examples -- Italy, Germany and Argentina. I welcome an example other wise and if it did how did
it end.
The paramount example is of course Spain, where all left-wing movements (communists, trotskists,
anarchists, socialists) were ultimately defeated by fascists despite ferocious fighting.
Much of Robert Paxton's work has focused on models and definition of fascism.
In his 1998 paper "The Five Stages of Fascism", he suggests that fascism cannot be defined
solely by its ideology, since fascism is a complex political phenomenon rather than a relatively
coherent body of doctrine like communism or socialism. Instead, he focuses on fascism's political
context and functional development. The article identifies five paradigmatic stages of a fascist
movement, although he notes that only Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy have progressed through all
five:
1.Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in
discussions of lost national vigor
2.Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player
on the national stage
3.Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the
movement to share power
4.Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance
with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business
magnates.
5.Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi
Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy.[4]
In his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism, Paxton refines his five-stage model and puts forward
the following definition for fascism:
[quote]Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and
external expansion.[5][/quote]
Here is a more contemporary analysis of politics in America using Paxton's model.
[quote]Fascist America: Are We There Yet?
Friday, August 07, 2009 -- by Sara
In the second stage, fascist movements take root, turn into real political parties, and seize
their seat at the table of power. Interestingly, in every case Paxton cites, the political base
came from the rural, less-educated parts of the country; and almost all of them came to power
very specifically by offering themselves as informal goon squads organized to intimidate farmworkers
on behalf of the large landowners. The KKK disenfranchised black sharecroppers and set itself
up as the enforcement wing of Jim Crow. The Italian Squadristi and the German Brownshirts made
their bones breaking up farmers' strikes. And these days, GOP-sanctioned anti-immigrant groups
make life hell for Hispanic agricultural workers in the US. As violence against random Hispanics
(citizens and otherwise) increases, the right-wing goon squads are getting basic training that,
if the pattern holds, they may eventually use to intimidate the rest of us.
Paxton wrote that succeeding at the second stage "depends on certain relatively precise conditions:
the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or
humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue
to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner." He further
noted that Hitler and Mussolini both took power under these same circumstances: "deadlock of constitutional
government (produced in part by the polarization that the fascists abetted); conservative leaders
who felt threatened by the loss of their capacity to keep the population under control at a moment
of massive popular mobilization; an advancing Left; and conservative leaders who refused to work
with that Left and who felt unable to continue to govern against the Left without further reinforcement."
And more ominously: "The most important variables are the conservative elites' willingness
to work with the fascists (along with a reciprocal flexibility on the part of the fascist leaders)
and the depth of the crisis that induces them to cooperate."[/quote]
I think there is something missing from this analysis, having to do with the definition of
corporatism itself. I think our contemporary definition of corporatism is rooted in neoliberalism
and is actually a far cry from the definition used by the Fascists in forming the Chamber
of the Fascist Corporations. Because to them corporatism wasn't simply business interests
(which is how we know it today), but (from Wikipedia):
'[was] the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate
groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations,
on the basis of common interests. It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community
as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural "corpora")
meaning "body".'
In other words, corporatism was not only made up of business interests, but all major (and
competing) interests within society.
This is not to downplay the importance and absolute seriousness of confronting the increasing
absolutism of ruling business interests. It is also not to downplay the historical truth of who
ultimately held power in Fascist Italy. But I think it is also important to place Fascism in it's
own historical context, and not try to blur historical lines where doing so may be misleading.
When Fascists spoke of corporatism they had something else in mind, and it does not help us to
blur the distinction.
Good point, and it raises this question: how can institutional organicity, with its ideological
aura of community, partnership, and good old Volkishness, develop when we're talking about corporations
that are multinational in scope as well as financialized and thereby even more rootless and and
community indifferent? How can organicity develop in the sort of institutional setup foreshadowed
by the TPP?
My impression is that today Corporatism more closely represents the interests of multinational
corporations and the people who hold executive leadership positions within those companies. What
they have in common is a listing on NYSE.
Anyone heard from Naomi Wolf lately? She was the most prominent author calling out fascism
during the Bush administration, got wide coverage at least on the left. She re-emerged during
the Occupy movement, for a little while.
I ask that because, at the time, she said she'd go silent if it looked like people like her
(that is, writers/journalists) were being persecuted. Haven't heard from her, at least on this
topic, since Obama started prosecuting whistleblowers. Didn't see a farewell, either.
And that leads to a personal question: how safe are our bloggers feeling? Arguably, this site
is an exercise in personal courage. Any ugly straws in the wind?
"... Snowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration - yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage. ..."
"... The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them." ..."
Snowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration
- yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior
banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage.
It bears repeating; US Bankers committed literally hundreds of thousands of serious felonies
and *not one* was ever charged by the Justice Dept. under Obama's two terms.
Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious
crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them."
Well, either you believe serious crimes should be prosecuted or you don't.
Pick one.
But to try and be selective about it all just makes one something of a tyrant. Wielding
power when and how it suits one's aims instead of equally is pretty much the definition of tyranny
(which includes "the unreasonable or arbitrary use of power")
However, the EU has decided to drop all criminal charges against Snowden showing that the US
is losing legitimacy across the globe by the day.
The European parliament voted to lift criminal charges against American whistle-blower Edward
Snowden on Thursday.
In an incredibly close vote, EU MEPs said he should be granted protection as a "human rights
defender" in a move that was celebrated as a "chance to move forward" by Mr Snowden from Russia.
This seems both right and significant. Significant because the US power structure must
be seething. It means that the EU is moving away form the US on important matters, and that's
significant too. Right because Snowden revealed deeply illegal and unconstitutional
practices that, for the record, went waaaaAAaaay beyond the so-called 'meta-data phone records'
issue.
And why shouldn't the EU begin to carve their own path? Their interests and the US's
are wildly different at this point in history, especially considering the refugee crisis that
was largely initiated by US meddling and warmongering in the Middle East.
At this point, I would say that the US has lost all legitimacy on the subject of equal application
of the laws, and cannot be trusted when it comes to manufacturing "evidence" that is used to invade,
provoke or stoke a conflict somewhere.
The US is now the Yahoo! of countries; cheerleading our own self-described excellence and superiority
at everything when the facts on the ground say something completely different.
Quercus bicolor
cmartenson wrote:
Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very
serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should
face them."
And this "serious crime" was committed by Snowden because he saw it as the only viable path
to revealing a systematic pattern of crimes by none other than our own federal government that
are so serious that they threaten the basic founding principles on which our REPUBLIC was
founded.
lambertad
Truth is treason
You know how the old saying goes "truth is treason in the empire of lies". I'm a staunch
libertarian, but I wasn't always that way. Before that I spent most of my 20's in Special
Operations wanting to 'kill bad guys who attacked us' on 9/11. It wasn't until my last
deployment that I got ahold of Dr. Ron Paul's books and dug through them and realized his
viewpoint suddenly made much more sense than anyone else's. Not only did it make much more
sense, but it was based on Natural Law and the founding principals of our country.
A lot has been made of the fact that Snowden contributed money to Dr. Paul's 2008
presidential campaign and that this was an obvious tell that he was really an undercover
(insert whatever words the media used - traitor, anarchist, russian spy, etc.). The part that
I find troubling is the fact that Snowden revealed to the world that we are all being watched,
probably not in real time, but if they ever want to review the 'tapes' they can see what we do
essentially every minute of every day. That's BIG news to get out to the citizenry. If you've
got access to that kind of data, you don't want that getting out, but here's the kicker - Very
few in this country today even care. Nothing in this country has changed that I'm aware of.
GCHQ still spies on us and passes the info to the NSA. The NSA still spys on everyone and the
Brits and passes the info to GCHQ. Austrialia and NZ and Canda still spy on whoever and pass
the info on to whoever wants it. It's craziness.
At the same time, as Chris and others have pointed out, we're bombing people (ISIS/Al Nusra/AQ)
we supported ('moderate rebels) before we bombed them (AQ) after we bombed Sadaam and invaded
Iraq. Someone please tell me the strategy other than the "7 countries in 5 years plan". Yup,
sounds a lot like Yahoo!.
I'm looking forward to Christmas this year because I get to spend 5 days with my wife's
family again. My father-in-law is a smart man, but thinks the government is still all powerful
and has everything under control. It should make some interesting conversations and debating.
Thanks for the article Adam, interesting parallel between TPTB and Yahoo!.
"... In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also even
about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate and utilize
in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling. And they will take
whatever steps are needed in the economy in order to ensure the long-run sustainability of the political
order. In other words, the sort of arrows of political power flow from top to bottom. ..."
"... in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined as the leadership
group but which in fact doesnt rule, but which is turned upside down in the sense that the people are
enshrined at the top but dont rule. And minority rule is usually treated as something to be abhorred
but is in fact what we have. ..."
"... I think Webers critique of capitalism is even broader. I think he views it as quintessentially
destructive not only of democracy, but also, of course, of the sort of feudal aristocratic system which
had preceded it. Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom / m re z/,
political values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the
economy. And its that -- thats where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want
a political order subservient to the needs of the economy. And their notion of an economy, while its
broadly based in the sense of a capitalism in which there can be relatively free entrance and property
is relatively widely dispersed its also a capitalism which, in the last analysis, is [as] elitist as
any aristocratic system ever was. ..."
"... I think the system that was consciously and deliberately constructed by the founders who framed
the Constitution -- that democracy was the enemy. ..."
"... the framers of the Constitution understood very well that this would mean -- would at least
-- would jeopardize the ruling groups that they thought were absolutely necessary to any kind of a civilized
order. And by ruling groups , they meant not only those who were better educated, but those who were
propertied, because they regarded property as a sign of talent and of ability, so that it wasnt just
wealth as such, but rather a constellation of virtues as well as wealth that entitled capitalists to
rule. And they felt that this was in the best interests of the country. ..."
"... in Politics and Vision , as in Democracy Inc. , you talk about the framing of what Dwight Macdonald
will call the psychosis of permanent war, this constant battle against communism, as giving capital
the tools by which they could destroy those democratic institutions, traditions, and values that were
in place. How did that happen? What was the process? ..."
"... I think it happened because of the way that the Cold War was framed. That is, it was framed
as not only a war between communism and capitalism, but also a war of which the subtext was that communism
was, after all, an ideology that favored ordinary people. Now, it got perverted, theres no question
about that, by Lenin and by Stalin and into something very, very different. ..."
"... the plight of ordinary people under the forms of economic organization that had become prominent,
the plight of the common people had become desperate. There was no Social Security. There were no wage
guarantees. There was no union organization. ..."
"... They were powerless. And the ruling groups, the capitalist groups, were very conscious of what
they had and what was needed to keep it going. And thats why figures like Alexander Hamilton are so
important, because they understood this, they understood it from the beginning, that what capitalism
required in the way not only of so-called free enterprise -- but remember, Hamilton believed very, very
strongly in the kind of camaraderie between capitalism and strong central government, that strong central
government was not the enemy of capitalism, but rather its tool, and that what had to be constantly
kind of revitalized was that kind of relationship, because it was always being threatened by populist
democracy, which wanted to break that link and cause government to be returned to some kind of responsive
relationship to the people. ..."
"... the governing groups manage to create a Cold War that was really so total in its spread that
it was hard to mount a critical opposition or to take a more detached view of our relationship to the
Soviet Union and just what kind of problem it created. And it also had the effect, of course, of skewing
the way we looked at domestic discontents, domestic inequalities, and so on, because it was always easy
to tar them with the brush of communism, so that the communism was just more than a regime. It was also
a kind of total depiction of what was the threat to -- and complete opposite to our own form of society,
our old form of economy and government. ..."
"... that ideological clash, therefore any restriction of capitalism which was defined in opposition
to communism as a kind of democratic good, if you want to use that word, was lifted in the name of the
battle against communism, that it became capitalism that was juxtaposed to communism rather than democracy,
and therefore this empowered capital, in a very pernicious way, to dismantle democratic institutions
in the name of the war on communism. ..."
"... the notion that you first had to, so to speak, unleash the great potential capitalism had for
improving everybodys economical lot and the kind of constraints that had been developed not only by
the New Deal, but by progressive movements throughout the 19th century and early 20th century in the
United States, where it had been increasingly understood that while American economic institutions were
a good thing, so to speak, and needed to be nurtured and developed, they also posed a threat. They posed
a threat because they tended to result in concentrations of power, concentrations of economic power
that quickly translated themselves into political influence because of the inevitably porous nature
of democratic representation and elections and rule, so that the difficultys been there for a long time,
been recognized for a long time, but we go through these periods of sleepwalking where we have to relearn
lessons that have been known almost since the birth of the republic, or at least since the birth of
Jeffersonian democracy, that capitalism has its virtues, but it has to be carefully, carefully watched,
observed, and often controlled. ..."
Chris Hedges, whose column is published Mondays on Truthdig, spent nearly two
decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He
has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National
Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent
for 15 years. He has written nine books, including "Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the
Triumph of Spectacle" (2009), "I Don't Believe in Atheists" (2008) and the best-selling "American
Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" (2008). His book "War Is a Force That Gives
Us Meaning" (2003) was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction.
CHRIS HEDGES, PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING JOURNALIST: Hi. I'm Chris Hedges. And we are here in Salem,
Oregon, interviewing Dr. Sheldon Wolin, who taught politics for many years at Berkeley and, later,
Princeton. He is the author of several seminal works on political philosophy, including Politics
and Vision and Democracy Inc.. And we are going to be asking him today about the state
of American democracy, political participation, and what he calls inverted totalitarianism.
So let's begin with this concept of inverted totalitarianism, which has antecedents. And in your
great work Politics and Vision, you reach back all the way to the Greeks, up through the present
age, to talk about the evolution of political philosophy. What do you mean by it?
SHELDON WOLIN, PROF. POLITICS EMERITUS, PRINCETON: Well, I mean by it that in the inverted idea,
it's the idea that democracy has been, in effect, turned upside down. It's supposed to be a government
by the people and for the people and all the rest of the sort of rhetoric we're used to, but it's
become now so patently an organized form of government dominated by groups which are only vaguely,
if at all, responsible or even responsive to popular needs and popular demands. But at the same time,
it retains a kind of pattern of democracy, because we still have elections, they're still relatively
free in any conventional sense. We have a relatively free media. But what's missing from it is a
kind of crucial continuous opposition which has a coherent position, and is not just saying, no,
no, no but has got an alternative, and above all has got an ongoing critique of what's wrong and
what needs to be remedied.
HEDGES: You juxtapose inverted totalitarianism to classical totalitarianism -- fascism, communism
-- and you say that there are very kind of distinct differences between these two types of totalitarianism.
What are those differences?
WOLIN: Well, certainly one is the -- in classic totalitarianism the fundamental principle is the
leadership principle and the notion that the masses exist not as citizenry but as a means of support
which can be rallied and mustered almost at will by the dominant powers. That's the classical one.
And the contemporary one is one in which the rule by the people is enshrined as a sort of popular
message about what we are, but which in fact is not really true to the facts of political life in
this day and age.
HEDGES: Well, you talk about how in classical totalitarian regimes, politics trumps economics,
but in inverted totalitarianism it's the reverse.
WOLIN: That's right. Yeah. In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and
the fascists, and also even about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers
that be manipulate and utilize in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements
of ruling. And they will take whatever steps are needed in the economy in order to ensure the long-run
sustainability of the political order. In other words, the sort of arrows of political power flow
from top to bottom.
Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined as
the leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the sense
that the people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. And minority rule is usually treated as
something to be abhorred but is in fact what we have.
And it's the problem has to do, I think, with the historical relationship between political orders
and economic orders. And democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind
of case for an economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being
a kind of constant threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for.
HEDGES: In your book Politics and Vision, you quote figures like Max Weber who talk about
capitalism as in fact being a destructive force to democracy.
WOLIN: Well, I think Weber's critique of capitalism is even broader. I think he views it as
quintessentially destructive not only of democracy, but also, of course, of the sort of feudal aristocratic
system which had preceded it. Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom
/ˈmɔːreɪz/, political values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy
of the economy. And it's that -- that's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy.
They want a political order subservient to the needs of the economy. And their notion of an economy,
while it's broadly based in the sense of a capitalism in which there can be relatively free entrance
and property is relatively widely dispersed it's also a capitalism which, in the last analysis, is
[as] elitist as any aristocratic system ever was.
HEDGES: You talk in the book about about how it was essentially the engine of the Cold War, juxtaposing
a supposedly socialist Soviet Union, although like many writers, including Chomsky, I think you would
argue that Leninism was not a socialist movement. Adam Ulam talks about it as a counterrevolution,
Chomsky as a right-wing deviation. But nevertheless, that juxtaposition of the Cold War essentially
freed corporate capitalism in the name of the struggle against communism to deform American democracy.
And also I just want to make it clear that you are very aware, especially in Politics and Vision,
of the hesitancy on the part of our founding fathers to actually permit direct democracy. So we're
not in this moment idealizing the system that was put in place. But maybe you could talk a little
bit about that.
WOLIN: Well, I think that's true. I think the system that was consciously and deliberately
constructed by the founders who framed the Constitution -- that democracy was the enemy. And
that was rooted in historical realities. Many of the colonial governments had a very strong popular
element that became increasingly prominent as the colonies moved towards rebellion. And rebellion
meant not only resisting British rule, but also involved the growth of popular institutions and their
hegemony in the colonies, as well as in the nation as a whole, so that the original impulses to the
Constitution came in large measure from this democratizing movement. But the framers of the Constitution
understood very well that this would mean -- would at least -- would jeopardize the ruling groups
that they thought were absolutely necessary to any kind of a civilized order. And by "ruling groups",
they meant not only those who were better educated, but those who were propertied, because they regarded
property as a sign of talent and of ability, so that it wasn't just wealth as such, but rather a
constellation of virtues as well as wealth that entitled capitalists to rule. And they felt that
this was in the best interests of the country.
And you must remember at this time that the people, so-called, were not well-educated and in many
ways were feeling their way towards defining their own role in the political system. And above all,
they were preoccupied, as people always have been, with making a living, with surviving. And those
were difficult times, as most times are, so that politics for them could only be an occasional activity,
and so that there would always be an uneasy relationship between a democracy that was often quiescent
and a form of rule which was constantly trying to reduce, as far as possible, Democratic influence
in order to permit those who were qualified to govern the country in the best interests of the country.
HEDGES: And, of course, when we talk about property, we must include slaveholders.
WOLIN: Indeed. Indeed. Although, of course, there was, in the beginning, a tension between the
northern colonies and the southern colonies.
HEDGES: This fear of direct democracy is kind of epitomized by Thomas Paine, --
WOLIN: Yeah. Yeah.
HEDGES: -- who was very useful in fomenting revolutionary consciousness, but essentially turned
into a pariah once the Revolution was over and the native aristocracy sought to limit the power of
participatory democracy.
WOLIN: Yeah, I think that's true. I think it's too bad Paine didn't have at his disposal Lenin's
phrase "permanent revolution", because I think that's what he felt, not in the sense of violence,
violence, violence, but in the sense of a kind of conscious participatory element that was very strong,
that would have to be continuous, and that it couldn't just be episodic, so that there was always
a tension between what he thought to be democratic vitality and the sort of ordered, structured,
election-related, term-related kind of political system that the framers had in mind.
HEDGES: So let's look at the Cold War, because in Politics and Vision, as in Democracy
Inc., you talk about the framing of what Dwight Macdonald will call the psychosis of permanent
war, this constant battle against communism, as giving capital the tools by which they could destroy
those democratic institutions, traditions, and values that were in place. How did that happen? What
was the process?
WOLIN: Well, I think it happened because of the way that the Cold War was framed. That is,
it was framed as not only a war between communism and capitalism, but also a war of which the subtext
was that communism was, after all, an ideology that favored ordinary people. Now, it got perverted,
there's no question about that, by Lenin and by Stalin and into something very, very different.
But in the Cold War, I think what was lost in the struggle was the ability to see that there was
some kind of justification and historical reality for the appearance of communism, that it wasn't
just a freak and it wasn't just a kind of mindless dictatorship, but that the plight of ordinary
people under the forms of economic organization that had become prominent, the plight of the common
people had become desperate. There was no Social Security. There were no wage guarantees. There was
no union organization.
HEDGES: So it's just like today.
WOLIN: Yeah. They were powerless. And the ruling groups, the capitalist groups, were very
conscious of what they had and what was needed to keep it going. And that's why figures like Alexander
Hamilton are so important, because they understood this, they understood it from the beginning, that
what capitalism required in the way not only of so-called free enterprise -- but remember, Hamilton
believed very, very strongly in the kind of camaraderie between capitalism and strong central government,
that strong central government was not the enemy of capitalism, but rather its tool, and that what
had to be constantly kind of revitalized was that kind of relationship, because it was always being
threatened by populist democracy, which wanted to break that link and cause government to be returned
to some kind of responsive relationship to the people.
HEDGES: And the Cold War. So the Cold War arises. And this becomes the kind of moment by which
capital, and especially corporate capital, can dismantle the New Deal and free itself from any kind
of regulation and constraint to deform and destroy American democracy. Can you talk about that process,
what happened during that period?
WOLIN: Well, I think the first thing to be said about it is the success with which the governing
groups manage to create a Cold War that was really so total in its spread that it was hard to mount
a critical opposition or to take a more detached view of our relationship to the Soviet Union and
just what kind of problem it created. And it also had the effect, of course, of skewing the way we
looked at domestic discontents, domestic inequalities, and so on, because it was always easy to tar
them with the brush of communism, so that the communism was just more than a regime. It was also
a kind of total depiction of what was the threat to -- and complete opposite to our own form of society,
our old form of economy and government.
HEDGES: And in Politics and Vision, you talk about because of that ideological clash,
therefore any restriction of capitalism which was defined in opposition to communism as a kind of
democratic good, if you want to use that word, was lifted in the name of the battle against communism,
that it became capitalism that was juxtaposed to communism rather than democracy, and therefore this
empowered capital, in a very pernicious way, to dismantle democratic institutions in the name of
the war on communism.
WOLIN: Oh, I think there's no question about that, the notion that you first had to, so to
speak, unleash the great potential capitalism had for improving everybody's economical lot and the
kind of constraints that had been developed not only by the New Deal, but by progressive movements
throughout the 19th century and early 20th century in the United States, where it had been increasingly
understood that while American economic institutions were a good thing, so to speak, and needed to
be nurtured and developed, they also posed a threat. They posed a threat because they tended to result
in concentrations of power, concentrations of economic power that quickly translated themselves into
political influence because of the inevitably porous nature of democratic representation and elections
and rule, so that the difficulty's been there for a long time, been recognized for a long time, but
we go through these periods of sleepwalking where we have to relearn lessons that have been known
almost since the birth of the republic, or at least since the birth of Jeffersonian democracy, that
capitalism has its virtues, but it has to be carefully, carefully watched, observed, and often controlled.
HEDGES: Thank you. Please join us for part two later on with our interview with Professor Sheldon
Wolin.
Sheldon Wolin RIP...
This is part 2 of 8 of his interview with Chris Hedges made a year before his death...
Notable quotes:
"... n all totalitarian societies theres a vast disconnect between rhetoric and reality, which, of course, would characterize inverted totalitarianism as a species of totalitarianism. ..."
"... I think Id probably qualify that, because Id qualify it in the sense that when you look at Naziism and fascism, they were pretty upfront about a lot of things -- leadership principle, racist principles -- and they made no secret that they wanted to dominate the world, so that I think there was a certain kind of aggressive openness in those regimes that I think isnt true of our contemporary situation. ..."
"... And we have, as superpower, exactly replicated in many ways this call for constant global domination and expansion that was part of what you would describe as classical totalitarianism. And that -- youre right, in that the notion of superpower is that its global and that that constant global expansion, which is twinned with the engine of corporate capitalism, is something that you say has diminished the reality of the nation-state itself -- somehow the nation-state becomes insignificant in the great game of superpower global empire -- and that that has consequences both economically and politically. ..."
"... I think one of the important tendencies of our time -- I would say not tendencies, but trends -- is that sovereign governments based on so-called liberal democracy have discovered that the only way they can survive is by giving up a large dose of their sovereignty, by setting up European Unions, various trade pacts, and other sort of regional alliances that place constraints on their power, which they ordinarily would proclaim as natural to having any nation at all, and so that that kind of development, I think, is fraught with all kinds of implications, not the least of [them] being not only whether -- what kind of actors we have now in the case of nation-states, but what the future of social reform is, when the vehicle of that reform has now been sort of transmuted into a system where its lost a degree of autonomy and, hence, its capacity to create the reforms or promote the reforms that people in social movements had wanted the nation-state to do. ..."
"... And part of that surrender has been the impoverishment of the working class with the flight of manufacturing. And I think its in Politics and Vision you talk about how the war that is made by the inverted totalitarian system against the welfare state never publicly accepts the reality that it was the system that caused the impoverishment, that those who are impoverished are somehow to blame for their own predicament. And this, of course, is part of the skill of the public relations industry, the mask of corporate power, which you write is really dominated by personalities, political personalities that we pick. And that has had, I think (I dont know if you would agree), a kind of -- a very effective -- it has been a very effective way by which the poor and the working class have internalized their own repression and in many ways become disempowered, because I think that that message is one that even at a street level many people have ingested. ..."
"... The problem of how to get a foothold by Democratic forces in the kind of society we have is so problematic now that its very hard to envision it would take place. And the ubiquity of the present economic system is so profound (and its accompanied by this apparent denial of its own reality) that it becomes very hard to find a defender of it who doesnt want to claim in the end that hes really on your side. ..."
"... when a underdeveloped part of the world, as theyre called, becomes developed by capitalism -- it just transforms everything, from social relations to not only economic relations, but prospects in society for various classes and so on. No, its a mighty, mighty force. And the problem it always creates is trying to get a handle on it, partly because its so omnipresent, its so much a part of what were used to, that we cant recognize what were used to as a threat. And thats part of the paradox. ..."
"... I think theyre conservative on sort of one side of their face, as it were, because I think theyre always willing to radically change, lets say, social legislation thats in existence to defend people, ordinary people. I think theyre very selective about what they want to preserve and what they want to either undermine or completely eliminate. ..."
"... Thats, of course, the kind of way that the political system presents itself in kind of an interesting way. That is, you get this combination of conservative and liberal in the party system. I mean, the Republicans stand for pretty much the preservation of the status quo, and the Democrats have as their historical function a kind of mild, modest, moderate reformism thats going to deal with some of the excesses without challenging very often the basic system, so that it kind of strikes a wonderful balance between preservation and criticism. The criticism -- because the preservation element is so strong, criticism becomes always constructive, in the sense that it presumes the continued operation of the present system and its main elements. ..."
"... Yeah, political debate has become either so rhetorically excessive as to be beside the point, or else to be so shy of taking on the basic problems. But again youre back in the kind of chasing-the-tail problem. The mechanisms, i.e. political parties, that we have that are supposed to organize and express discontent are, of course, precisely the organs that require the money that only the dominant groups possess. I mean, long ago there were theories or proposals being floated to set up public financing. But public financing, even as it was conceived then, was so miniscule that you couldnt possibly even support a kind of lively political debate in a modest way. ..."
CHRIS HEDGES, PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING JOURNALIST: Welcome back to part three of our discussion with
Professor Sheldon Wolin.
You talk in both of your books, Politics and Vision and Democracy Incorporated,
about superpower, which you call the true face of inverted totalitarianism. What is superpower?
How do you describe it?
SHELDON WOLIN, PROF. EMERITUS POLITICS, PRINCETON: Well, I think it's important to grasp that
superpower includes as one of its two main elements the modern economy. And the modern economy,
with its foundations in not only economic activity but scientific research, is always a dynamic economy
and always constantly seeking to expand, to get new markets, to be able to produce new goods, and
so on. So the superpower's dynamism becomes a kind of counterpart to the character of the modern
economy, which has become so dominant that it defines the political forms.
I mean, the first person to really recognize this -- which we always are embarrassed to say -- was
Karl Marx, who did understand that economic forms shape political forms, that economic forms are
the way people make a living, they're the way goods and services are produced, and they determine
the nature of society, so that any kind of government which is responsive to society is going to
reflect that kind of structure and in itself be undemocratic, be elitist in a fundamental sense,
and have consumers as citizens.
HEDGES: And Marx would also argue that it also defines ideology.
WOLIN: It does. It does define ideology. Marx was really the first to see that ideology had become
a kind of -- although there are antecedents, had become a kind of preconceived package of ideas and
centered around the notion of control, that it represented something new in the world because you
now had the resources to disseminate it, to impose it, and to generally make certain that a society
became, so to speak, educated in precisely the kind of ideas you wanted them to be educated in. And
that became all the more important when societies entered the stage of relatively advanced capitalism,
where the emphasis was upon work, getting a job, keeping your job, holding it in insecure times.
And when you've got that kind of situation, everybody wants to put their political beliefs on hold.
They don't want to have to agonize over them while they're agonizing over the search for work or
worrying about the insecurity of their position. They're understandably preoccupied with survival.
And at that point, democracy becomes at best a luxury and at worst simply an afterthought, so that
its future becomes very seriously compromised, I think.
HEDGES: And when the ruling ideology is determined by capitalism -- corporate capitalism; you're
right -- we have an upending of traditional democratic values, because capitalist values are about
expansion, exploitation, profit, the cult of the self, and you stop even asking questions that can
bring you into democratic or participatory democracy.
WOLIN: I think that's true to an extent. But I would amend that to say that once the kind of supremacy
of the capitalist regime becomes assured, and where it's evident to everyone that it's not got a
real alternative in confronting it, that I think its genius is it sees that a certain relaxation
is not only possible, but even desirable, because it gives the impression that the regime is being
supported by public debate and supported by people who were arguing with other people, who were allowed
to speak their minds, and so on. And I think it's when you reach that stage -- as I think we have
-- that
the problematic relationship between capitalism and democracy become more and more acute.
HEDGES: And yet we don't have anyone within the mainstream who questions either superpower or
capitalism.
WOLIN: No, they don't. And I don't think it's -- it may be a question of weakness, but I think
-- the
problem is really, I think, more sort of quixotic. That is, capitalism -- unlike earlier forms of economic
organization, capitalism thrives on change. It presents itself as the dynamic form of society, with
new inventions, new discoveries, new forms of wealth, so that it doesn't appear like the old regime
-- as
sort of an encrusted old fogey type of society. And I think that makes a great deal of difference,
because in a certain sense you almost get roles reversed. That is, in the old regime, the dominant
powers, aristocracy and so on, want to keep the lid on, and the insurgent democracy, the liberalizing
powers, wanted to take the lid off.
But now I think you get it -- as I say, I think you get it kind of reversed, that democracy, it
now wants -- in its form of being sort of the public philosophy, now wants to keep the lid on and becomes,
I think, increasingly less -- more adverse to examining in a -- through self-examination, and becomes
increasingly, I would say, even intolerant of views which question its own assumptions, and above
all question its consequences, because I think that's where the real issues lie is not so much with
the assumptions of democracy but with the consequences and trying to figure out how we've managed
to get a political system that preaches equality and an economic system which thrives on inequality
and produces inequality as a matter of course.
HEDGES: Well, in all totalitarian societies there's a vast disconnect between rhetoric and reality,
which, of course, would characterize inverted totalitarianism as a species of totalitarianism.
WOLIN: Well, I guess that's true. I think I'd probably qualify that, because I'd qualify it in
the sense that when you look at Naziism and fascism, they were pretty upfront about a lot of things
-- leadership
principle, racist principles -- and they made no secret that they wanted to dominate the world, so
that I think there was a certain kind of aggressive openness in those regimes that I think isn't
true of our contemporary situation.
HEDGES: And yet in the same time, in those regimes, I mean, you look at Stalin's constitution
as a document, it was very liberal, --
WOLIN: Sure.
HEDGES: -- it protected human rights and free speech. And so on the one hand -- at least in terms
of civil liberties. And we have, as superpower, exactly replicated in many ways this call for constant
global domination and expansion that was part of what you would describe as classical totalitarianism.
And that -- you're right, in that the notion of superpower is that it's global and that that constant
global expansion, which is twinned with the engine of corporate capitalism, is something that you
say has diminished the reality of the nation-state itself -- somehow the nation-state becomes insignificant
in the great game of superpower global empire -- and that that has consequences both economically and
politically.
WOLIN: Well, I think it does. I think one has to treat the matter carefully, because a lot of
the vestiges of the nation-states still are, obviously, in existence. But I think one of the important
tendencies of our time -- I would say not tendencies, but trends -- is that sovereign governments based
on so-called liberal democracy have discovered that the only way they can survive is by giving up
a large dose of their sovereignty, by setting up European Unions, various trade pacts, and other
sort of regional alliances that place constraints on their power, which they ordinarily would proclaim
as natural to having any nation at all, and so that that kind of development, I think, is fraught
with all kinds of implications, not the least of [them] being not only whether -- what kind of actors
we have now in the case of nation-states, but what the future of social reform is, when the vehicle
of that reform has now been sort of transmuted into a system where it's lost a degree of autonomy
and, hence, its capacity to create the reforms or promote the reforms that people in social movements
had wanted the nation-state to do.
HEDGES: And part of that surrender has been the impoverishment of the working class with the flight
of manufacturing. And I think it's in Politics and Vision you talk about how the war that
is made by the inverted totalitarian system against the welfare state never publicly accepts the
reality that it was the system that caused the impoverishment, that those who are impoverished are
somehow to blame for their own predicament. And this, of course, is part of the skill of the public
relations industry, the mask of corporate power, which you write is really dominated by personalities,
political personalities that we pick. And that has had, I think (I don't know if you would agree),
a kind of -- a very effective -- it has been a very effective way by which the poor and the working class
have internalized their own repression and in many ways become disempowered, because I think that
that message is one that even at a street level many people have ingested.
WOLIN: Yeah. I think you're right about that. The problem of how to get a foothold by Democratic
forces in the kind of society we have is so problematic now that it's very hard to envision it would
take place. And the ubiquity of the present economic system is so profound (and it's accompanied
by this apparent denial of its own reality) that it becomes very hard to find a defender of it who
doesn't want to claim in the end that he's really on your side.
Yeah, it's a very paradoxical situation. And I don't know. I mean, I think we all have to take
a deep breath and try to start from scratch again in thinking about where we are, how we get there,
and what kind of immediate steps we might take in order to alter the course that I think we're on,
which really creates societies which, when you spell out what's happening, nobody really wants, or
at least not ordinary people want. It's a very strange situation where -- and I think, you know, not
least among them is, I think, the factor that you suggested, which is the kind of evaporation of
leisure time and the opportunities to use that for political education, as well as kind of moral
refreshment. But, yeah, it's a really totally unprecedented situation where you've got affluence,
opportunity, and so on, and you have these kinds of frustrations, injustices, and really very diminished
life prospects.
HEDGES: You agree, I think, with Karl Marx that unfettered, unregulated corporate capitalism is
a revolutionary force.
WOLIN: Oh, indeed. I think it's been demonstrated even beyond his wildest dreams that it
-- yeah,
you're just -- you just have to see what happens when a underdeveloped part of the world, as they're
called, becomes developed by capitalism -- it just transforms everything, from social relations to
not only economic relations, but prospects in society for various classes and so on. No, it's a mighty,
mighty force. And the problem it always creates is trying to get a handle on it, partly because it's
so omnipresent, it's so much a part of what we're used to, that we can't recognize what we're used
to as a threat. And that's part of the paradox.
HEDGES: You take issue with this or, you know, point out that in fact it is a revolutionary force.
And yet it is somehow, as a political and economic position, the domain of people as self-identified
conservatives.
WOLIN: Yeah, it is. I think they're conservative on sort of one side of their face, as it were,
because I think they're always willing to radically change, let's say, social legislation that's
in existence to defend people, ordinary people. I think they're very selective about what they want
to preserve and what they want to either undermine or completely eliminate.
That's, of course, the kind of way that the political system presents itself in kind of an interesting
way. That is, you get this combination of conservative and liberal in the party system. I mean, the
Republicans stand for pretty much the preservation of the status quo, and the Democrats have as their
historical function a kind of mild, modest, moderate reformism that's going to deal with some of
the excesses without challenging very often the basic system, so that it kind of strikes a wonderful
balance between preservation and criticism. The criticism -- because the preservation element is so
strong, criticism becomes always constructive, in the sense that it presumes the continued operation
of the present system and its main elements.
HEDGES: Of both corporate capitalism and superpower.
WOLIN: Absolutely.
HEDGES: And yet you say that at this point, political debate has really devolved into what you
call nonsubstantial issues, issues that don't really mean anything if we talk about politics as centered
around the common good.
WOLIN: Yeah, political debate has become either so rhetorically excessive as to be beside the
point, or else to be so shy of taking on the basic problems. But again you're back in the kind of
chasing-the-tail problem. The mechanisms, i.e. political parties, that we have that are supposed
to organize and express discontent are, of course, precisely the organs that require the money that
only the dominant groups possess. I mean, long ago there were theories or proposals being floated
to set up public financing. But public financing, even as it was conceived then, was so miniscule
that you couldn't possibly even support a kind of lively political debate in a modest way.
You know, politics has become such an expensive thing that I think really the only way to describe
it realistically is to talk about it as a political economy or an economic kind of political economy.
It's got those -- those two are inextricable elements now in the business of the national or state
governments, too.
HEDGES: And yet I think you could argue that even the Democratic Party under Clinton and under
Obama, while it continues to use the rhetoric of that kind of feel-your-pain language, which has
been part of the Democratic establishment, has only furthered the agenda of superpower, of corporate
capitalism, and, of course, the rise of the security and surveillance state by which all of us are
kept in check.
WOLIN: Yeah, I think that's true, because the reformers have simply hesitated -- really, really
hesitated -- to undertake any kind of a focus upon political reform.
HEDGES: Haven't the reformers been bought off, in essence?
WOLIN: I think it's the no-no subject. I don't think it even has to be bought off anymore. I think
that it is such a kind of third rail that nobody wants to touch it, because I think there is a real
in-built fear that if you mess with those kind of so-called fundamental structures, you're going
to bring down the house. And that includes messing with them even by constitutional, legal means,
that it's so fragile, so delicate, so this that and the other thing that inhibit all kinds of efforts
at reforming it. As the phrase used to go, it's a machine that goes of itself -- so they think.
HEDGES: Thank you.
Stay tuned for part four, coming up, of our interview with Professor Sheldon Wolin.
Sheldon Wolin RIP -- Wolin's
Politics and Vision, which
remains to this day the single best book on Western political theory
Notable quotes:
"... In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also even
about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate and utilize
in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling. ..."
"... Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined as the
leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the sense that the
people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. ..."
"... democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind of case for an
economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being a kind of constant
threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for. ..."
"... Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom, mores, political
values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy. And
it's thatthat's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want a political
order subservient to the needs of the economy. ..."
I was a freshman at Princeton. It was the fall of 1985. I signed up to take a course called "Modern
Political Theory." It was scheduled for Mondays and Wednesdays at 9 am. I had no idea what I was
doing. I stumbled into class, and there was a man with white hair and a trim white beard, lecturing
on Machiavelli. I was transfixed.
There was just one problem: I was-still am-most definitely not a morning person. Even though the
lectures were riveting, I had to fight my tendency to fall asleep. Even worse, I had to fight my
tendency to sleep in.
So I started-- drinking coffee. I'd show up for class fully caffeinated. And proceeded to work
my way through the canon-Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, along with some texts you don't often
get in intro theory courses (the Putney Debates, Montesquieu's Persian Letters, and for a
last hurrah: Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations)-under the guidance of one of the great readers
of the twentieth century.
More than anything else, that's what Sheldon Wolin was: a reader of texts. He approached The
Prince as if it were a novel, identifying its narrative voice, analyzing the literary construction
of the characters who populated the text (new prince, customary prince, centaur, the people), examining
the structural tensions in the narrative (How does a Machiavellian adviser advise a non-Machiavellian
prince?), and so on. It was exhilarating.
And then after class I'd head straight for Firestone Library; read whatever we were reading that
week in class; follow along, chapter by chapter, with Wolin's Politics and Vision,which remains to this day the single best book on Western political theory that I know of
(even though lots of the texts we were talking about in class don't appear there, or appear there
with very different interpretations from the ones Wolin was offering in class: the man never
stood still, intellectually); and get my second cup of coffee.
This is all a long wind-up to the fact that this morning, my friend Antonio Vazquez-Arroyo, sent
me a
two-part interview that
Chris Hedges conducted with Wolin, who's living out in Salem, Oregon now. From his Wikipedia
page, I gather that Wolin's 92. He looks exactly the same as he did in 1985. And sounds the same.
Though it seems from the video as if he may now be losing his sight. Which is devastating when I
think about the opening passages of Politics and Vision, about how vision is so critical to
the political theorist and the practice of theoria.
Anyway, here he is, talking to Hedges about his thesis of "inverted totalitarianism":
In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also
even about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate
and utilize in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling.
And they will take whatever steps are needed in the economy in order to ensure the long-run sustainability
of the political order. In other words, the sort of arrows of political power flow from top to
bottom.
Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined
as the leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the
sense that the people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. And minority rule is usually
treated as something to be abhorred but is in fact what we have. And it's the problem has to do,
I think, with the historical relationship between political orders and economic orders. And
democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind of case for an
economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being a kind of constant
threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for.
... ...
Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom, mores, political
values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy.
And it's thatthat's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want
a political order subservient to the needs of the economy. And their notion of an economy,
while it's broadly based in the sense of a capitalism in which there can be relatively free entrance
and property is relatively widely dispersed it's also a capitalism which, in the last analysis,
is [as] elitist as any aristocratic system ever was.
Have a listen and a watch. Part 1 and then Part 2.
Pt 1-8 Hedges & Wolin Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist
There is a strong evidence to suggest that representative democracy is not compatible with deep
economic inequality. As a recent study found, "politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness
of the economic elite." However, it was not always that way: In the past, left parties represented the
poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1& of earners. As FDR
warned, "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob."
Notable quotes:
"... politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite ..."
"... In the past, left parties represented the poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners, Jimenez reports. ..."
"... politician's bias toward the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average ..."
"... the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure a decent standard of living. ..."
"... What f*cking democracy in the land of the free? Its a fascist, police state run by a troika of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks. ..."
"... The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. ..."
"... The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media. -- William Colby, former CIA Director ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed, both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions, it is a valid observation. ..."
In recent years, several academic researchers have argued that rising inequality erodes
democracy. But the lack of international data has made it difficult to show whether inequality
in fact exacerbates the apparent lack of political responsiveness to popular sentiment. Even scholars
concerned about economic inequality, such as sociologist
Lane Kenworthy,
often hesitate to argue that economic inequality might bleed into the political sphere. New cross-national
research, however, suggests that higher inequality does indeed limit political representation.
In
a 2014 study on political representation, political scientists Jan Rosset, Nathalie Giger
and Julian Bernauer concluded, "In economically more unequal societies, the party
system represents the preferences of relatively poor citizens worse than in more equal societies." Similarly, political scientists Michael Donnelly and Zoe Lefkofridi
found in a working paper that in Europe, "Changes in overall attitudes toward redistribution
have very little effect on redistributive policies. Changes in socio-cultural policies are driven
largely by change in the attitudes of the affluent, and only weakly (if at all) by the middle
class or poor."They find that when the people get what they want, it's typically because
their views correspond with the affluent, rather than policymakers directly responding to their
concerns.
In another study of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, researcher
Pablo Torija Jimenez looked at data in 24 countries over 30 years. He examined how different governmental
structures influence happiness across income groups and
found that today
"politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite."
However, it was not always that way:In the past, left parties represented the poor,
the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners,
Jimenez reports.
In a recent working
paper, political scientist Larry Bartels finds the effect of politician's bias toward
the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average. Studying
23 OECD countries, Bartels finds that the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support
budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure
a decent standard of living.
JustObserving
What f*cking democracy in the land of the free? It's a fascist, police state run by a troika
of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks.
JustObserving
Who rules America?
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T,
Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide
the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these
state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of
the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called
"Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
Snowden's documents revealed that the NSA spies on everyone:
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition"
any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government."
It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White
House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate
(members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme
Court)."
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary
American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House
itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --
William Colby, former CIA Director
LetThemEatRand
Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions
used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats
by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed,
both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions,
it is a valid observation.
LetThemEatRand
I get your point and I'm not your downvote, but in my view the MSM has hijacked the issue of "inequality." The real issue is the oligarch class that has more wealth than half the country. We were a successful, functioning society when we had a middle class. There were rich people, poor people, and a whole lot in between. And it's the whole lot in between that matters. The minimum wage is a distraction. The two big issues are loss of manufacturing base and offshoring in general, and financialization of the economy (in large part due to Fed policy).
LetThemEatRand
...A big part of the "inequality" discussion is equal application of law. I recall when
TARP was floated during the W administration, the public of all persuasions was against it.
Congress passed it anyway, because of Too Big to Fail. TBTF should not be a liberal or
conservative issue. Likewise, the idea that no bankers went to jail is an issue of
"inequality." The laws do not apply equally to bankers. And the same with Lois Lerner. She
intentionally sent the IRS to harass political groups based upon ideology. She got off scott
free. Inequality again.
MASTER OF UNIVERSE
Inequality does not undermine democracy because democracy does not really exist. Faux
democracy is actually Totalitarianism under the guise of 'democracy'. In brief, democracy is
just a word that has been neutered, and bastardized too many times to count as anything real,
or imagined.
They should name a new ice cream DEMOCRACY just for FUN.
"... a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever. ..."
"... Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll help our security. ..."
"... They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didnt you hear somebody got killed on Walking Dead? Whos got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill? ..."
"... Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. Were sliding down the slippery slope. ..."
"... On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined version of the security bill to become law. ..."
This is the state of such legislation in this country, where
lawmakers wanted to do something but, by passing Cisa, just decided to cede more power to the NSA
Under the vague guise of "cybersecurity", the Senate voted on Tuesday to pass the Cybersecurity
Information Sharing Act (Cisa), a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our
privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information
to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever.
Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll
help our security.
eminijunkie 28 Oct 2015 17:34
Being competent requires work. Actual work.
You can't honestly say you expected them to do actual work, now can you?
david wright 28 Oct 2015 13:44
'The Senate, ignorant on cybersecurity, just passed a bill about it anyway '
The newsworthy event would be the Senate's passage of anything, on the basis of knowledge or
serious reflection, rather than $-funded ignorance. The country this pas few decades has been
long on policy-based evidence as a basis for law, rather than evidence-based policy. Get what
our funders require, shall be the whole of the law.
Kyllein -> MacKellerann 28 Oct 2015 16:49
Come ON! You are expecting COMPETENCE from Congress?
Wake up and smell the bacon; these people work on policy, not intelligence.
VWFeature -> lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 13:37
Bravo!
"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction,
should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the
concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do
apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants,
and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of
designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." -- Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837
"If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and
Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general
nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
lostinbago -> KhepryQuixote 28 Oct 2015 12:09
We became the enemy when the people started attacking the Military Industrial Corporate complex
and trying to regain our republic from the oligarchs.
lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 12:07
Congress: Where Catch 22 melds with Alice in Wonderland
Phil429 28 Oct 2015 11:44
we now have another law on the books that carves a hole in our privacy laws, contains
vague language that can be interpreted any which way, and that has provisions inserted into
it specifically to prevent us from finding out how they're using it.
They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didn't you hear somebody got killed
on Walking Dead? Who's got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill?
guardianfan2000 28 Oct 2015 08:53
This vote just showed the true colors of the U. S. Government,...that being a total disregard
for all individuals' privacy rights.
newbieveryday 28 Oct 2015 02:11
Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. We're sliding down the slippery slope.
Who's going to be der erster Fuehrer? David Koch?
Triumphant George -> alastriona 27 Oct 2015 18:55
From elsewhere:
On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly
mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined
version of the security bill to become law.
CISA still faces some hurdles to becoming law. Congressional leaders will need to resolve
remaining differences between the bills passed in the Senate and the House.
President Obama could also still veto CISA, though that's unlikely: The White House endorsed
the bill in August, an about-face from an earlier attempt at cybersecurity information sharing
legislation known as CISPA that the White House shut down with a veto threat in 2013.
--"CISA Security Bill Passes Senate With Privacy Flaws Unfixed", Wired
that's pretty superficial coverage. Capabilities of smartphone mike are pretty limited and by
design it is try to suppress external noise. If your phone is in the case microphone will not pick up much. Same for camera. Only your
GPS location is available. If phone is switched off then even this is not reality available.
I think the whole ability to listen from the pocket is overblown. There is too much noice to make
this practical on the current level of development of technology. At the same time I think
just metadata are enough to feel that you are the constant surveillance.
Notable quotes:
"... the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot. ..."
"... According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from WeMeantWell.com . ..."
You are a tool of the state, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The NSA in the U.S.,
and its equivalent in the UK, GCHQ, are taking control of your phone not just to spy on you as needed,
but also to use your device as a way to spy on others around you. You are a walking microphone, camera
and GPS for spies.
Snowden, in a BBC interview,
explained that for the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your
private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take
photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot.
According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses
NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all
it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the
message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack.
GCHQ calls these smartphone hacking tools the "Smurf
Suite." The suite includes:
"Dreamy Smurf" is the power management tool that turns your phone on and off with you knowing.
"Nosey Smurf" is the hot mic tool. "For example," Snowden said, "if the phone is in your
pocket, NSA/GCHQ can turn the microphone on and listen to everything that's going on around you,
even if your phone is switched off because they've got the other tools for turning it on.
"Tracker Smurf" is a geolocation tool which allows spies to follow you with a greater precision
than you would get from the typical triangulation of cellphone towers.
"Paranoid Smurf" is a defensive mechanism designed to make the other tools installed on
the phone undetectable.
Snowden said the NSA has spent close to $1 billion to develop these smartphone hacking programs.
I just love Prof. Bacevic. Nobody has more credit then him on the subject. Not only for his
unmatched scholarship and laser sharp words, but moreover for the unimaginable personal loss.
He is my hero!!!!
Boogie Knight 1 year ago
How many sons did the NeoCon-Gang sacrifice in their instigated Wars in foreign lands....?
Not one. Bacevich lost his son who was fighting in Iraq in 2007 - for what?!
Yet the NeoCon warcriminals Billy Cristol, Wolfowitz and/or Elliott Abrams are all still
highly respected people that the US media/political elite loves to consult - in 2014!
An excellent explanation of the key postulates of Neoconservatism.
Notable quotes:
"... We need to reexamine what it means to be free. A moral reorientation of the country
as Carter suggested in 1979. Bacevich says it isnt ever going to happen. ..."
We need to reexamine what it means to be free. A moral reorientation of the country
as Carter suggested in 1979. Bacevich says it isn't ever going to happen.
"... A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11
attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies the FBI, CIA, NSA,
Defense Department and Homeland Security "are all engaged in intelligence activities on
US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the
democratic principles and values of our Nation." ..."
"... Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm
criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations.
When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken
overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need
to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have
resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals. ..."
"... "enhanced interrogation" ..."
"... Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to
be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting
mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care. ..."
"... "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008." ..."
"... The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document,
though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials
from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual. ..."
US government 'engaged' in spying activities on US soil
A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11
attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies the FBI, CIA, NSA,
Defense Department and Homeland Security "are all engaged in intelligence activities on
US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the
democratic principles and values of our Nation."
Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm
criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations.
When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken
overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need
to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have
resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals.
Debate over torture restrictions
WikiLeaks published two documents related to the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation"
techniques, though notably neither was written by Brennan.
One was written by then-Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri), vice chairman on the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, which outlined a proposal to limit the CIA's torture techniques without
restricting the development of new techniques complying with the law.
The document suggests listing the types of techniques that the CIA is barred from using instead
of restricting the agency to only those explicitly listed in the Army Field Manual.
Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to
be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting
mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care.
Bond's suggestions get a bill
The final document appears to show Bond's suggestions making their way into a legislative
proposal titled "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008."
The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document,
though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials
from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual.
"... With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff
should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form. ..."
"... This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing
its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting
to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them its all
great fun. ..."
"... Lets be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial
to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic.
It is unAmerican. ..."
"... It would be funny if it wasnt for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for
the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan. ..."
"... Ive said it before and Ill say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny.
So let us be grateful for John Brennan. ..."
With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff
should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form.
AmyInNH -> NigelSafeton 21 Oct 2015 11:59
You seriously underestimate the technical incompetence of the federal government. They buy
on basis of quantity of big blue arrows, shown on marketing slideware.
Laudig 21 Oct 2015 05:31
This is great. This man is a serial perjurer to Congress. Which does eff-all about being lied
to [they lie to everyone and so don't take offense at being lied to] and now he's hacked by a
13 year-old who, until a few weeks ago was protected by the The Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act of 1998.
Well done, CIA or whatever you are.
So your well constructed career gets collapsed by someone who is still in short pants. The
Age of Secrets is over now.
Stieve 21 Oct 2015 02:54
Er, why has no-one mentioned, why has there been no press coverage, why has not a single presidential
candidate been asked to comment on the fact that The USA has been the victim of a military coup?
All pretence of government oversight has been dropped. The NSA, CIA and most likely every other
arm of the "intelligence service" have simply taken over the elected government, ripped up The
Constitution and transformed The US into a police state. Seven thousand people disappeared in
Chigaco? Exactly why have there not been massive arrests of these Stasi? Or riots on the streets?
Exactly why has there not been an emergency session of The Senate or Congress to find out why
Chicago is being run like an Eastern Bloc dictatorship? Exactly why are police departments been
given military hardware designed to be used by an occupying army?
I'll tell you exactly why.
Because The US actually has been taken over
Glenn J. Hill 21 Oct 2015 01:28
LOL, the Head of the CIA put sensitive info on an personal AOL ACCOUNT !!!!! What an total
idiot. Just proves the " Peter Principle", that one gets promoted to one`s point of incompetent!
Can he be fired ? Locked up for gross stupidity ?? Will he come hunting for me, to take me out
for pointing out his asinine stupidity ??
Fnert Pleeble -> Robert Lewis 20 Oct 2015 23:42
Congressmen are self motivating. They want the gravy train to continue. The carrot is plenty
big, no need for the stick.
Buckworm 20 Oct 2015 21:51
Those old, tired, incompetent, ignorant, trolls are asking for more and more access to citizens
data based on the assumption that they can catch a terrorist or another type of psycho before
they act out on something. Don't they realize that so far, after 15 years of violating the citizen's
constitutional rights, they HAVE NEVER CAUGHT not even ONE single person under their illegal surveillance.
This is the problem: they think that terrorists are as stupid as they are, and that they will
be sending tons of un-encrypted information online- and that sooner or later they will intercept
that data and prevent a crime. How many times have they done so? Z E RO . They haven't realized
that terrorists and hackers are waaaaayyy ahead of them and their ways of communicating are already
beyond the old-fashioned government-hacked internet. I mean, only a terrorist as stupid as a government
employee would think of ever sending something sensitive through electronic communications of
any kind - but the government trolls still believe that they do or that sooner or later they will!!
How super-beyond-stupid is that? Congress??
Don't even talk about that putrid grotesque political farce - completely manipulated by the
super-rich and heated up by the typical white-trash delusional trailer park troll aka as the "tea
party". We've had many killing in the homeland after 9/11 - not even one of them stopped by the
"mega-surveillance" - and thousands committed by irresponsible and crooked cops - and this will
continue until America Unites and fight for their constitutional rights. That will happen as soon
as their priority is not getting the latest iPhone with minimal improvement, spends endless hours
playing candy crush,stand in long lines to buy pot, get drunk every evening and weekends, and
cancel their subscription to home-delivered heroin and cocaine. So don't hold your breath on that
one.
Wait until one of those 13-yr old gets a hold of nuclear codes, electric grid codes, water
supply or other important service code - the old government farts will scream and denounce that
they could have prevented that if they had had more surveillance tools - but that is as false
as the $3 dollar bills they claim to have in their wallets. They cannot see any further from their
incompetence and ignorance.
Robert Lewis -> Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 18:38
Did the FSB cook data so the US would invade Iraq and kill 1,000,000 civilians?
yusowong 20 Oct 2015 18:20
This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing
its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting
to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them it's all
great fun.
Triumphant -> George Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 14:41
Are you saying that because you aren't in a concentration camp, everything's pretty good? That's
a pretty low bar to set.
Most people probably didn't vote for your current leader. To compare, in the UK, only 37% of the
popular vote went for the current government. And once you leader is voted in, they pretty much
do as they please. Fortunately, there are checks and balances which are supposed to prevent things
getting out of control. Unfortunately, bills like the cybersecurity bill are intend to circumvent
these things.
Let's be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial
to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic.
It is unAmerican.
Red Ryder -> daniel1948 20 Oct 2015 14:16
The whole freakin government is totally incompetent when it comes to computers and the hacking
going on around this planet. Hillary needs to answer for this email scandal but currently she
is making jokes about it as if nothing happened. She has no clue when she tried to delete her
emails. Doesn't the government know that this stuff is backed up on many computers and then stored
it a tape vault somewhere. Hiding emails is a joke today.
mancfrank 20 Oct 2015 13:27
It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for
the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan.
Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 12:53
I still don't understand why Russia is allowed to have the FSB but the US is forbidden from
having the CIA Who makes these rules again? Because frankly I'm tired of the world being run
by popular opinion.
bcarey 20 Oct 2015 12:33
The bill is so bad that the major tech companies like Google and Amazon all came out
against it last week, despite the fact that it would give them broad immunity for sharing
this information with the government.
The usual show... "We're totally against it, but it's okay."
Donald Mintz 20 Oct 2015 12:02
I've said it before and I'll say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny.
So let us be grateful for John Brennan.
"... But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security checkpoints and has two reception areas ..."
"... Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security presence ..."
"... It has also been reported that hackers tried to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which were designed to gain access to her computer. ..."
"... a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired. ..."
Datto Inc has been revealed to have stored Hillary Clinton's emails - which contained national
secrets - when it backed up her private server
It claims it runs 'data fortresses' monitored by security 24 hours a day, where only a retinal
or palm scan allows access to its facilities
But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security
checkpoints and has two reception areas
Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security
presence
Clinton faces first Democratic debate tonight amid falling poll numbers and growing questions
The congressional committee is focusing on what happened to the server after she left office in
a controversy that is dogging her presidential run and harming her trust with voters.
In the latest developments it emerged that hackers in China, South Korea and Germany tried to
gain access to the server after she left office. It has also been reported that hackers tried
to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which
were designed to gain access to her computer.
Daily Mail Online has previously revealed how a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly
able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired.
Hackers also managed to completely take over a Datto storage device, allowing them to steal whatever
data they wanted.
Employees at the company, which is based in Norwalk, Connecticut, have a maverick attitude and
see themselves as 'disrupters' of a staid industry.
On their Facebook page they have posed for pictures wearing ugly sweaters and in fancy dress including
stereotypes of Mexicans.
Its founder, Austin McChord, has been called the 'Steve Jobs' of data storage and who likes to
play in his offices with Nerf guns and crazy costumes.
"... " That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- ..."
"... The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks. ..."
"... Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas. ..."
"... The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity. ..."
"... The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks. It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections. ..."
Investigation by the Associated Press reveals that the clintonemail.com server lacked basic protections
Microsoft remote desktop service she used was not intended for use without additional safety
features - but had none
Government and computer industry had warned at the time that such set-ups could be hacked
- but nothing was done to make server safer
President this weekend denied national security had been put at risk by his secretary of state
but FBI probe is still under way
... ... ...
Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to
allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records
compiled in 2012.
Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional
protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over
attacks from even low-skilled intruders.
.... ... ...
Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua,
New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet.
" That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these
things, would not do this" -- Marc Maiffret, cyber security expert
One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities,
known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.
The new details provide the first clues about how Clinton's computer, running Microsoft's
server software, was set up and protected when she used it exclusively over four years as secretary
of state for all work messages.
Clinton's privately paid technology adviser, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to answer questions
about his work from congressional investigators, citing the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment
protection against self-incrimination.
Some emails on Clinton's server were later deemed top secret, and scores of others included
confidential or sensitive information.
Clinton has said that her server featured 'numerous safeguards,' but she has yet to explain
how well her system was secured and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.
'That's total amateur hour,' said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cyber security companies.
He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone
choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. 'Real enterprise-class security,
with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this,' he said.
The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote
access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known
as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be
vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in
some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate
attacks.
'An attacker with a low skill level would be able to exploit this vulnerability,' said the Homeland
Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012, the same year Clinton's server
was scanned.
Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology
officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely
connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas.
The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security
tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer
for Fidelis Cybersecurity.
Clinton's email server at one point also was operating software necessary to publish websites,
although it was not believed to have been used for this purpose.
Traditional security practices dictate shutting off all a server's unnecessary functions to prevent
hackers from exploiting design flaws in them.
In Clinton's case, Internet addresses the AP traced to her home in Chappaqua revealed open ports
on three devices, including her email system.
Each numbered port is commonly, but not always uniquely, associated with specific features or
functions. The AP in March was first to discover Clinton's use of a private email server and trace
it to her home.
Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer at F-Secure, a top global computer security firm, said
it was unclear how Clinton's server was configured, but an out-of-the-box installation of remote
desktop would have been vulnerable.
Those risks - such as giving hackers a chance to run malicious software on her machine - were
'clearly serious' and could have allowed snoops to deploy so-called 'back doors.'
The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding
agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks.
It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such
as secure VPN connections.
NSA fairy take, attempt to repair post-Snowden reputation ?
"... I stopped reading at NSA personnel demonstrated a tremendous capacity for hard work. They
also exhibited deep dedication to the mission . ..."
"... This is clearly a bureaucratese interpretation of the events which, while not necessarily
inaccurate, is tailored to claim the maximum possible credit and glory for the NSA and to cast
aspersions on the readiness or cooperativeness of their organizational rivals in State and CIA.
..."
"... The whole document does not ring true in of its self, let alone before you start comparing
it to other information that is now known from that time and earlier. ..."
"... It has been joked in the past that the Russians never really had to bother recruiting
moles in the CIA and US military because The US Gave it away . Allen Dullas and his relatives
were indirectly responsible for much of the leakage by putting way to much belief in direct
force[1] and being more than hostile to the scientific and technical staff. So much so that
it is known that often the scientific and technical work was carried out by the cash strapped
British and passed back. ..."
In the 1980s, the Soviet Union bugged the IBM Selectric typewriters in the US Embassy in Moscow.
This NSA document discusses how the US discovered the bugs and what we did about it. Codename
is GUNMAN.
I am absolutely certain I read the Russian government ordered thousands of old fashioned electric
typewriters, maybe from Germany, after the Snowden Revelations. I suppose even today some kind
of electronic transmitter could be fitted to typewriters.
I wonder how that relates to the conveniently released NSA document?
So then, manual typewriter and trusted courier? (wax seal?)
Let's face it, on a governmental level anything truly serious and/or secret shouldn't be prepared
or communicated on electronics. That seems to be a given anymore.
Conversely, hundreds of millions of people are now exposed to massive corporate-government-criminal
spying and surveillance for their personal business (think bank and credit cards), medical records,
personal data and recreational communications.
ps: Anyone noticing a the new, special privacy notices going up on major websites? Why is that?
@Daniele
I was going to post the same beautiful post-Snowden irony, but you beat me to it.
Instead I'll share these:
> "To the best of NSA's knowledge, the Soviets did not interfere with any of the equipment that
was shipped to the embassy or returned to Fort Meade." (Pages 7-8)
So *either* the op went perfectly, *or else* went really badly, and there's no way to be sure.
And:
> "The true nature of the GUNMAN project was successfully masked from most embassy employees"
Equivalently, the true nature of the op was not successfully masked from all embassy employees.
I stopped reading at "NSA personnel demonstrated a tremendous capacity for hard work. They
also exhibited deep dedication to the mission".
On page 25, the document mentions that the led to incident led to
National Security Decision Directive
Number 145 , part of which was the formation of the
System Security
Steering Group consisting of the Secretary of State , Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary
of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Director of Central Intelligence. If it still exists, I guess they were meeting in a suburban
New York basement.
The theme of the entire piece is bureaucratic infighting, and (@ blake is right), self-congratulatory.
Ribbit October 12, 2015 12:30 PM
I remember reading a similar story in the press back in the 1970s wherein the Soviets had managed
to read the French diplomatic mission's traffic by planting a bug in their teletypes, which had
been sent to Moscow by land without an accompanying guard. Why waste time attacking the crypto
when you can get yourself direct access to the clear text...
IIRC, the device was said to be hidden in an capacitor which had a bit too many wires coming out.
I kind of remember that the new US embassy building in Moscow was so hopelessly riddled with bugs
cast right into the concrete, that the tenant refused to move into the new premises.
The security at the construction US Embassy in Berlin inaugurated a few years ago was visibly
much better than it must have been in Moscow, the site was quite visibly guarded like a fortress.
They probably didn't want to see what THEY were installing...
I'm a bit surprised that the host country's electrical supply was used in the Embassy, I would
have thought that paranoid security people would have installed a motor-generator group to provide
isolation and also obtain 120/60Hz power from the public supply, which in Russia is 50Hz and not
60Hz like the report states.
It's not clear why GUNMAN should have been kept very secret, as the eavesdroppers must have wisened
up relatively quickly that the embassy's equipment was being replaced wholesale. Was the NSA trying
to secrecy in order to reuse the technique on its own targets?
Renato October 12, 2015 2:47 PM
From the text: "As a totalitarian society, the Soviet Union valued eavesdropping and thus developed
ingenious methods to accomplish it."
Made me laugh... :)
Ray Dillinger October 12, 2015 3:15 PM
This is clearly a bureaucratese interpretation of the events which, while not necessarily
inaccurate, is tailored to claim the maximum possible credit and glory for the NSA and to cast
aspersions on the readiness or cooperativeness of their organizational rivals in State and CIA.
That said, it's good reading. Comic in some places and informative in others.
If you want security from electronic bugs built into your machinery, you pretty much have to use
manual machinery. Which, post-Snowden, the Russians apparently do. They did not get electric typewriters,
they got manual typewriters. The kind that keep right on working when there's no power to plug
into. The kind in which ANY wire or battery or a chip showing up on an x-ray would definitely
be an indication of something wrong. The kind where the plaintext can usually be recovered with
some effort from an audio recording of the typing being done....
Tatόtata October 12, 2015 3:49 PM
@tyr:
" My favorite scam was the mini-cam in every Xerox that photoed every document you copied and
was collected by the serviceman who also reloaded the camera. "
Modern multi-function devices combine a scanner back-to-back with a laser printer. How do I know
that this document I am simply copying on a Brother or Xerox machine isn't stored and eventually
sent on?
If printers mark documents with hidden watermarks [on what legal basis?] and scanners have logic
for recognising certain dot patterns on bank notes [again, on what legal basis?], surely one could
sneak in code to identify and collect interesting stuff, if the CPU horsepower is there?
On a Canon scanner I once had much difficulty in scanning a perfectly innocent document -- not
a bank note or other financial instrument -- , but the damn thing kept resetting on a certain
page. I eventually figured by selectively masking out parts of the page that something on the
page was accidentally triggering the hidden code.
My Brother professional home office FAX/Scanner/Printer/Copier doesn't seem to have any memory
than it strictly needs for the job. And for good measure, my firewall router is configured prevents
it from making any outside calls.
But at my former job, the high volume and high speed Xerox machine had a hard disk mounted inside,
and in addition had a card reader to read employee badges. People actually got tracked and punished
for merely scanning sensitive documents showing management turpitude.
Justin October 12, 2015 10:06 PM
@Tatόtata
But at my former job, the high volume and high speed Xerox machine had a hard disk mounted inside,
and in addition had a card reader to read employee badges. People actually got tracked and punished
for merely scanning sensitive documents showing management turpitude.
If you can actually build a case showing "management turpitude," and it's successful, that's one
thing, but you've got to expect that any large company would like to maintain control over "sensitive
documents." (They don't tend to hire people who "know too much" in the first place.)
Ruufs October 13, 2015 5:51 AM
The breathless schoolgirl prose is funny and sad. Not hard to imagine a retired Russian typewriter
"repairman" reading it aloud to a colleague and saying "Wait, it gets better!"
Really, what's embarrassing about this is the high school writing style and the facile analysis.
"How I got to the White House and the story of our outwitting the extraordinarily clever Soviets
(after a tipoff)" by Nancy Drew.
All seems very kindergartenlike now. So the US was incapable of keeping this secret, incapable
of exploiting the discovery, relied on a foreign source in the first place, had lousy operational
security and asset management, and couldn't organise an edit of this gushing, self-congratulatory
piffle. LOL is the word.
It's a selfie before its time, and there's a connection all the way to Keith Alexander's holodeck.
And to Snowden for that matter. Superheroes in the mirror and a conviction of the enemy's inferiority.
There's a lot to be said for self-doubt, putting oneself in the shoes of the other and testing
assumptions. The national aversion to this in the self-proclaimed "Greatest country in the world"
is remarkable. Hubris as a security weakness has a long history.
"If you can't know your enemy, don't underrate him."
The paper mentions the number of typewriters required for the embassy was 250! The place must
have been awash in paper. This has to be much more than the number of people assigned there. Talk
about information overload.
Something tells me that there was a lot of BS being thrown around, or the US personnel were getting
tons of Soviet data from somewhere.
Can someone explain this?
I'm assuming that the bugs transmitted 'over air', rather than over the power lines, which
raises the question: how did the Soviets receive this data?
Other questions:
Did the Embassy have draconian power line filtering? At minimum, it should be installed at
the service entrance, and at each sensitive electrical device.
OT. What about those powerful microwave beams the Soviets blasted at the Embassy? Were they
for spying purposes, or just to make folks sick (which they did)?../OT
Something is fishy here... When I was in college I bought a used I/O Selectric typewriter (one
with an RS232 EBCIDIC nterface). During Christmas break in 1978 I brought it home to my father's
house and showed it to him. He had retired a decade earlier as colonel in military intelligence.
He mentioned that they were forbidden to use Selectrics. A COMSEC officer had demonstrated to
them that one could decode the typing from the sound that the mechanism made.
I had a KIM-1 microcomputer board with me at the time... a 1 kB, 6502 processor demo board.
I spent a couple of days and hacked together a program that used the cassette tape interface on
the KIM-1 as an input and proved that it was rather easy and reliable to do.
So why would our embassies be using Selectrics in the 1980's when it was well known that they
were quite insecure as far back as the late 1960's?
The whole document does not ring true in of it's self, let alone before you start comparing
it to other information that is now known from that time and earlier.
Makes you wonder if it might have been some elaborate deception... If it was you then have
to think "Who would fall for this 'steaming pile'?", to which the obvious answer would be a
long term idiot sitting on an oversight committee.
You only have to look back at the Berlin Tunnel Attack --Operation Stopwatch / Gold-- that
the UK and US carried out on Russia. The Russian KGB knowing it was going on via the mole George
Blake made only tiny changes to the traffic that went down the cable, thus the bulk of the
traffic was genuine but not strategic. With it is suspected some false information injected
by the KGB to waste the Western IC time.
Then at a politically sensitive time the Russian's "discover" the tunnel and tell the world
all about it along with photographs etc.
What has never been explained is that George Blake knew about the TEMPEST attacks around
the Russia Cipher machines, that enabled the British to read the "faint ghost of plaintext"
direct from the cables thus not having to attempt any cryptanalysis.
Presumably as Blake told the KGB about the tunnel, he also told them about the TEMPEST attacks,
why then even after the tunnel was investigated and the British made "technical equipment"
for the attacks had been captured and examined did the Russian cipher equipment at fault and
still leaking plaintext continue in use for some very considerable time thereafter...
Arguably neither the US or Russians were any good at responding to EmSec issues in their
own equipment even though both clearly knew the equipment was faulty. Whilst the British and
Canadians however spent considerable time and effort removing the "plaintext ghost" from their
Rockex super encipherment and similar equipment.
It has been joked in the past that the Russians never really had to bother recruiting
moles in the CIA and US military because "The US Gave it away". Allen Dullas and his relatives
were indirectly responsible for much of the leakage by putting way to much belief in direct
force[1] and being more than hostile to the scientific and technical staff. So much so that
it is known that often the scientific and technical work was carried out by the cash strapped
British and passed back.
[1] He was known to espouse the belief that all wars could be stopped with a single bullet.
Or as more normally called "Political Assassination". It can be easily shown that both Russia
and Israel likewise believe in this, with Putin having pushed through legislation to make it
legal and thus ensure protection for the assassins.
My Selectric was an IBM I/O Selectric. It was part of their SER program (special engineering
request). Basically an OEM custom machine that they would not support, repair, touch. I bought
it to use as a typewriter for school ($600, with service manual). It used standard type balls
and had a 150 baud RS232 port that spoke EBCIDIC. Since IBM repair people would not touch it and
independent repair shops were pretty much useless I had to learn how to maintain the beast...
oh for the love of hooverometers...
DEC machines could talk to it directly. The reason I had brought it home over Christmas was
to work on building a replacement circuit board for it that would turn it into a standard ASCII
terminal. My board used a 6502 to drive it. It had a large buffer so that you could send 300 baud
data to it (the fastest that standard modems would work at in those days). Worked quite well.
It paid for itself printing out peoples term papers and dissertations. Word processors and letter
quality printers were practically non-existent at the time.
One guy got into a pissing match with his dissertation advisor who would not approve his dissertation
unless he made a bunch of rather picayune changes. Changes rather obviously made to cause him
to miss a deadline. Well, he edited his text (on a CDC-6600) and we spent the night re-printing
all 200 pages. The poor advisor never knew what hit him...
A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail,
YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC,
and the U.K.'s Channel 4.
A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail,
YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC,
and the U.K.'s Channel 4
###
And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably
keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.
I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled Russian
trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged data
from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources', i.e. the
usual bollox.
May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.)
just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up
service?!
The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums
Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains,
because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are
required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each
search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen
When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that
the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."
The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight
greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for
data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about
Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance .
#####
It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain
privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way
to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the
Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so,
the US used British pilots and Canberras.
Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards and
make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not. What people can do to protect themselves is a)
don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag); b) just don't do or say
obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life; c) use encryption such
as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.; d) don't write about
what not to do on the Internet as I have just done!
;)
The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending
on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your
life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to
send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas
territories, but it is total control.
If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then
the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".
Forget about 'checks and balances' they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window in
an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!
This should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence
services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago.
Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the
make up of the committee has changed a bit.
What it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited
info from the security services.
And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor administration and continued
under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.
It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will
be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially,
We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed a great deal more than
just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting information on everyone.
As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered online so that government
spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined that citizens shall have
no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything you do and listening
to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in case, and slip embarrassing
revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into your telephone conversations.
Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that
is private, except maybe for
Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if
they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government
bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU)
from the
NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.
A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the
Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that
the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight
to the NSA. You can't believe anyone any more.
"... A Fascist is one who believes in a corporatist society. In other words, it is a political philosophy
embodying very strong central government, with the authority to move in decisive steps to accomplish
goals. It would be characterized by a unity of purpose, with more or less all the levels of the hierarchy
in unison, starting at the top and working down. It is a top-down government involving an alliance of
industry, military, media and a political party. ..."
"... It is interesting to note that at least two of the three Parties had origins as Socialist and
morphed into strong, Right Wing, authoritarian rules as a result largely of expediency. ..."
"... As soon as they took power, which they did partially through gangs and mobs, intimidation and
demonstrations and-in Mussolini's case an outright coup - they allied themselves with the biggest corporations
and the military general staff. In addition, even before taking complete power, they began to wrest
control of the media away from other political parties, and to use it for their own propaganda. ..."
"... Hitler's "Big Lie" basically blamed rampant inflation and lack of jobs on the Jews. He blamed
all their economic ills on the restraint of Germany by other nations and the presumed taking over of
German lands (which they themselves had only won through aggressive wars.) ..."
"... In a fascist system, the whole idea is to have an efficient method of getting things done.
If you want to build an "autobahn" you simply tell the transportation minister to get started. You control
everything at every level. It will go faster because it is for the good of all the people, so no one
will have the right to object or interfere. It is, Fascists would say, about efficiency, getting things
done for the people. ..."
"... You attack other countries so that they cannot attack you. You start wars (Iraq) to prevent
dangerous men from attacking you. It makes sense. Military efficiency in a Fascist state means that
if the top guy (President or Dictator) wants to be absolutely certain that no other country is superior,
he can build up the military industry and the military at any pace or at any cost. ..."
"... Everyone salutes and follows the lead from the top down ..."
"... In a Fascist state, policy is largely being written through a cooperative effort with the industries
involved, in this case the health care industry. The slow, ragged, messy and Democratic process involved
with our current health care reform process would never happen under a Fascist government. Whatever
the decision, there would be no appeal. If a million or fifty million were left out, because, let's
say, that the President needed more money for war machines that would be the decision- with no question
or appeal. ..."
"... Republicans, remember, have the complete support of Fox News, the Fox television Network, the
Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and any number of television stations around the country, plus
somewhere between 600 and 1600 radio stations ..."
"... The Neocons are out of power, but they are unrelenting in their efforts to control as much
of the political discourse as possible, no matter how damaging to society. They bring mobs and riff-raff
out, some with guns, trying to scare the average citizen. They send messages out over radio with lunatic
commentators, some who are not even allowed to visit other countries because of their hate speech yet
we tolerate it. ..."
The word "Fascist" as with the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" are thrown around a lot by people
who have no idea what they mean. If you want to know what those terms really mean, find someone who
was in some branch of military counterintelligence, the CIA, the security section of the State Department,
Defense Intelligence, or in the FBI.
In all those areas, the first day of basic training involves comparative forms of government.
You can't spot a Communist if you don't know what a Communist is. You can't tell the difference between
a Communist and a Fascist unless you know the difference in the two systems. It is Intelligence,
and more specifically, Counterintelligence 101.
So, let's go right to Fascism. A Fascist is one who believes in a corporatist society. In
other words, it is a political philosophy embodying very strong central government, with the authority
to move in decisive steps to accomplish goals. It would be characterized by a unity of purpose, with
more or less all the levels of the hierarchy in unison, starting at the top and working down. It
is a top-down government involving an alliance of industry, military, media and a political party.
Because Fascism has been associated with the 1930s German Nazis, the Italian Fascists under Mussolini
and the Falangists, under the Spanish Dictator, Francisco Franco, the term "Fascist" has taken on
a sinister meaning. Not fewer than 10 million direct deaths resulting from the rule of these three
may have something to do with it. On the other hand, philosophies don't kill people; people kill
people.
It is interesting to note that at least two of the three Parties had origins as Socialist
and morphed into strong, Right Wing, authoritarian rules as a result largely of expediency.
It is also interesting to note that all three were not only intimately connected to the largest industrial
corporations, but as soon as possible with the military leadership. While Fascism as a political
philosophy is not innately evil, given the results, it is worth noting how things turned out.
Both the German and the Italian Fascist parties were also both revolutionary and conservative
at the same time. Both Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini were aggressive, anarchic leaders. Both
served time in jail. Both served in the enlisted ranks with the military in war. Both used that experience
to organize mobs of thugs to agitate against an established government, not for a more democratic
regime, but for a more authoritarian one. You can begin to see some similarities with contemporary
political activities.
As soon as they took power, which they did partially through gangs and mobs, intimidation
and demonstrations and-in Mussolini's case an outright coup - they allied themselves with the biggest
corporations and the military general staff. In addition, even before taking complete power, they
began to wrest control of the media away from other political parties, and to use it for their own
propaganda.
Once they had control of the radio and newspapers, which were then the prominent sources of information,
they could begin to broadcast their messages. Hitler's "Big Lie" basically blamed rampant inflation
and lack of jobs on the Jews. He blamed all their economic ills on the restraint of Germany by other
nations and the presumed taking over of German lands (which they themselves had only won through
aggressive wars.)
But let's for a minute assume that we know nothing about Fascism except that it exists. We have
a group, here in America that believes in a corporatist political philosophy. What would that look
like? If it were a true Fascist organization, they would ally themselves with big corporations, like
the health care industry, oil and mining, pharmaceuticals, media corporations and the military-industrial
complex.
They would try to control the message, particularly in radio and television. They would become
as closely allied with the top military brass as possible, offering them a seat at the table in the
running of the economy. Retired Generals would be assured of positions involved with military hardware
and strategic planning.
And what about the people? In a fascist system, the whole idea is to have an efficient method
of getting things done. If you want to build an "autobahn" you simply tell the transportation minister
to get started. You control everything at every level. It will go faster because it is for the good
of all the people, so no one will have the right to object or interfere. It is, Fascists would say,
about efficiency, getting things done for the people.
Defense is about protecting the people. You attack other countries so that they cannot attack
you. You start wars (Iraq) to prevent dangerous men from attacking you. It makes sense. Military
efficiency in a Fascist state means that if the top guy (President or Dictator) wants to be absolutely
certain that no other country is superior, he can build up the military industry and the military
at any pace or at any cost.
In a Fascist state the idea is to have one set of rules, coming from the top down. No one votes
as an individual, only as a part of the group that is assigned a task. It is corporate, total-totalitarian.
So, if you decide that a national health care program is not right for the country, you all vote
against it in a totally militaristic way. Everyone salutes and follows the lead from the top
down. The only problem is when you do not have a strong leader.
The Democrats, for example, want to farm decisions out to others, let the opposition have their
input. It slows the process. A Fascist health care program would be one decided upon by the President,
discussed and worked out with the corporations, mandated to his staffs and enacted without any discussion
or public debate in a matter of a few months.
In a Fascist state, policy is largely being written through a cooperative effort with the
industries involved, in this case the health care industry. The slow, ragged, messy and Democratic
process involved with our current health care reform process would never happen under a Fascist government.
Whatever the decision, there would be no appeal. If a million or fifty million were left out, because,
let's say, that the President needed more money for war machines that would be the decision- with
no question or appeal.
So, if you want efficiency, you not only should you look to the Republicans, but you may have
no choice. The Republicans, remember, have the complete support of Fox News, the Fox television
Network, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and any number of television stations around
the country, plus somewhere between 600 and 1600 radio stations on which literally 9 out of
10 commentators are paid by those network owners to be Conservative (Neoconservative Republican.)
They have expanded to very large numbers of web site bases, delivering whatever type of information
they want, truth, lies, anything in between accusations without proof Socialist, Communist, government
takeover of this or that no need to be truthful. It is all propaganda.
Just as Herr Goebbels and Mussolini did in the 1930s-and except in the Communist counties and
a few Latin American dictatorships there hasn't been anything to speak of similar to this in the
Western advanced societies since then-the unchallenged message of the Right Wing goes out. The radio
commentators today get their message from the top, from the Republican Party. Fox News Channel internal
memos have shown that they literally decide what policies the Republican Party wished to champion,
and then they attack rather than merely delivering the news.
So do we need to be civil about it-about these lies? Is it important to challenge people, like
these Right Wing commentators who tell you that your current health care is sufficient? It is good
for corporations, for health care insurance companies. But is it good for you not to be sure you
can get health insurance? So if they tell you that something is a government takeover and it is not,
so you vote against health care or you respond to a poll in a way that is against your own best interests do
you need to be civil about being lied to? You shouldn't be lied to by media. You need the truth,
the facts, to make decisions.
It is a pretty simple answer. Should you be civil to people who lie to you and urge you to buy
something that turns out to hurt you, or your family, or cause you to lose your job, or kill your
sister, brother, neighbor? If I lie to you and say it is safe to swim across the channel and you
are attacked by sharks that I knew were there should you not care? This is what is happening, right
now today. In the consumer products market, we call that fraud and companies can be criminally liable.
So let's describe what a Fascist government or a political party attempting to introduce a Fascist
government would look like and see if either or any of our political parties fits that description:
Allies with big corporations, planning strategy together, interchangeable.
Works to have control of the political process at all levels, starting with the top down.
Does not cooperate with and actually tries to undermine other political parties.
Uses mobs and demonstrations, and attempts to make individuals working in other parties afraid
of violent reactions.
Advocates ownership of weapons as a fear factor to intimidate others. (Wayne La Pierre "the
people with the guns make the rules.")
Decides what is best for all citizens based on what corporations want.
Uses "big lie" propaganda technique, of top-down distributed propaganda message for each issue.
Allies with military on most issues, with ultra-aggressive military posture.
Total control of the political process is the ultimate goal.
If any of this seems familiar to you, then you see something "Fascist" in the current political
process. Of course, one thing that wasn't mentioned. Fascists always need someone to stigmatize.
In Germany, it was the Jews. In Italy it was the Socialists. In Spain it was the Communists. It seems
clear that, in this country it is the Democrats.
The Neocons are out of power, but they are unrelenting in their efforts to control as much
of the political discourse as possible, no matter how damaging to society. They bring mobs and riff-raff
out, some with guns, trying to scare the average citizen. They send messages out over radio with
lunatic commentators, some who are not even allowed to visit other countries because of their hate
speech yet we tolerate it.
We even allow asininely preposterous lies from a possibly psychotic television commentator to
be used to stoke the race-hatred of many tea party members, and thugs against a distinguished African-American
President who won 54% of the vote, the largest since Ronald Reagan and who also won the Nobel Peace
Prize.
The case is pretty clear. The Neoconservative Republicans are headed for Fascism if they are not
there already. The latest round of insults, threats, lies, window breakings all contribute to the
evidence. Sooner or later this totalitarian attitude will either be denounced or will have serious
responses. One thing is sure, with the problems facing our country, we cannot afford the kind of
anarchist attacks as were exhibited in the bombing of a Federal building in Oklahoma City or the
flying of an aircraft into a building housing an IRS office.
This radical, violent, arrogant Fascist attitude has to stop. The first step in preventing this
kind of political outcome is to identify and react to Fascism when it appears. Neoconservative Republicanism
is Fascism. Republicans must return to sanity or be treated as a very dangerous and radical political
party.
Mike // Mar 30, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I agree with everything you say, except for the statement that the fascists have chosen the
Democrats as a focus for hate. They have chosen everyone who is not a fascist republican, and
esp. the 'middle to the left', which they label 'liberal'.
It is frightening to see the second party of a two party system turn fascist in the United
States. Anyone who says it isn't so, isn't paying attention. What is even more frightening is
the level of ignorance that must exist for people to believe those fascists. When you watch
that certain mentally mal-adjusted on Fox and see him ramble on incoherently for an hour while
he spews lies and distortions, any thinking individual has to ask him/her self "What moron
would fall for this drivel?" But they do.
It is truly frightening, and it is easy to see how people like Hitler manage to rise to power,
when people wilfully shut off any reasoning skills they ever had.
"... after the 2004 Olympics, the Greek government
discovered that
an
unknown attacker had hacked into Vodafone's "lawful intercept" system, the phone company's mechanism
of wiretapping phone calls. The attacker
spied
on phone calls of the president, other Greek politicians and journalists before it was discovered. ..."
"... all this happened after the US spy agency cooperated with Greek law enforcement to
keep an eye on potential terrorist attacks for the Olympics. Instead of packing up their surveillance
gear, they covertly pointed it towards the Greek government and its people. But that's not all: according
to Snowden documents that Bamford cited, this is a common tactic of the NSA. They often attack the
"lawful intercept" systems in other countries to spy on government and citizens
without
their knowledge: ..."
"... It's the exact nightmare scenario security experts have warned about when it comes to backdoors:
they are not only available to those that operate them "legally", but also to those who can hack
into them to spy without anyone's knowledge. If the NSA can do it, so can China, Russia and a host
of other malicious actors. ..."
Revelations about the hack that allowed Greek politicians to be spied on in 2004 come at a
time when the White House is set to announce its encryption policy
Just as it seems the White House is
close to finally announcing its policy on encryption - the FBI
has been pushing for tech companies like Apple and Google to insert backdoors into their phones
so the US government can always access users' data -= new Snowden revelations and an investigation
by a legendary journalist show exactly why the FBI's plans are so dangerous.
One of the biggest arguments against mandating backdoors in encryption is the fact that, even
if you trust the United States government never to abuse that power (and who does?), other criminal
hackers and foreign governments will be able to exploit the backdoor to use it themselves. A backdoor
is an inherent vulnerability that other actors will attempt to find and try to use it for their own
nefarious purposes as soon as they know it exists, putting all of our cybersecurity at risk.
In
a
meticulous investigation, longtime NSA reporter James Bamford
reported
at the Intercept Tuesday that the NSA was behind the notorious "Athens Affair". In surveillance
circles, the Athens Affair is stuff of legend: after the 2004 Olympics, the Greek government
discovered that
an
unknown attacker had hacked into Vodafone's "lawful intercept" system, the phone company's mechanism
of wiretapping phone calls. The attacker
spied
on phone calls of the president, other Greek politicians and journalists before it was discovered.
According to
Bamford's
story, all this happened after the US spy agency cooperated with Greek law enforcement to
keep an eye on potential terrorist attacks for the Olympics. Instead of packing up their surveillance
gear, they covertly pointed it towards the Greek government and its people. But that's not all: according
to Snowden documents that Bamford cited, this is a common tactic of the NSA. They often attack the
"lawful intercept" systems in other countries to spy on government and citizens
without
their knowledge:
Exploiting the weaknesses associated with lawful intercept programs was a common trick for NSA.
According to a previously unreleased top-secret PowerPoint presentation from 2012, titled "Exploiting
Foreign Lawful Intercept Roundtable", the agency's "countries of interest" for this work included,
at that time, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt and others. The presentation also notes that NSA had about
60 "Fingerprints" - ways to identify data - from telecom companies and industry groups that develop
lawful intercept systems, including Ericsson, as well as Motorola, Nokia and Siemens.
It's the exact nightmare scenario security experts have warned about when it comes to backdoors:
they are not only available to those that operate them "legally", but also to those who can hack
into them to spy without anyone's knowledge. If the NSA can do it, so can China, Russia and a host
of other malicious actors.
... ... ...
Disclosure: Trevor Timm works for Freedom of the Press Foundation, which is one of the many
civil liberties organizations to have called on the White House to support strong encryption.
TDM MCL -> LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 21:21
You are getting very warm near the real reasons why the government does not want your to have
full privacy....encryption (of a certain type, not your usual off the shelf type mind you), is
the threat that all power greedy controlling tyrant governments phreak out about....they tell
you it's about national security...
if you don't find the contradiction in that line of thinking...you are not thinking carefully.
which is precisely what the elites desire..you ! no thinking...do what you are told..get in
line..work hard...don't ask questions...
this is the world powers at work...and the minions of narrow minded geeks that support them
in exchange for unbelievable amounts of money, influence and true freedom...it's ironic, really..that
the world's smartest people have to steal your power from you, in order to have any themselves.
but it is what makes the current regimes' clock ticking.
TDM MCL -> Ehsan Tabari 30 Sep 2015 21:16
only by the most self favored moralistic nationalist bigotry can one assume that a "certain"
kind of government can pull off mass surveillance "responsibly"!
and apparently, the USA would have you believe there is some significant difference in how
well they perform the freedom robbing than their comrades..
I call them both tyrants..how bout them apples?!
TDM MCL -> ACJB 30 Sep 2015 21:12
what makes you believe that ALL NON-TRIVIAL communications are not being surveilled in real
time at this moment, now?
If any entity of any significance is communicating, it is surely being tracked... this isn't some conspiratorial thinking either...
The vast reach and capacity for surveillance infrastructure is many time more then necessary to
capture all real time communications. The most important significant communications are in fact
the target...
Mom sending her sister a recipe on her aol account never registers....the "machine"...listens
specifically.. it is far more intelligent and directed than most people understand.
But it also has the capacity to target just about anything..and that is the danger... What happens to the newsie or the everyday fella that takes note of something very disturbing...illegal
even..or morally objectionable?
Remember why the tor network was designed for...mostly to allow people that could not talk
freely to do so..in warzones..or where their discussions would bring grave danger to them and
others....
Tor was hacked and it a dead animal to privacy for over 6 years now...don't use it, unless
you want to the information to be used against you...
There are very few private venues anymore...the world has gone to shit
TDM MCL -> Crashman55 30 Sep 2015 20:58
It happens more often than most people understand.
If you want to get a reality test of this, here is how you too can verify that the spy agencies
are very prevalent in every day communications.
btw: this simple type of test, is best applies using several of the off the shelf encryption
programs ...in this way, you get verification of what snowden and many others have acknowledged
for quite some time.
a. create a secure email ...join a secure vpn..use encrypted off the shelf s/w for your message.
b. send "someone" that you know ..that you call first ...that wants to play along...and within
the email message...write some off the wall content about terrorism...bombs...etc..use all the
sorted "key words"..it's easy to locate a list...google is your friend. Just make sure they understand
that the purpose of the test to to verify that security exists..you will find..it doesn't...
c. it is best that your "friend" be localed outside of the us...middle east ...or russia...or
china...ukraine...gernamny.,.,..etc..you get the idea.
d. repeat, rinse and wash using all the garden variety of the shelf security...PGP...GPG...CRYPTZONE...SYMANTEC...HPSECURE...ETC..ETC...DO
ANY AND ALL OF THEM THAT YOU LIKE TO TEST. Fire them out like a shotgun...if you can enlist the
help of hundreds to chain the mail along, even better.
When the agencies contact you...and they will depending on how authentic you have decided to
mask your traffic and how authentic they consider your email content exchange merited inspection...you
will discover what anyone who has actually used encyption in a real world way has come to understand...
if you are using typical commercially available encryption..there is NO privacy.
meaning it is not simple possible to crack..but easily...
Zhubajie1284 GoldMoney 30 Sep 2015 20:29
Facebook and Twitter were banned in China after someone posted a bunch of gruesome photos from
some rioting in Xinjiang. It looked to me, as an outsider, that someone was trying to provoke
anti-Muslim rioting elsewhere in China. It would be reasonable for Chinese security people to
suspect the CIA or some other US agency famous for destabilizing foreign governments. The US had
already announced it's strategic pivot towards Asia, which can easily be interpreted as a declaration
of Cold War on China.
I don't know the whole truth of the incident, but people in PR China have good reason to be
suspicious.
now, what is the risk...you may be harassed..but unless I am missing some new law, none of
this type of testing is unlawful...
for real world security that works...similar kinds of penetration tests are used as above....
hey you can even honey pot a public network if you wanted to....you know just to prove to yourself
there is no such thing as secrecy achieved by using a public library or a "shared" computer.
note: one of the first indications that you are being surveilled, is that there will a subtle
but noted performance hit on your machine..if you attach a security gateway with logging, even
better...or a high end hardware firewall-gateway, that sniffs...
watch also for some very interesting emails to hit all of your "other" accounts.
if you do this, I can predict at least the following:
your machine will take a hit...
you will get notified most likely by the FBI, via your isp.
if you do this on your smartphone and that is linked to other accounts..you can guarantee to have
spread malware abundantly to all other accounts linked.
if the FBI asks that you reveal the content of emails...ask them to show you first...and grin
very large when you say that...if it's a low end non-tech....force them to gain a warrant...and
contact your lawyer...
is it a waste of time for law enforcement to show their hand in how intimately they have backended
encyption..? or is worth it to you to understand that it is common..and secret..and very broad...
that time when making things better is waning...and narrowing..if you aren't willing to take
a stand and object and posit your own resistance to overreaching spying..then the awful dreadful
future that awaits you, is just as much your own fault.
that is where I land on the issue.
for the issue, now...not later!
take a stand!
TDM MCL martinusher 30 Sep 2015 20:27
the real issue with the "legal tacK' wrt to halting the fed from building backdoors or mandating
them, is the reality that most of the high level secret business of spy agencies DEFY any law.
As is the case with most software and hardware corporations..there is massive financial and intelligence
capitol that depends on building backdoors in secret..sharing them with the government simply
provides "cover"...
the real threat of all of this of course is the very reason why the constitution was written
and preoccupied with protecting freedom and liberty...eventually, abuses from a tyranny government
or fascist state comes into power.
some say we have already passes that threshold...given the broad "known" abuses of the 300+
secret spy agencies and the secret laws that not only authorize them but threaten companies who
do not comply...you really can't deny the fact that the target is you and me. And sometimes, although,
seemingly unproven, some existential external terror organization.
I've long since held that a formal security arrangement can implemented by ISP's where ALL
internet traffic is routed...and where the most inteligent and efficient means to shut down malware
and other activities that are unlawful and harmful...
I has never been seriously considered or even suggested by the government .....you have to
serious be suspicious why that has never been considered...
perhaps too much intelligent security programs, would put all of the security industry and
fear agencies out of business...What else would they do with their time...
I have zero faith in the US government to do the right thing anymore..they have been vacant
at their core responsibility to protect its citizens. They have built a wall of mistrust by their
abuses.
to the technologically talented, what this all means is that the US government has created
a niche market that is growing ever larger...and that is to establish highly secure networks for
end users. It also happens to make them appear to be criminals.
Imagine that...a software engineer who is actually doing the business of protecting a persons
right to privacy...immediately falls into the long list of persons of interest!
the government has parted company with its responsibilities..and has created a adversarial
rife with the people of its own country...I give it less than 10 years before the people perform
their own arab spring...it really is going to get very bad in this country.
beelzebob 30 Sep 2015 17:34
This is all very interesting from a certain standpoint. 21 CFR Part 11 requires all drug companies,
and other companies doing business before the FDA to take reasonable steps to ensure the security
of all of their data to guarantee that the data are not tampered with. If the FBI and CIA are
inserting backdoors into electronic communications devices, defined broadly to include everything
from telephones to the Internet, there is no reasonable way to ensure that unauthorized parties
can not use these devices to alter drug company data. Thus, it appears that drug companies, and
their employees, contractors and suppliers, can not use the internet or anything connected to
the internet as part of their FDA regulated operations.
kenalexruss 30 Sep 2015 14:02
Data is big business and ironically, only serves big business. The US government couldn't tell
it's head from its ass regarding the stuff, but the data is critical for corporations. Since corporations
are people and dictate government policy and are also the primary government interest, there will
be back doors. Apple, google, microsoft, et.al. are ALL big business and they don't want you knowing
how they really feel about it, so they feign objections. It's all about money, as usual.
martinusher 30 Sep 2015 13:23
There was an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times yesterday that suggested that adding backdoors
or otherwise hacking into people's computers was a violation of the 3rd Amendment.
Quite apart from that never making it past the Roberts court (although it might be worth trying)
I daresay proponents of universal surveillance will argue that businesses aren't covered by this
so hacking into servers &tc. is OK.
Government agencies do appear to be out of control. Its not the snooping so much as their general
ineffectiveness when it comes to crime and the Internet -- you can get your identity stolen, your
back account hacked and so on and they shrug as if to say "What's this got to do with us?". The
seem to be only interested in a very narrow range of political activities.
Phil429 30 Sep 2015 12:14
Coming out strongly against such a mandate [to eliminate everyone's security] would be huge
on multiple fronts for the Obama administration: it would send a strong message for human rights
around the world, it would make it much harder for other governments to demand backdoors from
US tech companies and it would also strengthen the US economy.
Only if you assume some connection between the administration's stated policies and its actions.
GoldMoney -> RoughSleeper 30 Sep 2015 12:05
I don't care about mass surveillance, because I have nothing to hide! I have nothing to
hide, so I have nothing to fear, those that are trying to hide private lives, must have something
to fear"....Signed GCHQ/MI5/Police/Council troll
haha - I loved that post, so true!
GoldMoney -> koichan 30 Sep 2015 11:49
The TSA travel locks for use in air travel have a backdoor and now can be opened by pretty
much anyone in the world now. Now imagine the same thing applying to bank transactions, credit/debit
card payments and so on...
Very good point.
By having backdoors you compromise the entire security of the system and make it vulnerable
to attackers in general.
Snowden deserves the Nobel peace prize if you ask me....
While we are on the topic - lets take back the prize from Obama....
GoldMoney -> LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 11:39
If people don't trust the security of encryption then there is no point in using it.
Exactly right.
I think the internet as we know it will break down in the future as countries will not trust
foreign technology companies colluding with their home intelligence agencies.
Its already happening in China - most western technology companies like FB, Twitter, etc. are
banned there for fear they could be used by the US to spy on Chinese citizens or to orchestrate
a "Chinese Spring" there....
Crashman55 30 Sep 2015 11:13
You can go online and get the source codes off of several excellent encryption websites, and
then develop your own. My brother and I did this, and we were sending our weekly NFL football
picks back and forth each week. We stopped after the FBI came to my brother's place of business,
after a couple months, and questioned him. When my brother asked how they able to even look at
our emails, they said they had a computer program in place that kicked out encrypted emails. After
being threatened with arrest at his job in front of everyone, he showed them the unencrypted versions.
They said that our silliness had wasted valuable FBI time and resources. If you don't think
Big Brother is watching...
Peter Dragonas -> Ehsan Tabari 30 Sep 2015 10:25
Why do you think the anti-American Muslim Community and others, call us TERRORISTS? OUR COMPASS
is as faulty as ????????. The world situation is a mirror of Grandiose Individuals who look down
on reality. Reality is an obstruction to their neediness for attracting attention and control.
Peter Dragonas 30 Sep 2015 10:19
Another major "foundation section" removed from our Country's integrity. Sick, paranoia, similar
to the "J. EDGAR HOOVER ERA & CONTINUATION THROUGH HIS LEGACY FUNDS TO THIS DAY". Could this be
true, I could think the "The Athens Affair" predates the elements that brought down Greece, in
favor of pushing Turkey to becoming the American doorway into Asia & the Middle East. Just a theory.
Yet, where there is smoke, something is cooking, which requires political FIRE.
RoughSleeper 30 Sep 2015 08:50
I don't care about mass surveillance, because I have nothing to hide! I have nothing to hide,
so I have nothing to fear, those that are trying to hide private lives, must have something to
fear"....Signed GCHQ/MI5/Police/Council troll
I don't care about State cameras recording everyone out, because I don't go out. I don't care
about those that do.
I don't care about State cameras recording wives, girlfriends, children, because I don't have
any. I don't care about those that do.
I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing of any value to hide. I don't
care about those that have.
I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing of any value to say. I don't care
about those that have.
I don't care about freedom of the press because I have nothing of any value to write. I don't
care about those that have.
I don't care about freedom of thought, because I have no thoughts of any value. I don't care
about those that have.
I don't care about the right to privacy of intellectual property, because I have no intelligence
of any value. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about the right to privacy of bank details, because I have nothing of any value
in my bank account. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about the right to privacy of love letters, because I have no love of any value.
I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about the rights of HR activists, because I don't contribute anything to HRs.
I don't care about those that do.
I don't care about society, community, future, because I don't contribute anything to them.
I don't care about those that do.
I don't care about the right to privacy of my vote, because we have no democracy of any value
anyway. I don't care about countries that have.
I don't care about Gypsies, Blacks, Jews, Invalids, Unions, socialists, Untermensch, because
I am not one. I don't care about those that are.
I only care about me, here & now! It's look after number one, as the Tories tell us.
koichan 30 Sep 2015 08:39
For the less technically minded, heres another example of whats wrong with government backdoors:
The TSA travel locks for use in air travel have a backdoor and now can be opened by pretty
much anyone in the world now. Now imagine the same thing applying to bank transactions, credit/debit
card payments and so on...
LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 08:10
I would only ever trust open source encryption software. I don't trust the "encryption" built
into Windows or Apple software at all.
If people don't trust the security of encryption then there is no point in using it.
"... I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled
Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged
data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources',
i.e. the usual bollox. ..."
"... The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums ..."
"... Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards
and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not. ..."
"... The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. ..."
"... Forget about 'checks and balances' they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window
in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei! ..."
A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube,
Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the
U.K.'s Channel 4.
A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail,
YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC,
and the U.K.'s Channel 4
###
And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably
keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.
I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled
Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged
data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources',
i.e. the usual bollox.
May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.)
just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up
service?!
The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums
Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains,
because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are
required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each
search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen
When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that
the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."
The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight
greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for
data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about
Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance .
#####
It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain
privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way
to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the
Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so,
the US used British pilots and Canberras.
Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards
and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not.
What people can do to protect themselves is
don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag);
just don't do or say obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life;
use encryption such as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.;
don't write about what not to do on the Internet as I have just done!
;)
The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending
on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your
life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to
send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas
territories, but it is total control.
If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then
the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".
Forget about 'checks and balances' they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window
in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!
This should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence
services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago. Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes
man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the make up of the committee has changed a bit.
What it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited
info from the security services. And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor
administration and continued under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.
It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will
be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially. The cat is, again, out of the bag!
We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed
a great deal more than just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting
information on everyone. As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered
online so that government spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined
that citizens shall have no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything
you do and listening to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in
case, and slip embarrassing revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into
your telephone conversations.
Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that
is private, except maybe for
Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if
they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government
bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU)
from the
NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.
A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the
Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that
the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight
to the NSA.
Ars Technica reports that a Federal court in Pennsylvania ruled Wednesday that the Fifth Amendment
protects from compelled disclosure the
passwords that two insider-trading suspects used on their mobile phones. In this case,
the SEC is investigating two former Capital One data analysts who allegedly used insider information
associated with their jobs to trade stocks-in this case, a $150,000 investment allegedly turned
into $2.8 million. Regulators suspect the mobile devices are holding evidence of insider trading
and demanded that the two turn over their passcodes.However, ruled the court , "Since the
passcodes to Defendants' work-issued smartphones are not corporate records, the act of producing
their personal passcodes is testimonial in nature and Defendants properly invoke their fifth Amendment
privilege. A"
"... Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations
should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators. ..."
Drop the random number generator method that is already venerable now.
Go for an encryption key of length > data length instead so each data bit is uniquely encrypted
by a unique key bit.
Break one bit has no bearing on breaking any other bit.
For the NSA comes the headache under such an encryption method a 10 letter statement can be
any other 10 letter statement from different keys.
Now it gets interesting "I love you" is from one encryption key whilst another key says "I
hate you".
Now each message generated if asked for the key you provide one of an infinite number of keys
where the the key you give is for the message you wish them to see provided it makes sense any
evidence used through a prosecution on this is only ever circumstantial evidence
and quite easily refuted questioning only the key being used.
Bullshit. Encryption works. Even if the NSA had some back-door in a particular encryption algorithm,
or weakened a random number generator (Microsoft, cough), the NSA does not have the processing
power to decrypt everything.
Snowden has stated as much, I've seen the same thing in .mil circles during my time there.
Using decent encryption works. It's far easier to attack the people directly with social engineering
than crack decent encryption.
What type of encryption is being discussed? I've notice very few actually understand
how encryption works. When public/private key encyption is used only the public key is ever
available to the counterparty and can be freely published. The secret key is kept on your
machine only and never shared. Both parties/computers use the others public key to encrypt
the plaintext and only the person with the unique secret key on both ends can read it. Authentication
is also facile: You simply sign using the secret key. Only your public key can decrypt
the signature so anyone intercepting and attempting to change your message cannot do so (spoofing
impossible). Unbreakable and requires no secure key exchange like like two way keys such
as AES, for example. This is what happens on https sites where key pairs are generated by
both parties and the secret keys are never exchanged or shared-new key pairs are generated each
visit. Intercepting the encrypted message is useless since the secret key remains physically
in your possesion. That's why the NSA and any government hates this algorithm. Make
the key at least 2048 bits long and you'll need more time than the age of universe to crack it
by brute force with the entire computing power of every machine on earth. Even 256 bits
is sufficient to protect against anyone before they die.
information is power and access to information is big business. the taxpayer pays the bills
for the gathering, hell, the individual "user" of the technology pays for the surveillance and
data collection themselves. we are paying to have our privacy sold to corporations. get that,
it is freakin' brilliant! and the "officials" sell the access for personal gain. the corporations
love to eat it all up and reward the loyal local success story dupes, pimps and prestitutes. everyone
is on stage 24/7 and no one is the wiser in the field of cultural normalcy bias, mind control
and entertaining with the Jones's. soft control moving into hard up confiscation, then incarceration.
wonderfully yokel deterioration impersonating culture and civilization, what many call government,
but i take exception to every term and wonder wtf.
The NSA works for corporations and they need to break into peoples stuff to steal from them
as well as to steal from other corporations. There is a war going on but it is much larger than
a war on nations or citizens of bankster occupied nations.
E.R.N.I.E. - the electronic random number indicator equipment was used with British Premium
Bonds in the 1950s. A chip based on digital counting of thermal noise must be easy to make. Getting
the keys to thye other party just involves handing over a chip. 16Gigabytes or so miniSD should
be good for enough emails to wear out a thousand or more keyboards.
It just needs to be made into a product and sold for cash.
Open source encryption software may or may not be trivial, but it sure isn't easy to use for
folks who aren't experts in encryption.
Write your own encryption. Use AES - freely available. Exchange keys verbally, face to face,
or use One Time Pads (once only!!). If you didn't write, don't trust it.
Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations
should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators.
If you don't know what you're doing and are very very careful and exacting in running a OTP system
(One time pad) you will be fucked. That's why they aren't typically used except in very small use
cases. They're hard to run properly.
Anyone claiming to have an encryption product for a computer based on a one time pad is full of
shit. Cough, Unseen.is, cough. It's a glorified Cesar cypher and the NSA will have your shit in 2.5
seconds or less.
Good encryption works. Snowden stated that fact. Don't use shitty encryption, unless you want
everyone to know what you're doing.
There's plenty of open source projects out there based on good encryption, twofish, serpent, AES,
or ideally a combination of multiple algorithms. Truecrypt is still alive and has been forked with
a project based in Switzerland. I think that's still a good option.
I wouldn't use MS bitlocker or PGP unless you trust symantec or microsoft with your life. Personally
I wouldn't trust those companies with a pack of cigarettes, and I don't even smoke.
Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations
should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators.
I read the original note to mean you use a peer reviewed algorithm, but write the code yourself.
Or, at least review it well. Some open source code tends to be a bit tangled. Checkout
Sendmail and its support for X.400 and other old mail protocols, as well as a convoluted configuration
setup. At some point, with code with that much historical baggage and convoluted setup
becomes impossible to really check all possible configurations for sanity or safety.
If you believe that the simpler the code the safer it is, code it yourself.
Power grab by the NSA (deep state) basically saying that they don't trust the hand that feeds
it. So why should we? What level of classification would this entail? Are we then supposed to trust
the NSA? Civil War 2.0.???
It really starts with asymmetry of power. If some agency or person has a asymmetric level of power
against you and lack of accountability, you should be concerned about them.
That's a much easier test case vs enemy/friend and far more reliable.
Pope Francis' address to Congress was almost certainly not what John Boehner, Mitch McConnell,
and other congressional leaders had in mind when they invited the pope to speak.
It probably wasn't what they were all thinking about during the last standing ovations. But here
was Pope Francis, revered as the People's Pope, calling out war profiteers and demanding an end to
the arms trade. Just as simple and as powerful as that.
... ... ...
"Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in
the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world," the pope said. Then he asked
the critical question: "Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering
on individuals and society?"
He answered it himself: "Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply
for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and
culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade."
Stop the arms trade. What a simple, clear call.
That means the ending things like the
$60 billion arms deal
the US made a few years back with Saudi Arabia, where those weapons are, in the pope's words, "inflicting
untold suffering on individuals and society," especially in Syria and Yemen. It means ending things
like the
$45 billion in new military aid mostly in the form of advanced new weapons the Israeli government
has requested from Washington between now and 2028. It means ending the provision of new arms to
scores of unaccountable militias in Syria, where
even the White House admits a nonmilitary solution is needed. And it means ending things like
the $1.1 billion in
arms sales the United States has made to Mexico this year alone.
And, of course, it means no longer diverting
at least 54 cents of every discretionary taxpayer dollar in the federal budget to the US military.
Actually, members of Congress so many of whom rely on
huge campaign donations
from arms manufacturers, and so many of whom refuse to vote against military procurement because
often just a few dozen jobs connected to it might be in their district really should have expected
the pope to say exactly what he did.
It was only last May, after all, that Pope Francis told a group of schoolchildren visiting the
Vatican that the arms trade is the "industry
of death." When a kid asked why so many powerful people don't want peace, the pope answered simply,
"because they live off wars!" Francis explained how people become rich by producing and selling weapons.
"And this is why so many people do not want peace. They make more money with the war!"
The pope's speech to Congress was quite extraordinary on a number of fronts.
... ... ...
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of the forthcoming
Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror: A Primer. Manuel Perez-Rocha is an associate
fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Reprinted with permission from
Foreign Policy In Focus.
"... How can the U.S. say cyber hacking must stop when we know very well that they have been
cyber spying and hacking for years, Snowden spilt the beans on that issue, big brother raising
his head again. ..."
"...
..."
"... I see a contradiction here that you critcize for not warring with Xi/China and then
bemoaning the obviously damaging costs of what looks like perpetual wars. ..."
"... In the main, Obama has not slipped out of his arrogant school master's tone and role, but
we keep hearing he does it to please the American electorate. If the NSA in Germany (Bad
Aibling) is allowed to sniff out commercial secrets on German computers (an issue for over 10
years, it's only the spinlessness of the elites that keep allowing that) then surely it's all
'open platform'. I only read German and English well enough to ascertain what's what in the
spying game, so I can only refer to Germany. Maybe we get some Spanish, Italian, French etc
reading people to tell us if sniffing out Germany's company secrets is unique, probably not.
..."
"... Nice little bit of spin here. It gives the impression that the US is telling the PRC
what to do when the reality is this is part of the previous and current five year plan. ..."
"... This looks a bit odd to me. Is he saying that Snowden forged the ten thousand records
detailing US cyber spying on fifty countries or is he asking for Chinas assurance that the CCP
are not sponsoring the attacks. In any case...I Obamas full of shit. ..."
"... the US has offered no proof that China hacked American
records, while the world knows that the worse hacker on the planet is the US as shown via the
Snowden documents - we even hack our allies. You know, there is a saying about glass houses
and throwing stones. ..."
"... Its a fallacy that you can separate business spying and state secrets spying. If there
is going to be war, it will be all out, no sacred cows. Don't expect an agreement to leave
space satellites out for example. People are still living in this utopia that a war can happen
somewhere else and life will go on as normal. For China, the war will be for its own existence
and there will be no holds barred. Look at the Vietnam war for example and you will see how
much the Vietnamese sacrificed for that ultimate victory. So I believe that a more
comprehensive framework is required for the assured future for both nations. ..."
"... Every year the same blame the Chinese happens. US agencies will always fabricate
foreign threat so annual budgets can be increased $$$. The fiscal year ends in Sept. "My dept.
needs more taxpayer funding, the Chinese and Russians are attacking!" ..."
"... In the name of "National Security" anything goes (except sabotage in peace time), so long
as it is not used for "competitive advantage". Nice to have a mutually approved set of labels
to continue doing what both sides have always been doing. ..."
They call it 'American directness'. In fact it's gross bad manners but thats how the Empire
of the Exceptionals sees itself.
A John Wayne mindset and a Lex Luthor worldview. Being dismantled with astonishing ease by the
PRC.
Eugenios -> SuperBBird 25 Sep 2015 23:58
The Chinese Communists are humanists itself compared to the brutality of the US.
Just compare prison populations, for examine. The US has more people in prison both
proportionately and absolutely than all of China.
HollyOldDog -> TheEqlaowaizer 25 Sep 2015 21:30
Looks like the wise words of the Pope has not penetrated the 'brains' American State
Department or its President, if all that Obama can say is to threaten sanctions against
another country. Is the BRICS alternative bank such a worry to the Americans as their first
thoughts are bullying tactics.
ID240947 25 Sep 2015 21:22
How can the U.S. say cyber hacking must stop when we know very well that they have been
cyber spying and hacking for years, Snowden spilt the beans on that issue, big brother raising
his head again.
JoeCorr -> goatrider 25 Sep 2015 21:08
Take all that cheap junk
Cheap junk? Its 2015 can you even just try to keep up. We're buying Chinese flat screens
the size of billboards and China leads the world in home appliances. BYD and Shanghai Auto
sales are expanding at warp speed. I could go on but thats enough.
The US and Europe made the same stupid jibes at Japan before they decimated our electrics,
shipbuilding, auto manufacturing and every single electronics company outside military
patronage.
Its not China whos at fault here. It's people like you with your head so deeply wedged in the
sand your shitting pebbles.
JoeCorr 25 Sep 2015 21:01
My daughter drew speech balloons on this photo and mages it to the fridge.
Obama is saying. " Sanctions are still on the table". Xi is saying. " Poor thing. Allah
will look after you"
Which I thought kinda perceptive for a 13 year old.
HauptmannGurski -> Sam3456 25 Sep 2015 20:46
I see a contradiction here that you critcize for not warring with Xi/China and then
bemoaning the obviously damaging costs of what looks like perpetual wars. Never mind, we
all get emotional in these troubled times and find ourselves in contraction with ourselves.
In the main, Obama has not slipped out of his arrogant school master's tone and role, but
we keep hearing he does it to please the American electorate. If the NSA in Germany (Bad
Aibling) is allowed to sniff out commercial secrets on German computers (an issue for over 10
years, it's only the spinlessness of the elites that keep allowing that) then surely it's all
'open platform'. I only read German and English well enough to ascertain what's what in the
spying game, so I can only refer to Germany. Maybe we get some Spanish, Italian, French etc
reading people to tell us if sniffing out Germany's company secrets is unique, probably not.
(PS: if we think that the perpetual wars are too costly, in the sense that the populations
miss out more and more, then we ought to keep an eye on the US job figures. There's a view out
there that it's been US arms sales under Obama which underpin the 'recovery'. The Nobel Peace
prize committee would take the prize back now, I gues, but that's not in the rules.)
goatrider 25 Sep 2015 20:37
How is America going to sanction a country that produces a majority of the items sold in
America? Take all that cheap junk off the shelves of box stores and the American people will
revolt----they are addicted consumers of cheap junk and fast food.
JoeCorr -> vr13vr 25 Sep 2015 20:15
Whom exactly did we fire, prosecute or whatever else after all those NSA revelations?
Bradley Manning. Aaron Swartz driven to Suicide having never broken a single law. Snowden
driven to exile. There are many others.
JoeCorr 25 Sep 2015 20:00
News of this deal, first revealed on Thursday, was followed up before...
Nice little bit of spin here. It gives the impression that the US is telling the PRC
what to do when the reality is this is part of the previous and current five year plan.
The 'sanctions' are another interesting bit of spin. How would you enforce sanctions against
almost a quarter of the worlds population when they are your most reliable customer and
literally thousands of American companies have invested and relocated there.
what I am hoping that President Xi will show me is that we are not sponsoring these
activities and that we take it seriously and will cooperate to enforce the law."
This looks a bit odd to me. Is he saying that Snowden forged the ten thousand records
detailing US cyber spying on fifty countries or is he asking for Chinas assurance that the CCP
are not sponsoring the attacks. In any case...I Obamas full of shit.
Erazmo 25 Sep 2015 19:12
The US has no class and is a paper tiger. First, no one in the administration met President
Xi when arrived on American soil. This is an insult to the Chinese and shows no class on the
part of the Obama administration. Sure, the Pope was here at the same time but I don't
understand why some schedules couldn't have been changed a little to accommodate the visit the
leader of the world's most populous country. Second, the US continues to accuse and scold
China as if they were a kid. Yet, the US has offered no proof that China hacked American
records, while the world knows that the worse hacker on the planet is the US as shown via the
Snowden documents - we even hack our allies. You know, there is a saying about glass houses
and throwing stones.
Chin Koon Siang 25 Sep 2015 19:05
Its a fallacy that you can separate business spying and state secrets spying. If there
is going to be war, it will be all out, no sacred cows. Don't expect an agreement to leave
space satellites out for example. People are still living in this utopia that a war can happen
somewhere else and life will go on as normal. For China, the war will be for its own existence
and there will be no holds barred. Look at the Vietnam war for example and you will see how
much the Vietnamese sacrificed for that ultimate victory. So I believe that a more
comprehensive framework is required for the assured future for both nations.
vr13vr -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:42
Whom exactly did we fire, prosecute or whatever else after all those NSA revelations?
vr13vr 25 Sep 2015 18:40
Obama never stops surprising with his manners. Or actually a lack of such. He just made an
agreement with a leader of another country, a large and powerful country mind you. And right
away he publicly expresses a doubt whether the other party intends to carry the agreements.
Basically calling his counterpart a liar for no good reason. And as a cheap bully, inserts
more threats of more sanctions. Sure, the president of the other country had more class, he
stayed there and smiled friendly, but with such arrogant display of disrespect and bullying,
nobody would ever take Obama serious. And nobody should.
shawshank -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:24
Grasping at straws? Xi is not Hitler. Also, Snowden already exposed that the US was spying
on China.
Book_of_Life -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:10
"Acts of war"
USA are worlds biggest warmongers instigators including false flags and regime changes covert
activity black ops
you better check yourself before you wreck yourself
cause i'm bad for your health, i come real stealth
droppin bombs on ya moms
So chikity-check yo self before you wreck yo self
Come on and check yo self before you wrikity-wreck yourself
Lrgjohnson -> canbeanybody 25 Sep 2015 18:00
Every year the same blame the Chinese happens. US agencies will always fabricate
foreign threat so annual budgets can be increased $$$. The fiscal year ends in Sept. "My dept.
needs more taxpayer funding, the Chinese and Russians are attacking!"
It is plain silly and ridiculous to pin blame of the so-called theft of finger prints of
American 5.6 millions employees.
Those rubbish finger prints have zero value to anyone other than those who are at position to
manipulate, modify or even fabricate them.
In any case why should a technological so advanced American system need to keep the finger
prints of their own employees? Is it impossible for American government to keep the finger
prints of own employees safe?
peternh 25 Sep 2015 15:57
"President Xi indicated to me that with 1.3 billion people he can't guarantee the
behaviour of every single person on Chinese soil."
Although that is, in fact, what his government is entirely dedicated to attempting to do,
by controlling all education, all media, what may and may not be said publicly, and
controlling everything that happens on the Internet inside the Great Firewall.
Utter hypocrisy.
bujinin 25 Sep 2015 15:24
Analysis:
In the name of "National Security" anything goes (except sabotage in peace time), so long
as it is not used for "competitive advantage". Nice to have a mutually approved set of labels
to continue doing what both sides have always been doing.
Sam3456 25 Sep 2015 15:24
Another useless summit with a lame duck President who achieved the Nobel Peace Prize for
being an ineffectual player on the world stage and propagating constant war for the profit of
his corporate puppet masters.
"... A complex web of revolving doors between the
military-industrial-complex, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley consolidates the interests of
defense contracts, banksters, military actions, and both foreign and domestic surveillance intelligence. ..."
"... While most citizens are at least passively aware of the surveillance state and collusion between
the government and the corporate heads of Wall Street, few people are aware of how much the intelligence
functions of the government have been outsourced to privatized groups that are not subject to oversight
or accountability. According to Lofgren,
70%
of our intelligence budget goes to contractors. ..."
"... the deep
state has, since 9/11, built the equivalent of three Pentagons, a bloated state apparatus that keeps
defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and privatized non-accountable citizens marching in
stride. ..."
"... Groupthink - an unconscious assimilation of the views of your superiors and peers - also works
to keep Silicon Valley funneling technology and information into the federal surveillance state.
Lofgren believes the NSA and CIA could not do what they do without Silicon Valley. It has developed
a de facto partnership with NSA surveillance activities, as facilitated by a
FISA court order. ..."
For decades, extreme ideologies on both the left and the right have clashed over the conspiratorial
concept of a shadowy secret government pulling the strings on the world's heads of state and captains
of industry.
The phrase New World Order is largely derided as a sophomoric conspiracy theory entertained by
minds that lack the sophistication necessary to understand the nuances of geopolitics. But it
turns out the core idea - one of deep and overarching collusion between Wall Street and government
with a globalist agenda - is operational in what a number of insiders call the "Deep State."
In the past couple of years, the term has gained traction across a wide swath of ideologies. Former
Republican congressional aide Mike Lofgren says it is the nexus of Wall Street and the national security
state - a relationship where elected and unelected figures join forces to consolidate power and serve
vested interests. Calling it "the big story of our time," Lofgren says the deep state represents
the failure of our visible constitutional government and the cross-fertilization of corporatism with
the globalist war on terror.
"It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense,
the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and
the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction
over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall
Street," he explained.
Even parts of the judiciary, namely the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, belong to the
deep state.
How does the deep state operate?
A complex web of revolving doors between the
military-industrial-complex, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley consolidates the interests of
defense contracts, banksters, military actions, and both foreign and domestic surveillance intelligence.
According to Mike Lofgren and many other insiders, this is not a conspiracy theory. The deep state
hides in plain sight and goes far beyond the military-industrial complex
President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech over fifty years ago.
While most citizens are at least passively aware of the surveillance state and collusion between
the government and the corporate heads of Wall Street, few people are aware of how much the intelligence
functions of the government have been outsourced to privatized groups that are not subject to oversight
or accountability. According to Lofgren,
70%
of our intelligence budget goes to contractors.
Moreover, while Wall Street and the federal government suck money out of the economy, relegating
tens of millions of people to food stamps and incarcerating
more people than China - a totalitarian state with four times more people than us - the deep
state has, since 9/11, built the equivalent of three Pentagons, a bloated state apparatus that keeps
defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and privatized non-accountable citizens marching in
stride.
After years of serving in Congress, Lofgren's moment of truth regarding this matter came in
2001. He observed the government appropriating an enormous amount of money that was ostensibly
meant to go to Afghanistan but instead went to the Persian Gulf region. This, he says, "disenchanted"
him from the
groupthink,
which, he says, keeps all of Washington's minions in lockstep.
Groupthink - an unconscious assimilation of the views of your superiors and peers - also works
to keep Silicon Valley funneling technology and information into the federal surveillance state.
Lofgren believes the NSA and CIA could not do what they do without Silicon Valley. It has developed
a de facto partnership with NSA surveillance activities, as facilitated by a
FISA court order.
Now, Lofgren notes, these CEOs want to complain about foreign market share and the damage this
collusion has wrought on both the domestic and international reputation of their brands. Under the
pretense of pseudo-libertarianism, they helmed a commercial tech sector that is every bit as intrusive
as the NSA. Meanwhile, rigging of the DMCA intellectual property laws - so that the government can
imprison and fine citizens who jailbreak devices - behooves Wall Street. It's no surprise that the
government has upheld the draconian legislation for the 15 years.
It is also unsurprising that the growth of the corporatocracy aids the deep state. The
revolving door between government and Wall Street money allows top firms to offer premium jobs to
senior government officials and military yes-men. This, says Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism
specialist and military intelligence officer for the CIA, explains how the Clintons left the White
House nearly broke but soon amassed $100 million. It also explains how
former
general and CIA Director David Petraeus, who has no experience in finance, became a partner at
the KKR private equity firm, and how former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell became Senior Counselor
at Beacon Global Strategies.
Wall Street is the ultimate foundation for the deep state because the incredible amount of
money it generates can provide these cushy jobs to those in the government after they retire.
Nepotism reigns supreme as the
revolving
door between Wall Street and government facilitates a great deal of our domestic strife:
"Bank bailouts, tax breaks, and resistance to legislation that would regulate Wall Street,
political donors, and lobbyists. The senior government officials, ex-generals, and high level
intelligence operatives who participate find themselves with multi-million dollar homes in which
to spend their retirement years, cushioned by a tidy pile of investments," said Giraldi.
How did the deep state come to be?
Some say it is the evolutionary hybrid offspring of the
military-industrial complex while others say it came into being with the
Federal
Reserve Act, even before the First World War. At this time, Woodrow Wilson remarked,
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated
governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority,
but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
This quasi-secret cabal pulling the strings in Washington and much of America's foreign policy
is maintained by a corporatist ideology that thrives on deregulation, outsourcing, deindustrialization,
and financialization. American exceptionalism, or the great "Washington
Consensus," yields perpetual war and economic imperialism abroad while consolidating the interests
of the oligarchy here at home.
Mike Lofgren says this government within a government operates off tax dollars but is not constrained
by the constitution, nor are its machinations derailed by political shifts in the White House. In
this world - where the deep state functions with impunity - it doesn't matter who is president so
long as he or she perpetuates the war on terror, which serves this interconnected web of corporate
special interests and disingenuous geopolitical objectives.
"As long as appropriations bills get passed on time, promotion lists get confirmed, black (i.e.,
secret) budgets get rubber stamped, special tax subsidies for certain corporations are approved
without controversy, as long as too many awkward questions are not asked, the gears of the hybrid
state will mesh noiselessly,"
according to Mike Lofgren in an interview with Bill Moyers.
Interestingly, according to Philip Giraldi, the ever-militaristic Turkey has its own deep state,
which uses overt criminality to keep the money flowing. By comparison, the U.S. deep state relies
on a symbiotic relationship between banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors, a mutant hybrid
that also owns the Fourth Estate and Washington think tanks.
Is there hope for the future?
Perhaps. At present, discord and unrest continues to build. Various groups, establishments, organizations,
and portions of the populace from all corners of the political spectrum, including Silicon Valley,
Occupy, the Tea Party, Anonymous, WikiLeaks, anarchists and libertarians from both the left and right,
the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and others are beginning
to vigorously question and reject the labyrinth of power wielded by the deep state.
Can these groups - can we, the people - overcome the divide and conquer tactics used to quell
dissent? The future of freedom may depend on it.
The witch-burning craze would be best suited as yet another unwritten chapter in Mackay's "Extraordinary
Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".
If both men and women were charged and tried for this imaginary crime driven by baseless superstition,
a narrative proposing it was really an ancient war on women is logically absurd - and therefore also
a baseless superstition.
We could lump it all together and I do agree that the context is important, but it is much easier
to see why members of new religions were targeted than peasants being accused of being witches.
I
find the theory fascinating because it does provide a possible explanation for something that does
not really fit the usual "threat to power/otherness" explanations. I don't know if the theory is
correct but I find it intriguing, especially after reading the Sonia Mitralias article yesterday.
Not having read the book, is there any mention of c (ergot) in relation to witch hunts?
I first heard of this thesis in my college botany class. The theory seems controversial even though
there's archaeological evidence of rye cultivation as far north as Scandinavia by 500 AD.
If memory serves, the Salem witch saga was defined by topographical elevation e.g. poor down the
hill, the soggy bottom, elites up the hill, w/ poor consuming the lesser status rye whilst the elites
consumed wheat.
Its not hard to imagine the elites with their religious "self awarded" superiority complex, that
any, straying from the narrative would just reinforce the aforementioned mental attitude. As such
any remediation would be authoritatively administered by the elites as they owned the code [arbiters
of religious interpretation].
Skippy . the old NC post on that provincial French town would make a great book end to this post,
by Lambert imo .
Two other noteworthy aspects of he witch hunts: one, they were an attempt by the Catholic Church
to destroy non-Church authorities; and two, they were an attempt by physicians (nobles) to destroy
alternate sources of medical care.
Thus, the targets were frequently midwives and herbalists.
(It's also worth noting that the court physicians had no scientific basis for their treatments
- that was shoehorned in later. So the traditional healers were, and remained for centuries, to the
extent they and their methods survived, the better choice for health care, particularly for childbirth.)
"Primitive accumulation is the term that Marx uses in Capital vol.1, to characterize the historical
process upon which the development of capitalist relations was premised. It is a useful term, for
it provides a common denominator through which we can conceptualize the changes that the advent of
capitalism produced in economic and social relations. But its importance lies, above all in the fact
that primitive accumulation is treated by Marx as a foundational process, revealing the structural
conditions for the existence of capitalist society."
Marx seemed to seek the determinants of capitalism's genetic process in the logic of the preceding
mode of productionin the economic structure of feudal society. But is such a description an explanation
for the transition from feudal to capitalistic society?
Doesn't Marx's explanation of the origins of capitalism seems to presuppose capitalism itself?
Doesn't Marx's use of only economic variables lead into a blind alley in terms of understanding
the origins of capitalism?
Shouldn't the collapsing Left finally take a serious look at cultural and political explanations
for the origins of capitalism?
What about a cultural explanation in which the creation and role of nationalism in 16th century
England provided a key competitive individual motivating factor among its citizens as a possible
cause of capitalism? What about the emergence of the autonomous city as a primary political cause
of capitalism? Was capitalism born in Catholic, urban Italy at the end of the Middle Ages?
Why has the search for explanations of the origins of capitalism, only in the economic sphere,
come to occupy such a central place in our thinking?
I think this analysis is off the mark and probably a convolution of an array of underlying variable
and functions.
It's as if the author says z = g(x); when in fact x = f(z,t,u and v).
To conclude that z relies on x is a distortion of the underlying phenomenological structure and
also distorts the agency by which z, t, u and v correspond to z.
one item that is quite significant to note, and perhaps is one of the underlying variables, is
the urgency by which authorities demanded "confessions' by witches, which in and of itself was sometimes
enough to ameliorate punishment.
The other underlying variable is the reality of paranormal phenomenon. We think witchcraft is
a doddering myth invented by overly imaginative minds, but the reality is quite other than that.
Relating "capitalism" to persecution of witches on the basis of their femaleness lacks all precision.
The Roman empire was capitalist but accepted paganism. Our current culture would view persecution
on the basis of witchcraft as daftminded lunacy. yet pagan cultures in Africa do so even today.
The book author throws up an interesting cloud of ideas but doesn't seem capable of credible navigation,
based simply on the summary offered here. I suspect it has to do less with capitalism and femaleness
in particular and more, in general, in terms of threats posed by alternative consciousness structures
to the dominant structure of social organization (inclusive of economics, theology, eshatology, etc.)
These would be the z, t, u and v of the underlying f-function. It's seen the world over in varying
guises, but the underlying variables manifest in different costumes, in varying degrees of malision.
The problem of witches depends on the history of individual countries and also on religious orthodoxies,
Catholic as well as Calvinist and Lutheran.
As is often the case, Italy is contradictory and somewhat of an exception. Yet the exceptions
are regional. The peasants on the Peninsula ruled by Naples were treated differently from northern
Italians. Venice was an exception.
The process of liberation seems to have begun earlier in Italy than the Black Death. While doing
research about Bologna, I ran across this:
"Liber Paradisus The Liber Paradisus (Heaven Book) is a law text promulgated in 1256 by the Comune of Bologna which
proclaimed the abolition of slavery and the release of serfs (servi della gleba)."
So you have emancipation and the development of an idea of human rights a hundred years before
the Black Death. But the source was a social war and a desire for higher wages.
Throughout Italy, too, the Inquisition and its treatment of witches was highly uneven. I happen
to have studied the benandanti, who didn't consider themselves witches, but had visions and myterious
rituals. Some were healers. The Franciscans who investigated them were considered lousy Inquisitors
(not tough enough) and the results are highly ambiguous. See Carlo Ginzburg's works, and see the
work of Italian scholars who found even more ambiguities. Many of the benandanti in trouble were
menand the women and men reported the same mystical experiences, many of which are astounding and
rather beautiful. Reports of benandanti extend into the early 1800s.
Piero Camporesi also wrote about the economic status of Italian peasants, the rituals of their
year (which didn't always coincide with Catholic orthodoxy), and the strength of ancient pagan customs.
I realize that your point is witchcraft as a kind of collision with the growth of the state and
"modern" markets. Yet I'd encourage you to consider Italy as a counterexample. On the other hand,
fragmented Italy was the most highly developed economy in Europe during most of the middle ages and
up to roughly 1550, so the markets may have developed (capitalistically as well as by state intervention,
especially in Venice) more slowly, more peculiarly, and less disruptively. There are peasant revolts
in Italian history, but not regions in flames and years and years of scorched-earth actions against
rebellious peasants.
Enlightening observations regarding the premeditated, planned and organized use of witch-hunts
by the elite of that period as a vehicle of social control. I was surprised at the level of elite
information and coordination in what I had previously viewed as a very primitive era of considerable
physical isolation. The events discussed here suggest there was a fairly high level of communication
and organization among and by the elite.
However, I would question to what extent the extreme 14th century depopulation of Europe and Britain
caused by the great plague pandemics, the Great Famine, wars and weather would have led to similar
elite initiatives, regardless of the transition to capitalism.
Appears to share some common threads with events and behaviors which have occurred in our own
time from those mentioned in the article to the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, the Powell memorandum
of 1971 and related subsequent behavior, including the forms of "primitive accumulation" cited that
led to the 2008 financial collapse.
Thank you for the review of Silvia Federici's book, Lambert, and your related observations. Seems
worthwhile reading.
There was at least one man in the Salem witch trials who did save his wife. At the preliminary
hearing he cursed the judges for allowing her to be imprisoned, saying God would surely punish them.
When she was bound over for trial anyway, he broke her out of jail and fled with her to New York.
Would that all of us men had that kind of courage and resourcefulness. Sadly most of us don't.
"...He added that he doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast
numbers of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it."
The first UN privacy chief has said the world needs a Geneva convention style law for the
internet to safeguard data and combat the threat of massive clandestine digital surveillance.
Speaking to the Guardian weeks after his appointment as the UN special rapporteur on privacy,
Joseph Cannataci described British surveillance oversight as being "a joke", and said the
situation is worse than anything George Orwell could have foreseen.
He added that he doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast numbers
of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it.
"Some people were complaining because they couldn't find me on Facebook. They couldn't find me
on Twitter. But since I believe in privacy, I've never felt the need for it," Cannataci, a
professor of technology law at University of Groningen in the Netherlands and head of the
department of Information Policy & Governance at the University of Malta, said.
... ... ...
But for Cannataci well-known for having a mind of his own it is not America but Britain
that he singles out as having the weakest oversight in the western world: "That is precisely one
of the problems we have to tackle. That if your oversight mechanism's a joke, and a rather bad
joke at its citizens' expense, for how long can you laugh it off as a joke?"
He said proper oversight is the only way of progressing, and hopes more people will think about
and vote for privacy in the UK. "And that is where the political process comes in," he said,
"because can you laugh off the economy and the National Health Service? Not in the UK election,
if you want to survive."
The appointment of a UN special rapporteur on privacy is seen as hugely important because it
elevates the right to privacy in the digital age to that of other human rights. As the first
person in the job, the investigator will be able to set the standard for the digital right to
privacy, deciding how far to push governments that want to conduct surveillance for security
reasons, and corporations who mine us for our personal data.
Mario_Marceau 26 Aug 2015 07:27
At the time of writing this comment, there are only 155 other comments. This is a very
important article. A crucial one. Nobody's reading. It is as though nobody gives a damn
anymore*. (Taylor Swift just opens her mouth and thousands of comments fill the pages.)
People have very clearly become numb to the idea of privacy mining. By this I mean everyone
knows that their privacy is being eradicated, we all despise the idea, but somehow, very few
get involved and are taking steps to prevent it from going further or, dare I hope, roll it
back!
After the revelations by Edward Snowden (a very important apex for TheGuardian), one would
expect the entire western world to be up in arms about unlawful government surveillance and
big corporation scooping our privacy away. Yet big brother and major corporations have been
able to perform 'damage control' with surgical precision, going as fas as manipulating or
intimidating the press, therefore keeping their precious status quo on the issue and keeping
people across entire nations hostage and on a very tight leash.
I hope Mr Cannataci is taking or will take into account the fact that the *people have
seemingly given up while in fact they are worried but don't know what to do anymore and feel
utterly helpless. I strongly believe this aspect of the whole fiasco on privacy constitute
perhaps the most important cog in the gear of online positive changes when it comes to taking
back our rights.
guardianfan2000 26 Aug 2015 00:55
British oversight of GCHQ surveillance is non-existent. If you live or work in Britain your
privacy is wholly violated on everything you do. Pervasive snooping.
luella zarf syenka 25 Aug 2015 23:54
Ultimately it may be necessary for anyone desiring real privacy to learn to code and build
his or her own encryption.
Also if anyone desires protection from abusive police officers it might be necessary to set up
a private army.
If you desire to avoid being poisoned by Monsanto it might be necessary to purchase giant
farms and grow your own food: corn, wheat, rice, avocados, melons, carrots, pigs, cattle,
tilapia, hazelnuts... and make cheese and butter!
And ultimately, for those of us desiring to avoid being cooked up by the fossil industry and
its minions, it might be necessary to acquire another planet, which we could call Absurdistan.
newschats4 Barbacana 25 Aug 2015 18:00
The Toshiba laptop - the least expensive model I could find as a replacement - came with
windows 8. I am trying to use the internet without getting hooked on all the expensive
come-ons, the confusing and even contradictory offers, amenities, protection programs (some of
which are scams) and other services, that unless you are in the business, most people don't
seem to know much about how they all work or what is really reliable or necessary. I don't
know how many times sites have tried to change my home page or provide a new tool bar to
control what I'm doing, just because I responded to a "free offer" like solitaire games. Ads
are enough pay off for those offers aren't they? Being electronically shanghaied is a step too
far. I even unchecked the box to opt out of the tool bar but got it anyway. Now I have to try
to figure out how to remove it again.
The personal computer business is the capital city of artificial obsolescence and quackery. it
is also highly addictive even for people who don't really need it for business. But having an
email address is almost as necessary now as having a phone number or even a home address. The
situation offered by most suppliers of equipment and even the providers is "take it or leave
it". But the internet is driving out the older print media (a subscription to a physical
newspaper is so much more expensive) and is becoming a requirement of classrooms at all
levels, so "take it or leave it" isn't good enough. For an industry intent on dominating all
aspects of life, "take it or leave it" can't be tolerated forever. I have tried at times to
read the policies I have to accept or not use the product and all the protection is one-sided:
the industries aren't liable for one damned thing: they could destroy your computer and you
couldn't do anything about it. But it isn't an honest choice if the user, having purchased the
product, has only the option to accept with no other provisions allowed, except refusal. You
can shop for all sorts of alternatives for access and protection but the sheep still have to
buy from the wolves to use any of them.
Statutes governing "mail fraud", as it is called in the US, should apply to dubious scams that
occur on the internet. The internet is very nearly a world wide public utility and as such
should be very heavily regulated as one. It is barely regulated at all and the industry seems
to be the only effective voice with regulators like the FCC.
You can't be spied on legally on the telephone system, or with the public mails, but
apparently anyone can do it with the internet as long as they know how to do it and know how
to go undetected.
BTW - I followed that link and saw no price mentioned.
FreedomAboveSecurity -> newschats4 25 Aug 2015 15:02
Not to mention that you had to agree to access to your computer by Microsoft before
activating Windows 8. The agreement states that they can shut down your laptop anytime they
find malicious files...indefinitely. You don't really own your computer under this agreement
or any of the programs you paid for in purchase. There is a clause about third party access,
too. One questions if the agreement provides backdoor authority. I returned both laptops with
8 on them. Oh...and you promised to connect to the net, preventing air-gapping as a privacy
tactic.
newschats4 25 Aug 2015 14:32
It is obvious that the consumer has little or no protection on the internet or even with
the manufacturers and providers. And even antivirus protection can, itself, be a form of
protection racket.
The internet is supported by industries that can make the problems they can then make even
more money on by claiming to solve them.
BTW - I have had a new laptop that I reluctantly purchased in January 2014 because I was
notified (and confirmed) that I had to get an updated program because windows XP was no longer
"supported". I wasn't getting updates anymore. But updates never said what they were doing or
why they were doing it. It is also very obvious that the personal computer works both ways. If
you can look "out", other can just as easily look in.
When I got the new laptop with windows 8, my first impression was it was glitzier but also
dumbed down. It was stuffed with apps for sale that I didn't want and I quickly removed. But
what really angers me about the come-ons is, updates have removed apps I did want and found
free online that someone doesn't want me to have. I had a free version of Google earth that I
downloaded easily but has since disappeared.
But now when I try to download the free version, the google earth site says that windows 7,
windows XP and one other are required but not windows 8. ?? I get an error message and am told
I have to download a site that will allow Google earth to keep a log of my hard drive so they
can determine why I get an error message.
I am sure that the execs at the top of the ladder know that the vast majority of internet
users are sheep to be shorn. But those corporate decision makers are also the only people in
key positions to know they can make the sheep pay for the razors that they will be shorn with.
And now the school systems are raising a new generation of sheep that won't be able to live
without the internet. They will feel helpless without it.
syenka -> Robert987 25 Aug 2015 12:44
Good point about the NSA and the GCHQ. However, neither of these outfits has magical powers
and really solid encryption can pretty effectively stymie their efforts to pry. The question
remains whether software purveyors can resist the government's insistence that there be a
backdoor built in to each program. Ultimately it may be necessary for anyone desiring real
privacy to learn to code and build his or her own encryption.
AdMelliorandum 25 Aug 2015 08:08
Better late than never
Let's wish the United Nations first UN privacy chief, Mr. Cannataci, success in
"challenging the business model of companies that are "very often taking the data that you
never even knew they were taking"."
Likewise consider the ongoing investigation in Switzerland against Microsoft, as pertains
the alleged Windows 10 theft of client information and privacy violations.
See the corresponding article titled:
"Berne a lancι une procιdure concernant Windows 10", (roughly translated as: "Berne has
launched a procedure concerning Windows 10"),
published on 24.08.15 on the "Le Tribune de Geneve" newspaper:
Excerpts from said article follow, translated using Google Translate:
"The federal policeman launched a clarification process on Windows 10 de Microsoft."
". . . infringement of privacy committed by Microsoft. He demanded the examination of several
issues related to the operating system of Windows 10."
"The computer program automatically captures and shares information from its users with
software vendors. They transmit them further, including for advertising."
"In Valais, the cantonal officer Sιbastien Fanti had expressed his indignation at the
beginning."
"If Microsoft does not review its privacy policy, Windows 10 could be the subject of a
recommendation prohibiting the purchase" in the canton. . ."
wichdoctor 25 Aug 2015 02:32
I have been pointing these dangers out for over 20 years ever since the local authority
stuck CCTV around the town without any consultation. If these systems were only there to act
as spectators then the authorities should have no objection to slaving every camera to a
publicly viewable screen or even the web. Since they do object we have to suppose they are
using these things to spy on us.
Then there are the ANPR systems that allegedly log every vehicle journey between every town on
mainland UK. There is no trustworthy independent oversight on how the data is stored or used
just the usual "trust us we are the police".
Then there is the private stasi style database of the credit reference companies. No real
control over their compilation or use. Use extended from credit checking to being used in
employment references. Can even be used to track movements of a spouse by a vindictive ex.
DVLA? A long history of letting any gangster with a business card access to anyone's data.
Same with the electoral roll. Anyone wanting to avoid being tracked by someone bent on
violence such as an ex spouse or gangster can not safely exercise their right to vote.
I don't use social networking sites and until recently used an assumed name for voting. After
a career spent in IT specialising in data acquisition I'm well aware just how easy it is to
suck data a database using very basic tools. I hide my data as much as possible even though at
my stage in life I probably have little to fear from the state or even the bankers
WalterBMorgan 25 Aug 2015 01:11
In many respects we are the problem. As pointed out we give away our privacy too easily and
too cheaply. We accept massive CCTV intrusions because we fear crime unduly but don't wish to
pay for more police officers instead. We want free email, news, and entertainment if we can
get it so we end up with the KGB of the digital age following us about. We are bombarded with
advertising yet most of us don't fight back with ad blockers or protest the over intrusion of
billboard advertising. Government will spy on us and business will exploit us if we let them.
Both business and government can be good and necessary but we connive with their downsides
because it's cheaper.
JaitcH BritCol 24 Aug 2015 23:40
I live in an 'authoritarian' [state] and yet we enjoy more personal freedom that do people
in Australia, Canada, the UK and USA!
xxxsss MrPotto51 24 Aug 2015 17:16
Encryption is all well and good, but engaging in an encryption arms race with business and
governmental bodies is not going to end well; there is no point encrypting your emails if the
spies have backdoors in your OS or whatever.
We need to debate and then come to a truce, as well as clearly setting out what is
acceptable, and unacceptable, behaviour.
BritCol 24 Aug 2015 15:14
I agree entirely with this assessment, and especially how ominous surveillance has become
in the UK. When I grew up outside London it seemed to be the freest nation on Earth. We would
visit North America and found the city police to be gun-toting thugs (they still are) but
England has become the world's worst police state in surveillance techniques.
Not even Russia or China spies on its citizens as much.
Lafcadio1944 24 Aug 2015 14:06
Way too little way too late. Just think about the vast amount of personal data that is
already out there and the vast amount that is entered every minute. The dependence society and
business on the internet and the fact that the data on the internet is INDELIBLE!! Everything
having been collected by the NSA/GCHQ/BND etc could be accessed by hackers in the future who
could trust them to actually protect it. Even the super high tech super security company
Hacking Team which sells hacking and spying tools to governments and government agencies all
over the world (with no concern about who they are) was itself hacked. Given that and the fact
that the spyware and hacking techniques are becoming known by more and more people each day
how is an ordinary internet used to protect himself? - he can't. Look at the Ashly Madison
hack which was apparently done for purely personal petty grievances and adolescent morality.
This can only increase with all sorts of people hacking and releasing our data can only get
worse and the INDELIBLE data is always there to take.
We all thought the internet would be liberating and we have all enjoyed the movies, porn
social networking and the ability to make money on the internet but what has been created is a
huge monster which has become not our friend but our enemy.
well_jackson rationalistx 24 Aug 2015 13:59
"I doubt if George Orwell had the imagination to conceive of airliners being hijacked and
being flown into buildings, killing thousands."
I seem to recall George Bush saying a similar thing about his own government on countless
occasions following 9/11. The fact NORAD were carrying out mock exercises that same morning,
including this very scenario, seems lost on people.
As for the train shooting, it sounds like utter nonsense to me. This man well known to the
intelligence agencies but allowed to roam free gets stopped by Americans and Brits just as
hell is to be unleashed (I bet they were military or ex military weren't they? UK/US public
love a good hero army story).... smells like BS.
Besides, if these events tell us anything it's that surveillance never seems to work when
needed most (there are very limited videos of 7/7 bombers, the pentagon attack lacked video
evidence, virtually every nearby camera to the pont d'alma tunnel was not working as Diana
hurtled through to an untimely end, etc, etc)....
"Mass surveillance is not about protecting people; it is about social control.
The
shadow government is its own enterprise, and it rewards those who pay obesiance quite richly"
Here is the second segment of a fascinating five part interview about the deep state and the mechanics
of what some might call corporatism.
You may watch all five segments of this interview at The Real News
here. Note that they are listed in descending order on the site, so start from the bottom
up to see them in order.
And at some point, all empires crumble
on their own excess, stretched to the breaking point by over-extending a military industrial
complex with sophisticated equipment, hundreds of bases in as many countries, and never-ending wars
that wrack up mind boggling levels of debt. This cost has been magnified by the relationship it shares
with the money system, who have common owners and shareholders behind the scenes.
As the hidden costs of war and the enormity of the black budget swell to record levels,
the true total of its price comes in the form of the distortion it has caused in other dimensions of
life; the numbers have been so thoroughly fudged for so long now, as Wall Street banks offset
laundering activities and indulge in derivatives and quasi-official market rigging, the Federal Reserve
policy holds the noble lie together.
Seen from the proper angle, the
dollar is revealed to be a paper thin instrument of warfare, a ripple effect on the
people, a twisted illusion, a weaponized money now engaged in a covert economic warfare
that threatens their very livelihood.
The former Congressman and presidential candidate explained:
Almost all wars have been paid for through inflation the practice always ends badly
as currency becomes debased leading to upward pressure on prices.
"Almost all wars, in a hundred years or so, have been paid for through inflation,
that is debasing the currency," he said, adding that this has been
going on "for hundreds, if not thousands of years."
"I don't know if we ever had a war paid though tax payers. The only thing where
they must have been literally paid for, was when they depended on the looting. They would
go in and take over a country, and they would loot and take their gold, and they would
pay for the war."
As inflation has debased the currency, other shady Wall Street tactics have driven
Americans into a corner, overwhelmed with debt, and gamed by rigged markets in which
Americans must make a living. The economic prosperity, adjusted for the kind of reality
that doesn't factor into government reports, can't match the costs of a military
industrial complex that has transformed society into a domestic police state, and slapped
Americans with the bill for their own enslavement.
Dr. Paul notes the mutual interest in keeping the lie going for as long as the public
can stand it and as long as the gravy keeps rolling in:
They're going to continue to finance all these warmongering, and letting
the military industrial complex to make a lot of money, before it's admitted that it
doesn't work, and the whole system comes down because of the debt burden, which would be
unsustainable."
Unsustainable might be putting it lightly. The entire thing is in shambles from
the second the coyote looks down and sees that he's run out over a cliff.
"...Bacevich scores a direct hit on the foundations of the American national security state
with this scathing critique, and demolishes the unspoken assumptions that he believes have led the United
States into a senseless, wasteful, and counter-productive posture of nearly perpetual war. These assumptions
take the form of the "credo" -- which holds that the United States has the unique responsibility to
intervene wherever it wants, for whatever purpose it wants, by whatever means it wants -- and the supporting
"trinity" of requirements for the U.S. to maintain a global military presence, to configure its military
forces for global power projection, and to counter threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism"
Bacevich scores a direct hit on the foundations of the American national security state with
this scathing critique, and demolishes the unspoken assumptions that he believes have led the United
States into a senseless, wasteful, and counter-productive posture of nearly perpetual war. These
assumptions take the form of the "credo" -- which holds that the United States has the unique responsibility
to intervene wherever it wants, for whatever purpose it wants, by whatever means it wants -- and
the supporting "trinity" of requirements for the U.S. to maintain a global military presence, to
configure its military forces for global power projection, and to counter threats by relying on a
policy of global interventionism.
Bacevich invites readers to consider how we would respond if China, for example, were to increase
its military spending to the point that it surpassed the combined defense budgets of Japan, South
Korea, Russia, India, Germany, France and Great Britain; created forward-deployed garrisons around
the world; partitioned the globe into territorial (and space) commands, each with a Chinese four-star
general in command; maintained a vigorous program of military exercises in countries around the world;
and created a long-range strike force, capable of employing conventional, nuclear, or cyber weapons
on short notice; and then points out that this imaginary Chinese program pales in comparison to the
actual U.S. defense posture. Is it any surprise, Bacevich asks, that the United States now tends
to see every problem around the world as requiring an American military solution, or that other countries
don't necessarily take American altruism for granted?
Bacevich's final chapter -- titled, with a nod to Voltaire, "Cultivating our own Garden" -- makes
a plea to reject the "Washington rules" that have led us to permanent war and return to our founding
ideals. Our purpose, he argues, is not to shape the world in our image, but rather "to be America,
striving to fulfill the aspirations expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."
Neither isolationist nor naive, Bacevich argues forcefully that U.S. military forces should be used
only as a last resort, and only in self-defense or in defense of our most vital interests. In short,
he concludes, "if the United States has a saving mission, it is, first and foremost, to save itself."
Uncomfortable, subversive stuff indeed. An absolute must-read for anyone concerned with our future.
Which sounds better, to "die for your government", or "give your life for your country"? The
first could be interpreted, after a mountain of bodies pile up, as a mistake. As something
that would seem to require scrutiny, admissions of having been wrong, of blame to be placed.
Dying for a government, or more precisely, dying for a select group of political figures at a certain
moment in time for very specific reasons, doesn't hide behind a fluttering flag quite as well as
"dying for country". Which is why we never hear it. War, in the mind of the Middle America
that still thinks on it, is shrouded in a sepia-toned composite of images and sounds, stories of
soldiers, duty to country, service, songs, movies, and myth that give politicians far more leverage
than they would otherwise have, when executing another war. No, "service to country" is the
emotional and moral narcotic we administer to ourselves, almost automatically, at the inception of
a new war. War is all wrapped up in our American Mythos so tight that it seems astonishing
that we haven't descended utterly into a pure American-style fascism. Maybe a few more 9/11-style
attacks and the transformation would be complete. 9/11 was an unparalleled opportunity for
the explosion of government growth, and as much as "war is the health of the State", so are foreign
attacks on the home State, attacks that can be perfectly molded so as to stoke the maximum amount
of nationalist rage from the citizens. Those attacks were a godsend for a government that had
been starved of an actual threat for far too long. And they took full advantage of the opportunity.
Fourteen years later, the Warfare State is petering out from the evaporating fumes of 9/11, and their
looking for a new fix.
But what of those who lied the country into igniting a regional dumpster fire after 9/11?
Once the war hysteria evaporates, where are What would it really take to hold any one politician
for a military disaster halfway around the world? It is blindingly obvious that there will
never be a reckoning for those who hustled us into the Iraq war. What about Libya? Syria?
How bad does it have to get for there to be something resembling accountability? War atrocities
seem to have become less of a chance for justice and lessons learned than as a new precedent that
the progenitors of the next war can point to when their war goes bad. And creators of war did
learn a few things from Iraq and Afghanistan. They learned that flag-draped coffins do focus
the attention of the citizenry. And drone strikes don't, really.
That hazy collage of feel-good nationalism is trotted out every election year, and every candidate
engages in it to one degree or another. Peace is a hard sell next to the belligerent effusions
of a Donald Trump. His crazed rantings against immigrants, his bizarre fantasies as to how
he would handle world leaders via telephone call, as well as his boorishness in general, has thousands
flocking to hear him speak. But what they're cheering is an avatar of a blood-soaked ideology,
one that cloaks itself in the native symbols and culture, breeding hate and intolerance, until the
bilious nationalism reaches just the right temperature and then boils over into lawless fascism.
As Jeffrey Tucker
points out,
Trump is nothing new. The graveyard of twentieth century tyrannies is a testament to just how
much death and destruction can be induced by a charismatic parasite bellowing the tenets of a flag-wrapped
tyranny. Most of what we hear coming from leaders today is fascism to a greater or lesser extent.
If what we mean by fascism to be a Religion of the State, a militant nationalism taken to its logical
conclusion, then every leader engages in it, because it ignites something primitive and sinister
in the minds of voters.
We understand war theoretically, and distantly, but what of those who are forced to carry out
the fever dreams of politicians? Blindly thanking veterans for their service, we feel a sense
of duty discharged, and never think to look more deeply into their traumas, or the scheme they were
tricked into executing. Military recruiters, the unscrupulous peddlers of military slavery,
are treated as a benign influence on young people today. Their pushy, overindulgent attitude
toward our 18-year olds should piss us off more than it does, since what they are conning the young
into is becoming the expendable plaything for the whims of the current Administration.
War is the pith of total government. The source of all its power, war and the threat of
war provide the excuse for every injustice, every outrage, every restriction of liberty or further
bilking of the citizen-hosts. As the Warfare State trots out the familiar sermons of threats
from abroad, potential greatness at home, and wars to be fought, one would do well to reflect that
war enriches the State at the expense of the rest of us. It consumes our lives, our liberty,
our wallets, and the future of our children and grandchildren. The current crop of candidates
who peddle military greatness are the enemy of peace and prosperity, and when they so openly declaim
their lust for war, we should frankly believe what they say. And after hearing them, we should
recognize the would-be tyrant in our midst, hawking hyper-militarism under the guise of national
greatness, and treat them like the vermin they clearly are.
Shane Smith lives in Norman, Oklahoma and writes for
Red Dirt Report.
"..."Who needs direct repression when one can convince the chicken to walk freely into the slaughterhouse?""
"...Oppression occurs on many levels. The slave with a benevolent master is still a slave."
"...Article left out biggest clue to a police state. We've got more people incaracerated and
we're got most people incarcerated per person "
"...we struggle for terms and definitions to our systems of voluntary enslavement. No one makes
us do these things, they simply make it easy and attractive."
Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
"Who needs direct repression when one can convince the chicken to walk freely into the slaughterhouse?"-Philosopher
Slavoj iek
Despite the best efforts of some to sound the alarm, the nation is being locked down into a militarized,
mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle
upon which this nation was founded.
All the while, the nation's citizens seem content to buy into a carefully constructed, benevolent
vision of life in America that bears little resemblance to the gritty, pain-etched reality that plagues
those unfortunate enough to not belong to the rarefied elite.
For those whose minds have been short-circuited into believing the candy-coated propaganda peddled
by the politicians, here is an A-to-Z, back-to-the-basics primer of what life in the United States
of America is really all about.
A is for the AMERICAN POLICE STATE. As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War
on the American People, a police state "is characterized by bureaucracy, secrecy, perpetual wars,
a nation of suspects, militarization, surveillance, widespread police presence, and a citizenry
with little recourse against police actions."
B is for our battered BILL OF RIGHTS. In the cop culture that is America today, where you
can be kicked, punched, tasered, shot, intimidated, harassed, stripped, searched, brutalized,
terrorized, wrongfully arrested, and even killed by a police officer, and that officer is rarely
held accountable for violating your rights, the Bill of Rights doesn't amount to much.
C is for CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE. The latest governmental scheme to deprive Americans of their
liberties-namely, the right to property-is being carried out under the guise of civil asset forfeiture,
a government practice wherein government agents (usually the police) seize private property they
"suspect" may be connected to criminal activity. Then, whether or not any crime is actually proven
to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen's property.
D is for DRONES. It is estimated that at least 30,000 drones will be airborne in American
airspace by 2020, part of an $80 billion industry. Although some drones will be used for benevolent
purposes, many will also be equipped with lasers, tasers and scanning devices, among other weapons.
E is for ELECTRONIC CONCENTRATION CAMP. In the electronic concentration camp, as I have dubbed
the surveillance state, all aspects of a person's life are policed by government agents and all
citizens are suspects, their activities monitored and regulated, their movements tracked, their
communications spied upon, and their lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness dependent on the
government's say-so.
F is for FUSION CENTERS. Fusion centers, data collecting agencies spread throughout the country
and aided by the National Security Agency, serve as a clearinghouse for information shared between
state, local and federal agencies. These fusion centers constantly monitor our communications,
everything from our internet activity and web searches to text messages, phone calls and emails.
This data is then fed to government agencies, which are now interconnected: the CIA to the FBI,
the FBI to local police.
G is for GRENADE LAUNCHERS. The federal government has distributed more than $18 billion worth
of battlefield-appropriate military weapons, vehicles and equipment such as drones, tanks, and
grenade launchers to domestic police departments across the country. As a result, most small-town
police forces now have enough firepower to render any citizen resistance futile.
H is for HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS. The government's efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies
and employees is reaching epic proportions, with federal agencies as varied as the Department
of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration stockpiling millions of lethal hollow-point
bullets, which violate international law. Ironically, while the government continues to push for
stricter gun laws for the general populace, the U.S. military's arsenal of weapons makes the average
American's handgun look like a Tinker Toy.
I is for the INTERNET OF THINGS, in which internet-connected "things" will monitor your home,
your health and your habits in order to keep your pantry stocked, your utilities regulated and
your life under control and relatively worry-free. The key word here, however, is control. This
"connected" industry propels us closer to a future where police agencies apprehend virtually anyone
if the government "thinks" they may commit a crime, driverless cars populate the highways, and
a person's biometrics are constantly scanned and used to track their movements, target them for
advertising, and keep them under perpetual surveillance.
J is for JAILING FOR PROFIT. Having outsourced their inmate population to private prisons
run by private corporations, this profit-driven form of mass punishment has given rise to a $70
billion private prison industry that relies on the complicity of state governments to keep their
privately run prisons full by jailing large numbers of Americans for inane crimes.
K is for KENTUCKY V. KING. In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers
can break into homes, without a warrant, even if it's the wrong home as long as they think they
have a reason to do so. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong
suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us
and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real
protection in the face of all manner of abuses by law enforcement officials.
L is for LICENSE PLATE READERS, which enable law enforcement and private agencies to track
the whereabouts of vehicles, and their occupants, all across the country. This data collected
on tens of thousands of innocent people is also being shared between police agencies, as well
as with fusion centers and private companies.
M is for MAIN CORE. Since the 1980s, the U.S. government has acquired and maintained, without
warrant or court order, a database of names and information on Americans considered to be threats
to the nation. As Salon reports, this database, reportedly dubbed "Main Core," is to be used by
the Army and FEMA in times of national emergency or under martial law to locate and round up Americans
seen as threats to national security. As of 2008, there were some 8 million Americans in the Main
Core database.
N is for NO-KNOCK RAIDS. Owing to the militarization of the nation's police forces, SWAT teams
are now increasingly being deployed for routine police matters. In fact, more than 80,000 of these
paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids
every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children
alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening-and all in the
pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.
O is for OVERCRIMINALIZATION. Thanks to an overabundance of 4500-plus federal crimes and 400,000
plus rules and regulations, it's estimated that the average American actually commits three felonies
a day without knowing it. As a result of this overcriminalization, we're seeing an uptick in Americans
being arrested and jailed for such absurd "violations" as letting their kids play at a park unsupervised,
collecting rainwater and snow runoff on their own property, growing vegetables in their yard,
and holding Bible studies in their living room.
P is for PATHOCRACY. When our own government treats us as things to be manipulated, maneuvered,
mined for data, manhandled by police, mistreated, and then jailed in profit-driven private prisons
if we dare step out of line, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic. Instead,
what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which
"operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups."
Q is for QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. Qualified immunity allows officers to walk away without paying
a dime for their wrongdoing. Conveniently, those deciding whether a police officer should be immune
from having to personally pay for misbehavior on the job all belong to the same system, all cronies
with a vested interest in protecting the police and their infamous code of silence: city and county
attorneys, police commissioners, city councils and judges.
R is for ROADSIDE STRIP SEARCHES and BLOOD DRAWS. The courts have increasingly erred on the
side of giving government officials-especially the police-vast discretion in carrying out strip
searches, blood draws and even anal probes for a broad range of violations, no matter how minor
the offense. In the past, strip searches were resorted to only in exceptional circumstances where
police were confident that a serious crime was in progress. In recent years, however, strip searches
have become routine operating procedures in which everyone is rendered a suspect and, as such,
is subjected to treatment once reserved for only the most serious of criminals.
S is for the SURVEILLANCE STATE. On any given day, the average American going about his daily
business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by
both government and corporate eyes and ears. A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether
you're walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family
on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity,
is listening in and tracking your behavior. This doesn't even begin to touch on the corporate
trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking
place in the cyber sphere.
T is for TASERS. Nonlethal weapons such as tasers, stun guns, rubber pellets and the like,
have resulted in police using them as weapons of compliance more often and with less restraint-even
against women and children-and in some instances, even causing death. These "nonlethal" weapons
also enable police to aggress with the push of a button, making the potential for overblown confrontations
over minor incidents that much more likely. A Taser Shockwave, for instance, can electrocute a
crowd of people at the touch of a button.
U is for UNARMED CITIZENS SHOT BY POLICE. No longer is it unusual to hear about incidents
in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later, often attributed to a
fear for their safety. Yet the fatality rate of on-duty patrol officers is reportedly far lower
than many other professions, including construction, logging, fishing, truck driving, and even
trash collection.
V is for VIPR SQUADS. So-called "soft target" security inspections, carried out by roving
VIPR task forces, comprised of federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors,
transportation security officers, behavior detection officers and explosive detection canine teams,
are taking place whenever and wherever the government deems appropriate, at random times and places,
and without needing the justification of a particular threat.
W is for WHOLE-BODY SCANNERS. Using either x-ray radiation or radio waves, scanning devices
are being used not only to "see" through your clothes but government mobile units can drive by
your home and spy on you within the privacy of your home. While these mobile scanners are being
sold to the American public as necessary security and safety measures, we can ill afford to forget
that such systems are rife with the potential for abuse, not only by government bureaucrats but
by the technicians employed to operate them.
X is for X-KEYSCORE. One of the many spying programs carried out by the National Security
Agency (NSA) that targets every person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. This
top-secret program "allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases
containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals."
Y is for YOU-NESS. Using your face, mannerisms, social media and "you-ness" against you, you
can now be tracked based on what you buy, where you go, what you do in public, and how you do
what you do. Facial recognition software promises to create a society in which every individual
who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. The goal
is for government agents to be able to scan a crowd of people and instantaneously identify all
of the individuals present. Facial recognition programs are being rolled out in states all across
the country.
Z is for ZERO TOLERANCE. We have moved into a new paradigm in which young people are increasingly
viewed as suspects and treated as criminals by school officials and law enforcement alike, often
for engaging in little more than childish behavior. In some jurisdictions, students have also
been penalized under school zero tolerance policies for such inane "crimes" as carrying cough
drops, wearing black lipstick, bringing nail clippers to school, using Listerine or Scope, and
carrying fold-out combs that resemble switchblades.
As you can see, the warning signs are all around us. The question is whether you will organize,
take a stand and fight for freedom, or will you, like so many clueless Americans, freely walk into
the slaughterhouse?
BlowsAgainsttheEmpire
"As a result, most small-town police forces now have enough firepower to render any citizen
resistance futile."
Well, duh. What do you think the purpose is in giving all this stuff out.
Money Boo Boo
the real thugs are in Wall Street and Washington, they've taken all the cash and have left
the crumbs for over 300 million people to fight over.
The amount of money thats gone to welfare is the fart spittle from a fly's moistend buttocks dripped
onto the windshields of Ben Bernanks motorcade as it drives to another meeting where virgin frau
grois is served cold over the nipples of prepubescent boys. Trillions of your dollars have been
malinvested or straight up stolen by Wall Street and the MIC since 1913 and now as the USSA wanes
in its ability to strip enough wealth from the rest of the world to service all its citizens in
the ponzi scheme you've all grown accustomed to over the last 100 years the bath is draining and
all those swimming with a cock in their mouth are starting to see the third world you actually
are without strip mining and global murder as your go-to method.
sucks to be second last........again.
Memedada
If you by criminals are referring to the oligarchy class the banksters, their puppet politicians,
the money-masters etc. I agree. And if you mean look at what they did to the former proud and
industrious city of Chicago I also agree. Otherwise you're either very dumb, misinformed, a (willing?)
tool or a paid troll.
artless
In 46 years I have been detained against my will, kidnapped, imprisoned, had my property stolen,
had my money stolen, been the victim of violence, threatened with a loaded handgun, and endless
amounts of verbal abuse. In each case it was a Law Enforcement Officer that committed each offense.
I have never in my 46 years transgressed another human being, committed any crime, or any act
of violence against any living sentient being.
I have NEVER experienced any of the above behavior from my fellow civilian citizens.
The Police are just the muscle for the Criminal Gang Writ Large known as The State. They are nothing
but parasites that feed of the wealth, production, and labor of the individual and deserve no
better fate than any other parasite.
Memedada
The State is just a tool. A tool in the wrong hands is like a gun not accountable. It's
the people misusing the tool that should be frowned upon.
Right now it's a fascist state = a tool for and by the big corporations/the banksters.
PS. I didn't downvote you. I very seldom vote on comments/replies - it's silly to vote for whats
right or not. Truth is not a democratic matter.
Oldwood
In my 62 years I have NEVER been accosted or even been insulted by police.
I have been raped and molested by federal, state and local taxing entities however.
Oppression occurs on many levels. The slave with a benevolent master is still a slave.
1033eruth
I'll bet $1000 that you KNOW people that have been accosted, etc, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum,
ad nauseum.
Article left out biggest clue to a police state. We've got more people incaracerated and we're
got most people incarcerated per person
Memedada
You're together with the rest of the world as far from socialism as you can get.
Capitalism is defined by who owns the shit-show who owns the trade, the industries, the 'means
of production' etc. In US and the rest of the world there've been a major privatization epoch.
Everything under former democratic control even central banks have become privatized. There's
almost nothing left productive that's not owned by private entities (and most of it by the 0,01%).
There're small 'islands' left (like trinkets in Greece) that still 'needs' to be handed over to
the ownership class (the capitalists).
The problem with many on ZH is they don't know what 'capitalism' and/or 'socialism' is they
just automatically associated the former with 'freedom' and the latter with 'statism/totalitarianism'.
It's silly.
The size of the state/state intervention, how 'free' the market is and whether or not you have
'rights' or not is irrelevant in relation to what economic system you live in. And right
now we are living in a capitalist economic system based on the private ownership of the means
of production.
Yes, it's not the utopian version of capitalism supported by 'libertarians' (the US version =
the right-wing version. And not the true left-wing version dominant in the rest of the world),
but it's still capitalism by any meaningful definition.
NoWayJose
Omar Shariff recently passed away. One of the things I remember most about Dr Zhivago is how
rapidly the rules changed once the communists took over. McMansions became apartments for the
peasants. Bank accounts for the wealthy went away. Sure, these are socialist ideals - but
aren't we much closer to socialism today than we are to democracy? And isn't wealth inequality
as great as it has been in -- well -- about a hundred years?? (or since Dr Zhivago's time!) Oldwood
All "isms" are simply tools for herding people in large groups towards centralization of power.
They are all fiction based upon unobtainable perfections that DO NOT EXIST in nature. If we are
to ever achieve this perfection, it will require the elimination of man and replacement by machines,
and these machines will need to be programmed by an alien intelligence.
This is all bullshit designed to incentivize each and every one of us to voluntarily abandon our
individual freedoms and surrender to the collective. Even capitalism requires some level of this,
as ultimately the necessary "governance" required to make it "function" requires our submission.
Please note that the one commonality of all of these "isms" is submission to authority. Authority
that ALWAYS grows until it consumes its host.
So keep trumpeting how your beloved "pure" ism has not been achieved and therefor unfairly judged.
As each if us demands this pursuit of the perfection that our favorite "ism" promises, at least
admit that it comes at a significant cost to the individual.
Freedom has no "isms".
Memedada
Very valid points. I almost agree. There is however some "isms" that see this trap of inherent
'totalitarianism' in most 'isms' (and may I add especially communism and capitalism): anarchism
(there're many versions and I respectfully think 'libertarianism' the US-version - is the wrong
version if freedom is your goal).
The above comment is only in response to the misuse of 'socialism' to describe our current
predicament. The obfuscation of our language narrows our vision and our ability to communicate.
artless
@NoWayJose
This is important. The use of the proper terms in describing our current and past situations.
Democracy is a means of POLITICAL organization. It says NOTHING of economies or anything else
for that matter. Majority rules, voting, participation only means that and in the worst case scenario-even
void of any and all correption such as vote fraud-it can and most likely will descend into mob
rule or in other words two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. Get 50.00000000000001%
of "the vote" and without the protection of the individual ANYTHING becomes "legal".
Everything that came to pass in Nazi Germany was "legal". Does this sound similar to what we experience
today here in the United States? Such is the fasle god of democracy. See Hans Hoppe for that one.
SOCIALISM is a means of economic organization in which "the state" OWNS the means of production,
the resources, and thus the labor by default (that is my elaboration and not a classic definition)
One may have a democracy AND socialism. See most of Western Europe. France might be the closest
with its state run industries (AirBus, trains, etc). Many nation states are mixed LIKE THE USSA
in that a company like GM is partially OWNED by the state through bailouts (they would have been
dissolved in a free market) in addition to things like Amtrak and The USPS.
We organize A REPUBLIC trough a process of democracy. Yes, I know it still sounds funny but at
least that is the design.
What we have and what is most common is called FASCISM. This is marriage of The State and EVERYTHING.
WHile the state may not technically OWN the means od production or all wealth THEY HAVE COMMAND
OF IT through regulation, intervention, and participation in what would otherwise be free markets.
That particioation by definition makes said markets and economy NOT FREE OR OPEN but controlled
and influenced by THE STATE.
Now this participation has the theoretic potential to be both benign and benevolent. Hence the
parade of "...poets, priest, and politicians..." - to quote a rock song-that cling to the belief
that the reason for the 100% failure rate of said idea through History is just a lack of the RIGHT
people being in charge. The problem with that lies again with the pesky individual AND the means
by which any and all of these Ideas are implemented. The common means has always been through
the use of coercion and force. It is the state's monopoly on voilence and the use of force that
then becomes the defining characteristic of the political and economic system.
In a Fascist state thsoe with access to that power-the use of violence and coercion-can emply
that to their economic benefit through syndicate, regulation, cartelization, etc. One perfect
present day example would be the case of UBER in relation to the taxi/car service industry. In
a free market "government" would have no say in whom or what I choose to drive me around.
But we do not have either a free market or a free society.
We live in a Fascist Police State and work and toil in a Crony Capital Crypto-Socialist/Fascist
economy. Musch like every other nation-state on the planet.
I did not down vote you.
Oldwood
we struggle for terms and definitions to our systems of voluntary enslavement. No one makes
us do these things, they simply make it easy and attractive.
how about a free phone????
Cloud9.5
Don't take my word for it. Take the word of someone who lead a successful revolution and managed
to kill millions of his perceived enemies. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Mao.
You my friend have surrendered your political power to the would be omnipotent and omnipresent
state. You are not a free man. You are a subject. Your very survival depends on the benevolence
of a capricious bureaucrat you have never met. Should he or she develop a dislike for you, you
are done.
Ment in response to DutchBoy
Cloud9.5
No, I think the game is rigged. Whomever we get to vote for will be vetted and in the process
bought by the oligarchs that own the system. I do not hold much hope for the political process
at the moment. I do not think there is a political solution to an on going economic contraction
brought on by energy depletion. I expect the state to continue its efforts towards totalitarian
control. I expect those efforts to be impeded by the entropy innate within a collapsing system.
I believe that Detroit is a model for the ongoing collapse. It is a Democratic city rife with
all the problems inherent in the nanny state. As it declines, despite all the political games,
the bureaucrats have had to thin their ranks. Even their pensions have come under attack. Some
time back, a black, Democrat, chief of police called on his citizens to arm themselves. This is
the trend.
Expect as conditions worsen for kidnappings, home invasions and armed robberies to go exponential
as desperate people do desperate things in an effort to survive. The armed state is of little
use in such an events. They may have the political resolve to quell large outbreaks of social
unrest but I doubt it.
What I do know is that a man well armed and vigilant has some chance of defending himself and
his family in these uncertain times. An unarmed person has no chance and is dependent on a collapsing
state that is preoccupied with self preservation.
Going out and murdering some low level bureaucrat or politician as some form of political statement
is flat out wrong and I will not support it.
fredquimby
U is for UNARMED CITIZENS SHOT BY POLICE.
Courtesy of the Guardian in the UK - A tally of all people shot/died by US police actions.....It
broke 600 this year this past weekend, now at 613 :(
"G is for GRENADE LAUNCHERS. The federal government has distributed more than $18 billion
worth of battlefield-appropriate military weapons, vehicles and equipment such as drones, tanks,
and grenade launchers to domestic police departments across the country. As a result, most
small-town police forces now have enough firepower to render any citizen resistance futile."
Resistance Futile? Are you kidding me? What a idiot.
The more weapons a rogue and lawless government has to oppress law abiding civilians, the more
weapons that WILL fall into civilian hands. As in captured.
Actually, the illegal obama tyranny corp constitution violator brownshirts dont stand a chance.
Not in Texas.
Grimaldus
DutchBoy2015
ISIS Leader Admits We Are Being Funded By The Obama Administration
Accusations that the NSA has listened in on Chancellor Merkel's conversations are not conducive
to positive German-US relations. Interestingly, the fact that the White House is saying that they
'are not' monitoring and 'will not' monitor Merkel, suggests that 'they have' monitored her in the
past. To be sure, as I noted yesterday, there are worthwhile reasons behind US intelligence collection
operations in Europe. Still, targeting the phone of a close ally (especially a head of state and
especially one as friendly as Merkel) is a dangerous gamble. It risks significant blowback in terms
of personally alienating a valued American friend. The NSA will have known this. Correspondingly,
I assume that Merkel was targeted for a short time and in pursuit of specific information. Perhaps
in regards to her position during a conference/financial negotiations (international meetings are
a playground for intelligence officers).
There's another point here; as Marc Ambinder (a top journalist on the NSA) notes, if Merkel was indeed
targeted, then why wasn't her position as an intelligence source more highly classified? Ambinder
hints at the larger truth. If she was monitored, Merkel was effectively a deep cover source. In that
regard, it's truly ridiculous that Snowden was able to gain access to such an operation. He was a
contractor, not the Director of the NSA. As I've argued before, the US Government has a serious problem
with its protection of its highly classified sources.
Of course, all of this raises the broader question as to what other information Snowden might have
given Greenwald. Does he have agents/officers details? The British certainly think so. Based on what's
happening at the moment, we must assume that Greenwald is upping the ante. This may signal how he'll
conduct himself at Omidyar's new media endeavor. Ultimately, this is what will most concern the US
Government - signal intelligence programs can be reconstructed. Humans cannot.
"...medical professionals lied and covered up their extensive involvement in post-9/11 torture.
" . "...Psychologists are not medical professionals. Why does the Guardian keep mistakenly referring
to them as such? This habitual error casts doubt on the credibility of this and related articles. " . "...the APA has a code of ethics, modelled after the Hippocratic oath. these psychologists violated
that code of ethics, and then the APA took steps to protect them, at the expense of their own ethical
code. that's the problem, independent of the guilt or innocence of the people tortured. " . "...One question here - what about the use of psychoactive / neuroleptic drugs in interrogation?
Was that used? I just ask because those few Gitmo detainees seen in public so far have that kind of
nodding dazed drooling expression of the lithium / tricyclic / SSRI victim of excessive drug treatment
- nodding, dazed, stumbling, etc? Have they been doing drug-based interrogation on top of the waterboarding?" . "...I don't want my life purchased by torture. I agree with those who don't believe that it
saves anyone, anyway, but come down to it? I'm radical. Don't want to live in a world in which torture
is"just n case" standard procedure. Sorry. Ends don't justify means. Appeal to self-interest here is
shabby and false." . "...The APA is currently lobbying the AMA (American Medical Association) and Congress to be
permitted to prescribe and dispense drugs used to treat psychological/psychiatric disorders. Unless
the APA outs every single one of these guys and kicks them out of APA permanently, yanks their licenses,
and gets rid of every member of their Association's Board of Governors who 'covered up' these ethical
breaches, no psychologist should be eligible for insurance reimbursement. Nothing happens until you
hit the pocketbooks of the whole community." . "...True psychologists are not physicians. However, there were a number of "real" physicians,
i.e. AMA accredited doctors, that worked at Guantanomo who monitored the health of torture victims and
alerted the interrogators that their subjects were close to death and they did two things: stopped the
torture and then treated the victims back beyond the verge of death. At that point the torturers could
resume their "interrogation". We know this was happening. So far these doctors names have not been revealed." . "...Stephen Behnke, has a Yale law degree and a psychology Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.
How ominous does that sound?"
The largest association of psychologists in the United States is on the brink of a crisis, the
Guardian has learned, after an independent review revealed that medical professionals lied and
covered up their extensive involvement in post-9/11 torture. The revelation, puncturing years
of denials, has already led to at least one leadership firing and creates the potential for loss
of licenses and even prosecutions.
For more than a decade, the American Psychological Association (APA) has maintained that a strict
code of ethics prohibits its more than 130,000 members to aid in the torture of detainees while simultaneously
permitting involvement in military and intelligence interrogations. The group has rejected media
reporting on psychologists' complicity in torture; suppressed internal dissent from anti-torture
doctors; cleared members of wrongdoing; and portrayed itself as a consistent ally against abuse.
Now, a voluminous independent review conducted by a former assistant US attorney, David Hoffman,
undermines the APA's denials in full and vindicates the dissenters.
Sources with knowledge of the report and its consequences, who requested anonymity to discuss
the findings before public release, expected a wave of firings and resignations across the leadership
of an organization that Hoffman finds used its extensive institutional links to the CIA and US military
to facilitate abusive interrogations.
... ... ...
Substantial sections of the report focus on the APA ethics chief and describes Behnke's "behind-the-scenes
attempts to manipulate Council of Representatives actions in collusion with, and to remain aligned
with DoD" a reference to the Department of Defense.
A University of Michigan-pedigreed psychologist, Behnke has held his position within the APA since
2000, and, according to sources, used it to stifle dissent. Hoffman's report found Behnke ghostwrote
statements opposing member motions to rebuke torture; was involved in voter irregularity on motion
passings; spiked ethics complaints; and took other actions to suppress complaints.
... ... ...
Behnke was hardly the only psychologist involved in the establishment and application of torture.
According to two landmark Senate reports, one from the armed services committee in 2009 and the other
from the intelligence committee in 2014, psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen were instrumental
in persuading the CIA to adopt stress positions, temperature and dietary manipulation, sleep deprivation
and waterboarding in interrogations. (Neither man is an APA member.)
Psychologists assigned to the CIA's office of medical services assisted abusive interrogations, which
the Guardian revealed in June appear to violate longstanding CIA rules against human experimentation.
Those tactics, save waterboarding, spread from the CIA to the military. Psychologists joined "behavioral
science consultation teams" that advised interrogations at Guantαnamo Bay.
... ... ...
Yet the organization withstood all public criticism, until New York Times reporter James Risen
revealed, based in part on a hoard of emails from a deceased behavioral-science researcher named
Scott Gerwehr, the behind-the-scenes ties between psychologists from the APA and their influential
counterparts within the CIA and the Pentagon.
In 2002 the critical year for the Bush administration's embrace of torture the APA amended its
longstanding ethics rules to permit psychologists to follow a "governing legal authority" in the
event of a conflict between an order and the APA ethics code.
Without the change, Risen wrote in his 2014 book Pay Any Price, it was likely that psychologists
would have "taken the view that they were prevented by their own professional standards from involvement"
in interrogations, making it "far more difficult for the Justice Department to craft opinions that
provided the legal approvals needed for the CIA to go ahead with the interrogation tactics".
In 2004, after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal burst into public view, the emails detailed a private
meeting of APA officials with CIA and military psychologists to "provide input on how the APA should
deal with the growing furor", Risen wrote.
Ethics chief Behnke emailed: "I would like to emphasize that we will not advertise the meeting other
than this letter to the individual invitees, that we will not publish or otherwise make public the
names of attendees or the substance of our discussions, and that in the meeting we will neither assess
nor investigate the behavior of any specific individual or group."
Risen went on to report that six of the 10 psychologists on the seminal 2005 APA taskforce "had connections
with the defense or intelligence communities; one member was the chief psychologist for US Special
Forces". The subject of tremendous internal controversy, the APA ultimately rescinded the taskforce
report in 2013.
In October, the APA called Risen's account "largely based on innuendo and one-sided reporting".
Yet the next month the association announced it had asked Hoffman to investigate potential "collusion
with the Bush administration to promote, support or facilitate the use of 'enhanced' interrogation
techniques by the United States in the war on terror".
Throughout the controversy, the APA has preferred to treat criticism of its involvement in torture,
either from journalists or from human rights-minded psychologists, with dismissal. Its internal investigations
of the criticisms have typically ended up exonerating its members.
"A thorough review of these public materials and our standing policies will clearly demonstrate that
APA will not tolerate psychologist participation in torture," the APA communications chief, Rhea
Farberman, told the Guardian in January 2014, after the Guardian revealed that an APA inquiry declined
to pursue charges against a psychologist involved in the Guantαnamo Bay torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani.
The psychologist, former US army reserve major John Leso, took part in a brutal interrogation of
Qahtani, the suspected intended 20th 9/11 hijacker, according to a leaked interrogation log and investigation
by the Senate armed services committee.
Interrogators extensively deprived Qahtani of sleep, forced him to perform what the log called "dog
tricks", inundated him with loud music for extended periods, and forcibly hydrated him intravenously
until he urinated on himself.
"The concern that APA's decision to close the matter against Dr John Leso will set a precedent against
disciplining members who participate in abusive interrogations is utterly unfounded," the APA's Farberman
told the Guardian in January 2014.
Apteryx05 10 Jul 2015 22:05
If these doctors are guilty as alleged, then why aren't Bush, Cheney and the rest of their
cabal of war criminals facing prosecution?
WatchEm 10 Jul 2015 22:04
Just the APA?? Of course elements of their APA membership are torturers - and they know this
only too well. Don't leave out 'psychologists' who are not APA members and get profitable government
contracts to develop 'better ways to torture'...
Add psychiatrists, 'government employees', mercenary profit centers aka 'contractors', police
officers with torture expertise, the alphabet soup of government agencies and purported humans
from the rank of major to general. The latter being directors and instigators of torture where
a number of them were promoted for their efficiency in the finer arts of torture.
At the lower echelons of torture are military cannon fodder who are often assigned blame and have
been known to be prosecuted. Just watch a few tapes of them speaking on camera and it's easy to
see thru them - ranging from just sad to being control freaks. They are what is known as the "few
bad apples" in the barrel full of bad apples.
There is no such thing as an old torturer... Add a few criminal retirees with long track records
of torture and experience of slaughtering men, women and children. They were pulled out of retirement
to show their expertise in the killing, torture and operating death squads - paid for by the US
taxpayer.
Never leave out US 'ambassadors' who magically appear like bees to a honeypot when torture is
in the air - e.g. Negropointe is an example of a US 'torture ambassador' with considerable experience
in the slaughtering, torture and particularly in the rapes of innocent people. His latest skill
set extends to being a diplomat for death squads.
In the Washington swamp there are the legal lemmings specialising in opinions of torture. All
legal opinions are, of course, simply to support the rear ends of policy makers on torture - and
their non-legal opinions violate the Convention against Torture and literally every human rights
and crimes against humanity treaty ever ratified by the USG.
At the top of the pack of cards are the policy makers - Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, the Black Widow
Pianist, Wolfowitz and other self-relevant sickos, plus circa 400-500 of their I'm-very-innocent
sycophants from almost every department of government. They will explain how torture is not torture
- despite a written policy on torture. Needless to say, the travel opportunities of this group
outside US jurisdiction is somewhat restricted.
Not unsurprisingly, US society is marinated in this vermin and some of them are pillars of society
- e.g. college deans et al. Dysfunctional, corrupt and criminal would be an understatement. In
most other nations with a real functioning justice system, most of this swamp with the vermin
of humanity would be in jail cells.
The APA? Hell they are just a segment of a torture regime...
How would we know if they've stopped doing it or not?
rfs2014 -> Slo27 10 Jul 2015 22:03
no, doctors are the worst. it's their job to help people. not so with lawyers.
dakaygees -> Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 22:02
Which US was able to correct it self by condemning torture? You must be living on another planet.
TheBBG 10 Jul 2015 22:01
The Americans need Tony Abbott and his far right wing Liberal-Fascist Party for salvation.
He will show them how to make it legal to torture and illegal to tell anyone about it, first or
second hand.
bobliv -> Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 22:00
Read the White Rabbit by Bruxe Marahall, just a variation on theme.
rfs2014 -> Lex Lozano 10 Jul 2015 22:00
by that logic, you should have no problem with terrorists capturing and torturing american
armed services personnel (whose main goal may be to kill as many terrorists as possible).
the geneva conventions are there for a reason - each side believes it's right, so we need some
basic standards by which to conduct ourselves in times of war. not torturing the other side is
a good place to start.
Athell -> William Brown 10 Jul 2015 21:58
Of course, any fascist surveillance state considers everyone a threat
Athell -> Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 21:57
Ha ha ha true - but I just think he was trying to compare the level of atrocities committed
by the nazis to the one committed by the US government since the Bush years - and perpetuated
by the Obama administration
Athell alverta 10 Jul 2015 21:55
Yeah, that bunch of criminals have evaded justice for many years.
Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 21:55
In the history of humanity, all nations will torture, and fall from good character: only some,
unlike the US teeter there longer, stay there, or go so far off the deep end they end up like
Nazi Germany, or the Soviets. That the US was able to correct its self, and condemn the torture,
and move on, drives many mad.
tomjoadmcalister 10 Jul 2015 21:53
Psychologists are not medical professionals. Why does the Guardian keep mistakenly referring
to them as such? This habitual error casts doubt on the credibility of this and related articles.
en1gm4 -> MondoFundi 10 Jul 2015 21:53
Bingo. Democracy, rule of law etc is just a charade. In reality the rulers of today are no
different than those of years ago. We're just compliant because we have a little version of freedom.
So they keep us happy whilst they do what they want.
Maybe some time in the future justice will prevail but for now nothing is going to happen.
Haynonnynonny kowalli 10 Jul 2015 21:51
The Nazi never water boarded any one. If you get a chance, stop by your local library, and
get a history book.
alverta 10 Jul 2015 21:44
Start with Bush. Cheney, Rummie and Condi first... Add in Wolfie and all who are already signed
on to advise Jebbie.
Mansa Mahmoud gastinel1 10 Jul 2015 21:42
US foreign policy is dictated by US corporate interests. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal,
Germany (prior to WW1) were focused on colonization. Under the colonization model, the European
countries owned the colonized countries and extracted resources and cheap labor to support the
'Home' economy.
America (aside from Okinawa Japan, Phillipinnes, Guam) prefers not to maintain direct control.
Rather america installs puppets; the purpose of the puppets is to make it easy for american companies
to exploit the resources of the proxy (via puppets) controlled nations. During the cold war, the
USSR wasted resources in trying to finance and manage warsaw pact nations. The USSR did it (partially)
for ideological reasons. USA focused on maintaining proxy control and creating access to cheap
resources for american companies. That is the entire premise of globalization.. it enables an
american (by brand only) company to access cheap labor and provides said company with access to
a world of consumers.
Once you understand that fundamental concept, then american foreign policy makes absolute sense.
America is run for the benefit of the big dollar people; nothing less, nothing more. Read the
book "Confessions of a Hit Man".
kowalli 10 Jul 2015 21:39
nazi at the full face. USA are bunch of nazi
William Brown StuartBooth 10 Jul 2015 21:37
The U.S. Government considers its own citizens a threat. That's why they spy.
Brian Lippe 10 Jul 2015 21:37
Typical. They should start with Cheney if they're going to prosecute anyone and spread out
from there. He's still saying it was OK!
StuartBooth 10 Jul 2015 21:34
American Exceptionalism allows Americans carte blanch to commit any crime against foreigners.
Like standing on a cockroach.
Alistair73 10 Jul 2015 21:30
Lets not forget all the commie regimes... Stalin and Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong
Un and his daddy and grand daddy, and now Maduro in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba, Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
You would think the left would embrace state sanctioned torture since it has been relentlessly
practiced by all of its heroes.
camerashy 10 Jul 2015 21:24
Every god damn single one of these psychopaths must prosecuted and put behind bars! No apologies
should be accepted. They're nothing but human scum!
the APA has a code of ethics, modelled after the Hippocratic oath. these psychologists
violated that code of ethics, and then the APA took steps to protect them, at the expense of their
own ethical code. that's the problem, independent of the guilt or innocence of the people tortured.
gastinel1 -> Mansa Mahmoud 10 Jul 2015 21:21
I appreciate what you are saying, however US foreign policy adopted the theme of 'America First'
long before Bush and Cheney. This policy runs counter to its own stated values of freedom and
democracy because it necessitates ensuring compliance from other regimes to American capitalist
aspirations.
confettifoot -> libbyliberal 10 Jul 2015 21:19
It's a hard education. The best among us recoil; it breaks the heart and poisons everything,
knowing. That's the problem. It wasn't so long ago that the Nazis discovered the same - make it
so awful that no one can quite wrap their mind around it, so atrocious that it can't be discussed
at table, so ugly that passing the information feels like assault. Make it very expensive to resist,
make it life-wrecking - someone suggested that we stop paying taxes. That won't catch on. It's
not just America. The world is full of good Nazis, frowning silently into the middle distance.
We're all deploring like crazy in here. Who among is is actually doing something?
photosymbiosis 10 Jul 2015 21:13
One question here - what about the use of psychoactive / neuroleptic drugs in interrogation?
Was that used? I just ask because those few Gitmo detainees seen in public so far have that kind
of nodding dazed drooling expression of the lithium / tricyclic / SSRI victim of excessive drug
treatment - nodding, dazed, stumbling, etc? Have they been doing drug-based interrogation on top
of the waterboarding?
confettifoot -> Jake Wilson 10 Jul 2015 21:11
Pogo. You know. "I have seen the enemy...".
confettifoot -> pogomutt 10 Jul 2015 21:10
I don't want my life purchased by torture. I agree with those who don't believe that it
saves anyone, anyway, but come down to it? I'm radical. Don't want to live in a world in which
torture is"just n case" standard procedure. Sorry. Ends don't justify means. Appeal to self-interest
here is shabby and false.
fairandreasonabletoo 10 Jul 2015 21:06
The spirit of one Doctor Josef Mengele .found its way to America with all the other NAZI
baggage .
It would seem?
gastinel1 10 Jul 2015 21:05
Its interesting isn't it, how governments justify torture. The Nazis were convinced that they
needed to weed out dissidents and spies by any means possible. When the Allies occupied Germany,
suspected Nazis were also given a very rough time. Those post war interrogators gained a lot of
'useful' experience and that has really formed the basis of postwar interrogation techniques -
human rights be damned.
gastinel1 10 Jul 2015 20:57
They could have saved themselves a bit of money by recruiting NCO's from the British Army who
served in Northern Ireland. They know all the techniques. To be fair to the UK Government, they
did apologise. But then again, why did the UK go back to doing it with the Americans? What values
did they say they are protecting?
CostaParkiMik -> Emily Pulane 10 Jul 2015 20:54
such sincerity ..... while forgetting that your lot were the illegal invading force operating
in the interests of corporations and zionist interests.... who had spent years degrading the public
infrastructure of a sovereign nations causing the deaths of many hundreds and thousands of women,
children the old and the sick.
libbyliberal 10 Jul 2015 20:52
In Jan. 2014 I attended a "World Can't Wait"-sponsored NYC forum on Gitmo and a screening of
"Doctors on the Dark Side" directed by psychologist Martha Davis.
Todd Pierce, who had been a Gitmo prisoner lawyer, said that our society expects professional
people to exhibit high ethical standards. This has not been the case and an alarming number has
colluded with the amoral Bush administration's torture program.
From the film I learned about the horrific tortures some ended by the Obama adm. and SOME NOT
at Gitmo!
Temperature extremes, sensory deprivation, 24 hour flourescent lighting, 24 hour sustained assaultive
noise, solitary confinement, riot squad attacks and punchouts with night sticks, sleep deprivation,
aggressive force feeding, genital mutilation, sexual degradation, threats to kill a prisoner's
family members, manipulation with drugs, stress positions, organ-damaging, bone-breaking sustained
shackling and suspension from vulnerable body parts, withholding of appropriate and timely medical
care, the infamous water boarding, etc. ETCETERA!!!
I also learned that having military personnel present motivated torturers to push torture to nth
degree. Emergency tracheotomies at times had to be conducted on prisoners who had been zealously
waterboarded. In spite of medical personnel present at least 100 prisoners were "inadvertently"
tortured to death. Medical personnel were then pressured to falsify death certificates to cover
up such mistakes.
UK's Andy Worthington spoke of not only the number of wrong place/wrong time innocent men rendered
and tortured but how Obama's promises of release and then betrayals is a spiritual torture that
has resulted in profound despair and even suicides. How the US Congress is heartless about Gitmo,
wanting to posture as tough on terror and Pentagon issues propaganda about recidivism rates to
back them up.
Worthington said Obama has decided to kill people with drones instead of use capture and imprisonment.
Once again, innocent lives are destroyed with this reckless program.
Debra Sweet of WCW said instead of trying to win foreign hearts and minds the US is instead traumatizing
and terrorizing foreign hearts and minds (and radicalizing them) with its draconian detention
and torture programs.
Torture begats false confessions which the Bush administration used to justify its war.
Mitchell and Jenner who reversed the SERE program and set up the advanced interrogation program
Worthington disclosed are now covered by a $5 million defense fund provided by CIA against attempts
at liability and accountability. Mitchell was the one who decided one prisoner be waterboarded
83 times!
creweman 10 Jul 2015 20:50
Who wants to bet that the maximum penalty imposed on any individual will be nothing more than
a slap on the wrist? The United States Of Hypocrisy will see to that.
CostaParkiMik Urgelt 10 Jul 2015 20:47
"....There are no such pressures on the FBI or the Attorney General to do their jobs and enforce
the law....."
I could imagine with white man, intellectual arrogance that they saw it as part of their "mission"
to maintain and spread all that's good and right about the American way and do away with threats
to that mission..... self righteous neo christian nazis.
F H Dar 10 Jul 2015 20:46
21st Centuries truly Savage State, which a 'special relationship' with Britain?
reto 10 Jul 2015 20:44
It's a little like the death penalty... I don't really care what they do to terrorists who
have carried out attacks and killed innocent people but do really hope they only do it to people
who are guilty. What is clear is that the guy who is actually torturing is crazy afterwards. As
for the APA... this organisation is so awash with group think and peudo-expertise I doubt they
have found out anything at all despite their many "experiments". Being a scientist requires a
minimum IQ. Look, if you actually can find out things using torture, why not have it in your arsenal
but experience after 9/11 (see Senate report), the last couple of hundred years and the inquisition
seems to suggest that it doesn't work well for most purposes. Names are just codes these days
and aren't that important anymore in a cell command structure.
BrianHarry 10 Jul 2015 20:24
If medical professionals were coerced into lying about torture after 9/11, it's not to hard
to imagine that the N.I.S.T. report(the official explanation of what happened on 9/11) is also
a lie.
The question is, "Who in government, CIA, FBI, etc, found it necessary to coerce these people
into lying"? And Why?
PamelaKatz JohnML2015 10 Jul 2015 20:15
The APA is currently lobbying the AMA (American Medical Association) and Congress to be
permitted to prescribe and dispense drugs used to treat psychological/psychiatric disorders. Unless
the APA outs every single one of these guys and kicks them out of APA permanently, yanks their
licenses, and gets rid of every member of their Association's Board of Governors who 'covered
up' these ethical breaches, no psychologist should be eligible for insurance reimbursement. Nothing
happens until you hit the pocketbooks of the whole community.
1cjcarpenter 10 Jul 2015 20:14
In my opinion the APA and its members lost the majority of their credibility well before any
CIA involvement. The 1995 Little Rascals day care trials, for a start, showed a degree of irresponsibility
that I would have labeled criminal.
pogomutt 10 Jul 2015 20:13
"Community standards" What a fucking joke. The American Psychological Association came out
with a position paper only a few years back that classified the rape of children by homosexuals
as an "orientation". It's TRUE, Guardian! Live with it!
ID5175635 FancyFootwork 10 Jul 2015 20:00
A bit overboard, don't you think? APA is an organization. Some in that organization may be
guilty of wrongdoing. The vast majority of APA members are psychologists who work in schools,
workplaces, universities, for NASA, the DOD, and other workplaces and have no relationship with
torture in any manner.
Michael Williams 10 Jul 2015 20:00
Right. Blame the doctors. Not the people giving the orders.
When Bush hangs, then we can worry about the doctors.
Barry_Seal franzbonsema 10 Jul 2015 19:57
They have domestic assassination squads and NSA surveillance teams to deal with any prosecutors
who get any funny ideas which might threaten "national security"
Barry_Seal 10 Jul 2015 19:52
The CIA is absolutely untouchable. They are the law and they are the true government of the
USA. They cannot and will not be prosecuted for anything. This is not because they never do anything
illegal; it is because they are the government agency tasked with doing that which is illegal.
This is the true reason why the CIA must necessarily be so secretive - nearly everything they
become involved with is a grave legal and moral crime.
Angelaaaa Brucetopher 10 Jul 2015 19:51
Probably because alcohol, drugs and so-called "truth serums" don't actually deliver the truth.
They just lower inhibitions. As anyone who has listened to chemically-enhanced stream-of-consciousness
rambling will gather. You may get some truth (Grandma smells ... ) but probably no razor-sharp
insights.
Of course, torture doesn't deliver the truth either. Just for other reasons.
The point that no one in power ever wants to acknowledge is that the most reliable way to get
the truth is from someone who really wants to deliver it.
Bankhead 10 Jul 2015 19:50
Is it correct to refer to psychologists as part of the medical community? The writer perhaps
should distinguish between Psychiatrists (medical doctors) and Psychologists (PhDs). As I recall,
the Psychiatric professional association(s) were demonstrably against participation in military
interrogation during the period in question.
Denial, however, is a term familiar to both professions. There is an irony on display here, and
not a small amount of hubris.
Haggala Jeffrey_Harrison 10 Jul 2015 19:40
When the Americans were accused of torture after the world saw the Abu Ghraib images, the American
administration to let themselves off the hook just redefined the terminology.
And that is what humanity does to allow itself to make the same mistakes of the past, it changes
the definition unconsciously mostly but in the Abu Ghraib situation that was a conscious change.
And still GTMO is in operation where there are still untried prisoners being interrogated, where
we may wonder is the beast we fight actually the image in the mirror
Angelaaaa synchronicfusion 10 Jul 2015 19:39
No. It's a fairly straightforward definition of the difference between a psychologist and a
psychiatrist - the terms are not interchangeable.
The difference is important because psychologists want desperately to be acknowledged as "doctors"
(Mengele notwithstanding) - rather than expensive crackpots for the chattering classes. To that
end, their organisations adopt similar ethical commitments. However, unlike psychiatrists, joining
these organisations is voluntary. And even if they kick out a member, that psychologist can still
hang out a shingle and continue counselling, regardless of whether s/he is guilty of government-sanctioned
torture, sleeping with patients or just really bad at the job.
Psychiatrists however, as doctors, can be stripped of the right to practice if they are proven
to be incompetent or unethical.
ro2124 Will D 10 Jul 2015 19:34
Indeed if it was some African dictator Mr Yankee would be screaming for justice!
Still guess we should not be surprised after all the illegal wars, torture, lies, illegal gathering
of information by the NSA and the way their police forces are behaving at the moment gunning down
unarmed people like there was no tomorrow.
The Yanks have absolutely no credibility left whatsoever !!
But, hell when someone exposes the truth like Mr Snowden then they fall over themselves and
scream about justice, etc what a bunch of damn hypocrites!
FancyFootwork 10 Jul 2015 19:30
Finally, those righteous and morally upright men and women, who for a very long time cried
foul very loudly will feel vindicated that an upcoming report by an investigator, who was personally
chosen by the brass of the APA is slated to point fingers at the organization, its leadership
and members.
The report will blast a bombshell, which will be seriously consequential to the livelihood, reputation
and possibly freedom of many in the APA, which includes the elite brass, who where involved with
the Bush Administration by schooling, aiding and abetting its its principal torturing institution:
The CIA
Now the APA will forever be decidedly linked with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Who can forget the
image of the imprisoned man at Abu Ghraib, kneeling on the floor, hands tied and been stared at
eye level by a barking German Shepherd, which looked ready to bite and sever his head from his
body. The horror displayed by the man was unsettling. How about the image of a hooded person in
a black robe, arms spread, standing to look like enduring crucifixion? And the APA will also be
forever lined with the term WATERBOARDING.
This is an institution that was entrusted to use the science of psychology to safeguard the mental
and psychological health of Americans. Instead, it used its knowledge and power to do to engage
in morally and ethically reprehensible acts of torture.
No doubt, the anticipated report will provide tremendous moral and political boost to those, who
endured years of humiliation, rebuke, ridicule and even threats to their livelihood for opposing
torture in all its forms. They will come back swinging with a swagger, aiming and hoping for a
grand slam. My hope is that, once the necessary number of APA heads are bashed, the momentum will
shift to go after Bush Administration officials Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz,
the former president himself and many other big fish, or small minnows that were involved in the
CIA torture program.
Now, that will be quiet an event bigger in scale to the impeachment of former President Nixon,
who by comparison committed far lesser reprehensible act than George W Bush and cohorts
Ali Kerrouzi 10 Jul 2015 19:27
And then they wander why USA is hated all over the world, Bush's administration is partly responsible
what's happening in Iraq now and Syria, Bush & Blair made our world more dangerous created more
terrorism they get away with it in this life but they will have to answer God on the judgment
day for the blood on their hand, the torture, millions of refugees
IntoOblivion 10 Jul 2015 19:26
Better late than never. Many of us already knew what "enhanced interrogation techniques" really
meant, an euphemism for terrorism. And that "responsible and humane medical practices" were never
compatible with "EIT".
That doesn't mean that the ones who ordered the torture are not the ones we should really blame
and that should face justice. But doctors were also aware of what they were doing.
Bklynite53 10 Jul 2015 19:23
Why do they always go after the bottom feeders first. Time to start at the top and that means
the commander-in - chief.
talenttruth Juan Olmo (MOSAICOS COQUI') 10 Jul 2015 19:19
I HOPE that this is satire. If so, funny. If not . . .
The "war" against terrorism is an INVENTED FANTASY LIE, by the U.S. military industrial complex,
to waste American's money, even beyond the 53% of our ENTIRE national budget going to Eternal
War (and huge eternal profits for the criminals behind the "war industry".)
Yes there are insane "terrorists." And they have insane, sociopathic leaders and lost, borderline
personality "followers." But the American response (all for PROFITS) is to turn everything into
a fear/fear/fear 24/7 "War."
The Republicans are the paid representative of the Eternal War Profits machine.
Having the APA support Bush, or any other criminal who kills hundreds of thousands of people,
just to further enrich themselves, is despicable. And Yichen Hu is partly right, Bush, Cheney,
Halliburton's entire board and a host of other criminals should have been prosecuted for war crimes
years ago.
Theodore Svedberg Laudig 10 Jul 2015 18:58
True psychologists are not physicians. However, there were a number of "real" physicians,
i.e. AMA accredited doctors, that worked at Guantanomo who monitored the health of torture victims
and alerted the interrogators that their subjects were close to death and they did two things:
stopped the torture and then treated the victims back beyond the verge of death. At that point
the torturers could resume their "interrogation". We know this was happening. So far these doctors
names have not been revealed.
If the APA is now cleaning house on their torturer enablers maybe it is about time for the AMA
to start looking into the "real" doctors that were part of this system.
ro2124 Brucetopher 10 Jul 2015 18:57
>Why do elaborate, horrendously painful, cruel and vicious actions need >to be undertaken
No doubt some are sadists and enjoy it and as any real interrogator knows, evidence under torture
is mostly useless. If someone wired up my dangly bits to the mains, I am sure I would confess
anything from eating babies for breakfast to being the best mate of Osama Bin Liner!
and the Yanks still insist on lecturing the rest of us about morals and the "Land of the Free"
and all the other bullshit they like to spout ...but slowly we are seeing what a bunch of hypocrite
F**** they really are!
Littlemissv norecovery 10 Jul 2015 18:51
Here is a comment from JCDavis with some important information:
Russ Tice revealed that the NSA was spying on Obama as early as 2004 at the behest of Dick Cheney,
who had already convinced the NSA's director Hayden to break the law and spy on everyone with
power.
It can't be any coincidence that President Obama went (or was sent) to Bill "Cheney is the
best Republican" Kristol to get his foreign policy validated, and Kristol congratulated him on
it, calling him a "born-again neocon."
And it is no coincidence that Obama has the Cheney protegee Victoria Nuland in his administration,
right in the center of his new cold war with Russia. And no coincidence that she is the wife of
neocon Robert Kagan, who with Bill Kristol founded PNAC. PNAC counts neocon Paul Wolfowitz as
a member, who saw Russia as our main obstacle to world empire.
It's a nest of neocons running Obama as a puppet and pushing us into a confrontation with Russia
while smashing all the Russian allies according to the Wolfowitz doctrine.
Littlemissv -> marydole 10 Jul 2015 18:46
the US and it's partners in crime turn around and say "gee how come all these folks got radicalised
and are out to kill us"?
Everyone should watch Amy Goodman's terrific interview with the 89-year-old, and very wise Lifton.
gtggtg -> IanCPurdie 10 Jul 2015 18:29
"I think you will find the USA has exempted itself from international law, ..."
Yes, and they should be called on it, relentlessly. Law is not law, only tyranny, if one can exempt
oneself from it.
When a Spanish court took on Pinochet and by extension his US partners, this scared the shit out
of powerful people here in the US, much more than has been let on. File charges against the bastards;
demand their appearance; when they refuse to show up, try them in absentia; if found guilty, arrest
them should they ever touch foot in that jurisdiction or wherever there is recognized procedures
for extradition. Keep doing it again and again and again. Eventually it will have an effect, although
it may seem hopeless now.
Regrettably true. The problem began with the notion that putting pharma into bed with academics
would generate miracles, a delusion shared by many neocon governments.
confettifoot Longasyourarm 10 Jul 2015 18:19
No - I read the link. "Learned helplessness" is a thing that's been around since Pavlov, and
is helpful in compassionately understanding depression. It wasn't developed for the military,
and you've taken Seligman's comments wildly out of context. I HATE these bastards, want them out
of the profession - Seligman is very much a pacifist, well-known good guy, actually well out of
the medicalized model, against coercion, opponent to bad stuff in the profession and that's why
I was shocked.
If you have real source that he was hushing up whistleblowers show me and I'll loathe him,
but it would be extraordinarily out of character. Be careful with people's reputations.
frazzerr 10 Jul 2015 18:18
This is great don't get me wrong, they deserve to be jailed and for a considerably long time,
but who oversaw all of the torture and sometimes the torture of innocent people?
He is also responsible for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as a direct reaction to the 9/11
bombing when neither Iraq or Afghanistan had any connections with Al-Qaeda.
I'll never forget his comment, "'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George
go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George,
go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
When is George W. Bush going to tried for his war crimes?
redpill 10 Jul 2015 18:02
US torture doctors could face charges after report alleges post-9/11 'collusion'
"an independent review revealed that medical professionals lied and covered up their
extensive involvement in post-9/11 torture. The revelation, puncturing years of denials, creates
the potential for leadership firings, loss of licenses and even prosecutions."
The very sad part of this is that they were involved in even a slightest way in torture, not
that they might lose their jobs or prosecuted.They fully deserve to lose their jobs at the very
least.
They are expected to be caring professionals. Obviously not always so, and they've let down most
of their colleagues so very badly, as the majority of them really do care.
KDHymes Pete Street 10 Jul 2015 18:01
Your last paragraph pretty much reveals your true point of view. Know any women in the military?
Bet they'd appreciate your words so much.
You know what? We could argue all day about whether any of this was justified, and as others have
pointed out, your argument is irrelevant because all of it is illegal under both US and international
law. But let's stick with something you might understand: it does not work. Period. Coerced confessions
lead to bad decisions by those who use the information. How's things going for the US and Europe
in the Middle East? Did any of these crimes make a single thing better?
Please enlighten us as to what difference torture made for us. And you'll have to do better than
citing the same discredited cases over and over again. EVERY TIME the government has claimed to
receive useful intel from torture, it has been disproved by those actually in the know. If they
have evidence that is valid, they would surely be presenting it. But no, they don't have that,
because there isn't any, so the only things they can do is lie and hope the first media report
out-shouts the correction.
These people are very very stupid. NGIC is right up the road from me. They continue to have amazing
smug confidence about their work. And yet their work has consistently been poor and misleading.
Same goes for Homeland Security, the CIA, and the NSA. Every time we actually get a look at the
details, it's obvious they don't know what they are doing at all, they're just spending their
budgets, and sometimes indulging their sadism and racist paranoia.
But this has been the case all along with bloated intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Look
at the FBI in the 60s and 70s. It's criminal, but it's also frankly laughable. There's a culture
that builds up of certainty and self-reinforced ideology, and it becomes incapable of thought.
It's worse now, because so much of the intelligence gathering is done from a desk. They know very
little, but pretend they know so much. All that tech and all that spying can't make you smart.
And we're all paying the very high price in dollars and military lives for their willful ignorance.
confettifoot marydole 10 Jul 2015 17:55
That's correct. And we all become good Nazis insofar as we tolerate it - but the average citizen
has very little power against uber-powerful institutions like those that perform these abominations
with our tax dollars. It's an outrage not only against the direct victims, but against every decent
American and the conscience of this country.
IGiveTheWatchToYou 10 Jul 2015 17:52
"Sections of a previously classified CIA document,
made public by the Guardian, empower the agency's director to "approve, modify,
or disapprove all proposals pertaining to human subject research". The leeway provides the director,
who has never in the agency's history been a medical doctor, with significant influence over limitations
the US government sets to preserve safe, humane and ethical procedures on people."
I assume there's a tranche of records waiting to be discovered from US black sites around the
world detailing various unspeakable illegal human experimentation projects with subjects rendered,
I mean kidnapped from a war zone, by the military.
KDHymes Longasyourarm 10 Jul 2015 17:49
Here's an alum who heartily agrees with you. I've watched this pseudo-science play havoc with
family members, generating income and label after label, while ignoring crimes. I worked as a
residential social worker in Ohio for 7 years, with people who were placed in group homes and
apartments after the Athens Mental Health Center was closed. Several were simply slightly eccentric
people whose families had committed them for the sin of inconvenience, or in one case for daring
to stand up to sexual abuse. The "care" was a scandalous mixture of polypharmacology and hideous
punishments. Yeah, it was a while ago, but these folks are still alive, and the "doctors" who
signed off on all of it have never been held accountable, never even been forced to apologize
to them. And these days what we seem to have in the US is, like everything else, multi-tiered
according to class and ethnicity and income. Being weird while poor is a shooting offense. Being
an abusive sociopath while rich gets you a label and a suspended sentence, with the help of well
paid "expert witnesses."
There is no integrity, no real science, behind any of it. Partly this results from the ongoing
fantasy that human behavior can be reduced to chemicals and imaging. But a lot of it has to do
with the profit motive and attendant careerism, with the pharmaceutical industry and the psychotherapeutic
industries smiling hand in hand on the way to the bank.
aardivark 10 Jul 2015 17:49
Stephen Behnke, has a Yale law degree and a psychology Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.
How ominous does that sound?
Mike Casey 10 Jul 2015 17:48
As these build, more and more people will be implicated. The APA, being a private organization
can be held accountable more easily than can government officials. Hopefully this will lead to
prosecution of decision makers within the government. We the people need to make our leaders accountable!
You make me sick to my stomach. Just a few bad apples? Right. Torture is illegal under US law
and our treaty obligations. For the military to conduct it, everybody from the CinC down to the
individual torturer knew that. That's not a few nor were they rogue individuals acting on their
own as you imply. This was systematic abuse of human beings deliberately conducted by the United
States Government aided and abetted by Psychologists. They are scum and should be a total embarrassment
to their profession although transparently the "profession" doesn't see it that way.
Contrary to your assertions, torture was not practiced nor condoned by the US military in the
past and individual service members who tortured, even in the heat of battle, were punished. We
also convicted foreigners who perpetrated the things that these psychologists did of war crimes
after WWII. But never fear! I'm sure Egypt or Libya has an open slot for you in their system.
The leading scumbag in the above story is illustrated in the link. He was instrumental in hiding
and excusing the links between the corrupt APA and the CIA These greedy psychologist parasites
are not physicians, everyone should realize, even though they make No attempt to clear the confusion
that they are medical doctors.
The abject debasement of their own professional standards owes much to this Martin Seligman
who was president of the APA and tried to squelch the whistleblowers.
He should be jailed and tortured by those who have suffered from the application of his crackpot
theories, which he developed by giving electric shocks to dogs. The poor excuse for a university
department that is psychology at Penn should be closed.
TaiChiMinh Pete Street 10 Jul 2015 17:35
Sorry for posting this twice, it was meant as a response to the apologist for US crimes, Pete
Street:
>> The context of this historical period justifies torture not involving death or permanent physical
injury, in order to protect national security at home and abroad. This context we call wartime.
Actually, the UN treaty (signed by the US in 1988 and ratified by the US in 1994) - Convention
against Torture and Other Inhuman and Degrading Acts - specifically rejects the case you are trying
to make, which makes you an apologist for crimes:
"2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal
political stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."
Nor does US law make an exception for wartime: "18 U.S. Code § 2340A - Torture
(a) Offense.- Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results
to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life. . . .
(c) Conspiracy.- A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject
to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense,
the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy."
Throw the book at them - and the people up to W who designed this criminal enterprise.
Maybe you can come up with an rectal destruction exception? Keep, er, probing . . .
Gegenbeispiel 10 Jul 2015 17:35
Is there way for the International Criminal Court in the Hague to issue arrest warrants against
these people? The US would not, of course, recognise them but it would keep them out of international
professional conferences and make them afraid to ever travel outside the US.
DerekCurrie richy1 10 Jul 2015 16:43
richy: I warned you that 'the masses' aren't prepared to face the treasonous nightmare.
Don't feel bad.
Meanwhile, the proven evidence of the enablement of 9/11 by the Bush League continues to
collect. Hiding from it and hating on it won't change the facts. No looniness or anti-Semite
bad attitude is required to read what really went on that day and thereafter. No clap trap. No
Holocaust denial. No anything denial. Just the facts. Sorry about that.
drew4439 10 Jul 2015 16:41
Witch hunt.. Where are Cheyney, Rumsfeld and Pearl in all this..
MiltonWiltmellow 10 Jul 2015 16:25
In 2004, after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal burst into public view, the emails
detailed a private meeting of APA officials with CIA and military psychologists to "provide
input on how the APA should deal with the growing furor", Risen wrote.
The word "collusion" comes to mind.
Perhaps "criminal conspiracy."
Kudos to those APA members/agitators who forced a reckoning.
As long as the CIA (DoJ) isn't setting up Behnke et al as scapegoats to distract from the
institutional criminality of the Bush administration, this is a great report. One doesn't need
the ethics of the APA to read and understand the Constitutional prohibition against "cruel and
unusual punishment."
Finally a reckoning appears on the horizon.
I hope it isn't a mirage.
These people attacked and harmed America as surely as the terrorists. Their self-proclaimed
virtue and patriotism aren't relevant. (For instance, by their actions, they allow members of
ISIS to argue their atrocities are reprisals.)
Let's see the DoJ and FBI perform their actual duties rather than interdicting terror plots
which they imagine, instigate, finance and then -- with much publicity -- discover and
prevent.
DerekCurrie 10 Jul 2015 16:17
This minor revelation about 9/11 is nothing compared to the Bush League's involvement in
enabling that day and lying their way into the Iraq War, as per the plans of both the Israeli
government and their pawn in the USA: PNAC, Project for the New American Century, run by the
Neo-Con-Jobs. So much of this is out for anyone to read and prove to themselves at least a
critical part of what really happened that day and thereafter. But the masses still aren't
prepared to face that treasonous nightmare.
But if you want to get started!
Here's where scientists and engineers are collecting proven data about the actual 9/11 events.
You won't enjoy it:
I'm almost positive Mitchell and Jessen were members of the APA when they were designing
and selling torture campaigns a decade ago. IIRC, at the time they were vocally supported by
the then-president who also had ties to some of the companies that were monetizing
interrogation techniques.
No longer being members seems irrelevant to the actions the APA has taken over the years
defending the behavior of these two specifically - and the consistent APA defenses of these
practices in general.
John Smith 10 Jul 2015 16:14
OK, this mind come across as a bit cold, but human rights aside, what most amazes me about
this whole sad affair is that the APA didn't brief the US government about what value of intel
can be gained from torture.
Torture has been found to be excellent in extracting confessions: the subject, once deprived
of all hope and having to rely on their torturer for all emotional support and empathy, will
confess to anything. Even shooting Kennedy.
As a means of securing reliable, actual info, it's worse than useless. Subjects will give
answers to please their captors, and avoid pain.
This is widely known. If the APA didn't pass this advice on, they are actually complicit in
undermining the safety and effectiveness of the US intelligence gathering organisations.
The APA would appear to have been caught up in both a blood lust for terrorists, and root and
branch stupidity. What a mess.
sampson01 10 Jul 2015 16:13
The APA chose to be a rubber stamp for the govt, and allow for its members to be there to
reaserch what the boundries were separating 'enhanced interrogation' and torture. Thus using
human subjects being exposed to enhanced interrogation in an experiment to assess if it was in
fact torture. One of the architects of this program (though hadn't renewed his APA membership)
has admitted (proudly on Fox News) that he personally water boarded a prisoner during an
interagation session.
"...So, to recap: corrupt German companies bribed corrupt Greek politicians to buy German weapons.
And then a German chancellor presses for austerity on the Greek people to pay back the loans they took
out (with Germans banks) at massive interest, for the weapons they bought off them in the first place.
"
"...Debt and war are constant partners."
"...And the reason the USA dominated the world after WW2 was they had stayed out of both wars
for the first 2 years and made fortunes lending and selling arms to Britain (and some to the Axis).
It was the Jewish moneylenders of the Middle Ages who financed the various internal European wars, created
the first banks, and along with a Scot formed the Bank of England."
omewhere in a Greek jail, the former defence minister, Akis Tsochatzopoulos, watches the financial
crisis unfold. I wonder how partly responsible he feels? In 2013, Akis (as he is popularly known)
went down for 20 years, finally succumbing to the waves of financial scandal to which his name had
long been associated. For alongside the lavish spending, the houses and the dodgy tax returns, there
was bribery, and it was the 8m appreciation he received from the German arms dealer, Ferrostaal,
for the Greek government's purchase of Type 214 submarines, that sent him to prison.
There is this idea that the Greeks got themselves into this current mess because they paid themselves
too much for doing too little. Well, maybe. But it's not the complete picture. For the Greeks also
got themselves into debt for the oldest reason in the book one might even argue, for the very reason
that public debt itself was first invented to raise and support an army. The state's need for quick
money to raise an army is how industrial-scale money lending comes into business (in the face of
the church's historic opposition to usury). Indeed, in the west, one might even stretch to say that
large-scale public debt began as a way to finance military intervention in the Middle East ie the
crusades. And just as rescuing Jerusalem from the Turks was the justification for massive military
spending in the middle ages, so the fear of Turkey has been the reason given for recent Greek spending.
Along with German subs, the Greeks have bought French frigates, US F16s and German Leopard 2 tanks.
In the 1980s, for example, the Greeks spent an average of 6.2% of their GDP on defence compared with
a European average of 2.9%. In the years following their EU entry, the Greeks were the world's fourth-highest
spenders on conventional weaponry.
So, to recap: corrupt German companies bribed corrupt Greek politicians to buy German weapons.
And then a German chancellor presses for austerity on the Greek people to pay back the loans
they took out (with Germans banks) at massive interest, for the weapons they bought off them in the
first place. Is this an unfair characterisation? A bit. It wasn't just Germany. And there were
many other factors at play in the escalation of Greek debt. But the postwar difference between the
Germans and the Greeks is not the tired stereotype that the former are hardworking and the latter
are lazy, but rather that, among other things, the Germans have, for obvious reasons, been restricted
in their military spending. And they have benefited massively from that.
Debt and war are constant partners. "The global financial crisis was due, at least in part,
to the war," wrote Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, calculating the cost of the US
intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, pre-financial crash, to have been $3tn. Indeed, it was only
this year, back in March, that the UK taxpayer finally paid off the money we borrowed to fight the
first world war. "This is a moment for Britain to be proud of," said George Osborne, as he paid the
final instalment of £1.9bn. Really?
The phrase "military-industrial complex" is one of those cliches of 70s leftwing radicalism, but
it was Dwight D Eisenhower, a five-star general no less, who warned against its creeping power in
his final speech as president. "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large
arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence economic, political, even
spiritual is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government we
must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved;
so is the very structure of our society." Ike was right.
Speaking to reporters in Washington on Tuesday, Yiannis Bournous, the head of international
affairs for Greece's ruling Syriza party, heartily endorsed defense cuts as a way to meet
the fiscal targets of Greece's international creditors.
"We already proposed a 200 million euro cut in the defense budget," Bournous said at
an event hosted by the Center for Economic Policy and Research and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation,
referring to cuts in Syriza's most recent proposal to its creditors. "We are willing to
make it even bigger -- it is a pleasure for us."
If the report is correct, ideology is playing just as much of a role as arithmetic in
preventing a resolution. The IMF's refusal to consider a plan that would lessen pension
cuts is consistent with itshistorically neoliberal political philosophy.
Giftedbutlazee 3 Jul 2015 11:52
we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the militaryindustrial complex.
Still as relevant now, 54 years after Eisenhower said it.
BritCol 3 Jul 2015 11:39
And the reason the USA dominated the world after WW2 was they had stayed out of both wars
for the first 2 years and made fortunes lending and selling arms to Britain (and some to the Axis).
It was the Jewish moneylenders of the Middle Ages who financed the various internal European wars,
created the first banks, and along with a Scot formed the Bank of England.
The moral? War makes money for profiteers, and puts those of us not killed or displaced in
debt for generations. Yet we morons keep waving flags every time a prime minister wants to send
us into another conflict.
barry1947brewster 3 Jul 2015 11:39
28 May 2014 The Royal United Services Institute estimated that since the Berlin Wall fell the
UK has spent £35 billion on wars. Now it is suggested that we bomb IS in Syria. Instead of printing
"Paid for by the Taxpayer" on medicines provided by the NHS we should have a daily costing of
our expenditure on bombs etc used in anger.
real tic 3 Jul 2015 11:23
Finally someone at Graun looks at this obvious contradiction present in the Greek governments
opposition to cut in defense spending (when they apparently accept cuts to pensions, healthcare
and other social services)! Well done Giles, but what's wrong with your colleagues in CIF, or
even in the glass bubbled editorial offices? Why has it taken so long to examine this aspect of
Greek debt?
Defense expenditure is also one reason some actors in creditor nations are content to keep
Greece in debt, even as far as to see its debts deepen, as long as it keeps on buying. while within
Greece, nationalism within the military has long been a way of containing far right tendencies.
It is notable but unsurprising that the current Minister of Defense in Greece is a far right
politician, allied to Tsipiras in the Syriza coalition.
Pollik 3 Jul 2015 11:03
"Throughout history, debt and war have been constant partners"
"...Neoliberal politicians are well-paid traitors to their own countries and peoples - how much
empathy can be expected of them for anyone else?"
"...When I see expressions like "hard-working" and "sustainable", I stop reading. It is as Orwell
said: ready made plastic expressions rushing in to smother all possibility of an original individual
thought. All this dolt needed to include were "inclusive", "sensitive", "globalised", "aspirational",
"stakeholders", and he would be done."
"...You are quite right about Golden Dawn but I don't think the Troika actually care about
that so much. Its beyond obvious that the Troika care nothing for the Greek population and I think they
would be content with a fascist dictatorship as long as it signs up to austerity."
"...That would not be a bad thing, but I don't think the Euro is seen as an error or a mistake
at all. As Germany has discovered, it is an extremely useful tool in assuring the triumph of greed:
keeping populations poor, unemployed and fearful, so they are more willing to accept the lash of the
markets and agree to bank bailouts, low wages, a diminished social safety-net, trade treaties, etc.,
etc."
The possibility of a Greek exit from the eurozone has never been more likely. We shouldn't be
under any illusions this would be a catastrophe for Greece's eurozone creditors, the Greek state
and the European Union.
Like it or not, we are all in this together. If we continue on our current trajectory, everyone
stands to lose from what now resembles a reckless, self-destructive standoff. The Greek economy is
on the verge of complete collapse. This would not only be devastating for the people of Greece, it
will guarantee that creditors never see their money again. We must remember that Germany has lent
approximately 80bn. This is an astonishing figure, close to a quarter of Greece's budget for 2016.
Yet the sad irony is, the longer the current impasse continues, the greater pressure Angela Merkel
will face within her own party to reject any solution that is accepted by the Greek government.
But much more is at stake than euros. The world will consider a "Grexit" as a devastating blow
for EU monetary cooperation and the European project. A destabilising Grexit will only be welcomed
by the likes of China, Russia and those who are most threatened by a strong, united European Union.
If Greece is to stay within the eurozone, we need to secure a massive de-escalation of the tensions,
rhetoric and threats from both sides and fast. It is time for Greece's finance minister Yanis Varoufakis
and the political leaders of the eurozone to come to their senses and bring this crisis back from
the brink.
Prodisestab -> HolyInsurgent 3 Jul 2015 18:26
Neoliberal politicians are well-paid traitors to their own countries and peoples - how
much empathy can be expected of them for anyone else?
Agreed to a good extent. However, when the discussions broke off Friday night, the two sides
were very close regarding the measures that were needed. I believe that they were off by 60 million
euros only. Their differences were mostly about the types of measures to be taken with the Greek
government wanting more taxes on businesses and the creditors wanting more to be paid by ordinary
people. The problem that I have and that a lot of observers have with that is the fact that the
Greek government did compromize quite a lot while the creditors refused to budge from their inflexible
position despite the fact that implementation of their policies during the last five years has
put the country into a depression. A basic premise of "negotiation" is that both sides make compromises
in order to arrive at a mutually beneficial solution. In this case the creditors demonstrated
total lack of flexibility, which clearly indicates alterior motives at least on the part of some
of the creditors. In Germany they have fed their people with all the hate against "lazy Greeks"
etc that clearly shows up in these messages and in that sense they have themselves created a very
negative environment. I believe that about 90% or so of all the loans that have been given to
Greece went back to the creditors. Greece is not looking for handouts here. This must be understood.
This is a debt crisis that has been mishandled and that has span out of control as a result.
Economic terrorism is not justified under any conditions and particularly within the EZ.
LiveitOut 3 Jul 2015 21:45
When I see expressions like "hard-working" and "sustainable", I stop reading.
It is as Orwell said: ready made plastic expressions rushing in to smother all possibility of
an original individual thought.
All this dolt needed to include were "inclusive", "sensitive", "globalised", "aspirational", "stakeholders",
and he would be done.
How odd all this stuff about hardworking families when we are all being screwed to kingdom come
by hard whoring banking gangsters who have never done a second of useful work in their effing
lives --
The Greek economy is on the verge of complete collapse. This would not only be devastating
for the people of Greece, it will guarantee that creditors never see their money again.
The debt has been known to be unpayable for a long time. It has nothing to do with current events
in Greece. It should have been written off.
No one believes anything Alexis Tsipras says anymore, and this is why a yes vote on Sunday
is crucial. But it's also clear eurozone leaders have made mistakes with Greece.
But despite their nonsenses the latter group somehow, mysteriously, retain credibility. It was
not the antics of Tsiparis that brought about this mess but the behaviour of his 'credible' opponents.
Greece and its creditors agree a three-month window to develop a long-term reform programme
combined with an investment package to turn Greece's ailing economy around.
Now you are getting close to the Syriza position.
Let us use this crisis to deliver real, sustainable change by drawing up a settlement in
the next three months in which the Greek state, its government and its administration are paying
back the debts, instead of forcing hard-working citizens to pay the bill.
Is that before or after the twenty-year moratorium on debt implied by the IMF?
From the burning embers of two world wars, we have created a single market with free movement
of people, goods, services and capital.
And the freedom to avoid taxes.
PaleMan -> jonbryce 3 Jul 2015 12:59
You are quite right about Golden Dawn but I don't think the Troika actually care about
that so much.
Its beyond obvious that the Troika care nothing for the Greek population and I think they would
be content with a fascist dictatorship as long as it signs up to austerity.
Danny Sheahan 3 Jul 2015 12:59
No one believes the ECB or the EU leadership anymore.
If they were serious about the Euro as a strong functional currency this mess would not be
so big.
They would not have had to flush out private German and French bad debt in the 2nd bailout
by putting it on the tax payer, or those countries would have had to step in to hep their banks
and political careers would have been over.
The ECB has become a political football and it cannot maintain stability in its currency region.
It is a failed central bank.
Vilos_Cohaagen 3 Jul 2015 12:58
"The Greek economy is on the verge of complete collapse. This would not only be devastating
for the people of Greece, it will guarantee that creditors never see their money again."
The problem is that there's no scenario where the creditors do get paid back. So, why (for
a start) "lend" them 60 billion more Euros? Wiping the debt completely out just means that the
Greeks can start accumulating new "debt" they'll have no intention to re-pay and will be defaulting
on a few years down the line.
BusinessWriter 3 Jul 2015 12:52
it will guarantee that creditors never see their money again.
Crazy - this Guy actually thinks the creditors have any chance of seeing their money again
- what planet is he on.
As for his idea that the Greek state (or any state for that matter that doesn't control its own
currency) can pay of its debt independent of the taxpaying public - it's deluded nonsense.
Where is the Greek state supposed to get the billions of euro from? The only source of revenue
it has is taxes or selling assets that it holds on behalf of the citizens of Greece.
Equally, the idea that the clientelist state is somehow a separate thing to the majority of
the Greek people is nonsense. So many of them are either employed by the state or in professions
protected from competition by the state or in companies that only serve the state. Identifying
anyone who doesn't benefit in some way from the current clientelist state would be like looking
for an ATM in Athens with cash in it on Monday morning.
This Guy is just another symptom of the problem - he offers no sustainable solution - and what
he does offer is incoherent and too late.
fullgrill -> elliot2511 3 Jul 2015 12:51
That would not be a bad thing, but I don't think the Euro is seen as an error or a mistake
at all. As Germany has discovered, it is an extremely useful tool in assuring the triumph of greed:
keeping populations poor, unemployed and fearful, so they are more willing to accept the lash
of the markets and agree to bank bailouts, low wages, a diminished social safety-net, trade treaties,
etc., etc.
whichone 3 Jul 2015 12:50
"Syriza's game is up. No one believes anything Alexis Tsipras says anymore"
well 1) it looks like 50% of the Greeks believe him
2) The IMF (and Merkel in leaked notes) have acknowledged that the debt is unsustainable even
if Greece accept all conditions imposed by the Troika.
Varoufakis has been saying this since the start. So lets no longer pretend that this is all
about getting the money back or that Greece wants to avoid its responsibility to its creditors
: again will say Varoufakis has said the Greek government does not want to do this. The point
is he and many other knowledgeable people (not politicians) know that it can not be paid back
, but with the conditions in place to allow the economy to start to grow then Greece has a chance
to pay some of it back. This is about bringing a Government to heel. I wish the Guardian , having
continually reported on this crisis and knows what has been said allows a contributor to use the
paper as propaganda.
And I hope that all those people who purposely said that a 'NO' vote means a no to Greece in
the Euro and EU after a 'NO' result and surprise surprise Greece is still in the Euro, get thrown
to the Wolves.
The same is goes with the comments about Varoufakis playing Game theory. He denied this basically
saying that those who say this obviously don't know the first thing about Game Theory.
badluc TheSighingDutchman 3 Jul 2015 12:48
Genuine question: correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the electorates of Germany, Netherlands,
Finland etc been consistently fed by most of their politicians (and newspapers) a completely mistaken
"morality tale" about what the root causes of the problems are, blaming inefficient and corrupt
governments who borrowed too much, without mentioning either the reckless lenders (mainly German,
French, Dutch etc banks), were silent about the shifting of the burden of bad lending from the
banks to the EU taxpayers (did they ever acknowledge that clearly?!?), describing the solution
as a punitive austerity which would somehow bring moribund economies back from the abyss, etc?
Politicians have a duty to be frank and sincere with their electorate, sharing with them all the
relevant data they have on a given problem. If they have been feeding them misguided rhetoric,
they have only themselves to blame if the chickens now come home to roost. In other words, if
the electorate would now revolt against the inevitable, don't the politicians of those countries
who have most strongly supported and advocated austerity have only themselves to blame?
SouthSeas 3 Jul 2015 12:48
Germany has lent 80bn to Greece to pay back loans from German banks
RudolphS 3 Jul 2015 12:47
While Verhofstadt calls for a cooling-off period he at the same time claims 'Syriza's game
is up' and is urging the Greek people to vote 'yes' next sunday. With the latter he shows his
true colours as just another Brussels eurocrat, and is only fuelling debate instead of cooling-off.
Dear Mr. Verhofstadt, why the hell do you think the Greek voted en masse for a party like Syriza?
Because they are sick and tired of people like you.
And yes, there much more at stake than a debt. Putin must be watching this whole spectacle
with total bewilderment how the EU is crippling itself from the inside.
Rainborough 3 Jul 2015 12:47
Anyone who is in danger of being impressed by conservative politician Guy Verhofstadt's perspective
on Greek problems might like to bear in mknd that among his numerous other highly lucrative financial
interests is his position on the board of the multi-billion Belgian investment company Sofina,
whose interests include a stake in the highly controversial planned privatization of the Thessaloniki
water utility.
hatewarmongers OscarD 3 Jul 2015 12:46
The neoliberal elite don't
SHappens 3 Jul 2015 12:17
In a democracy people can chose their fate by voting or through referendum. That's the way
it goes but not in Europe where referendum are seen as a danger to the establishment. Tsipras,
as soon as he came to power through a democratic vote was seen as a danger. He was ostracized
and considered a pariah, Greece became a pariah state and they can as well die from hunger.
The EU, and institutions have behaved like the little bullies they are, just like they did
with Switzerland after the vote on immigration, they threat, blackmail everyone who dare think
different.
For the sake of democracy, the Greeks have to vote no, there is no other decent alternatives
especially after all the bashing and disrespect they have been under. Nobody in EU and US (since
they have their say in european affairs) want to see Greece walking away, nor Russia or China
for that matter. But Tsipras had the opportunity to see where his real allies stand, and it is
not within Europe. He might not forget this in the future.
mfederighi 3 Jul 2015 12:09
You are entirely right in suggesting that the only sustainable solution is a far-reaching reform
programme for the Greek state and the reek economy. However, when you say that:
Greece's people must be at the centre of such a settlement. They did not cause this crisis
and remain the victims of successive Greek governments, who have protected vested interests
and the Greek clientelist system at their expense.
You seem to think that vested interest and the reek clientelist system are distinct from the
Greek people. There is, I am afraid, a substantial overlap - that is, quite a few people benefit
from clientelism and are part of vested interests. Not recognising this is disingenuous.
After all, corrupt and inefficient governments have been elected again and again - by whom?
jimmywalter 3 Jul 2015 12:06
The Banks solution is no solution - it means poverty and no taxes to pay to repay. The Banks
want a Treaty of Versailles. We all know of a certain Austrian that rose up to end the German
economic collapse. We all know how that ended. I don't want that again. People revolt over economics.
Spain, Italy, and Greece have huge numbers of unemployeed who did nothing to create this crisis.
The Banks did. Who should pay? Anyway, leave the Euro, stay in the EU!
"...As U.S.-operated drones rain down Hellfire (missiles) on brown-skinned folks not named Smith,
Jones or Thomas, you have to grasp that this too will change. How long can that technology remain under
the exclusive control and purview of the US military "intelligence"?! Maybe a decade, at most? Then
what shall those military death figures look like? . During the post-Berlin Wall "peace dividend" era, our country has spent infinitely more blood, treasure
and prestige on advancing our ability to kill, destroy and incarcerate lives than we have in saving
and improving lives. IMHO, it is nearly inevitable that this misspent era will come home to roost in
unpredictable ways over the next 20-30 years. We can always pivot and change course, but that may have
little or no bearing on what others will do."
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and
lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I
have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation
into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility
in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
9 Responses to "Global Deaths in Conflict Since the Year 1400"
Saw much of the "Apocalypse WWI" show on The American Heroes Channel recently. 10 million soldiers
killed, 20 million wounded. And then there was the major flu influenza which killed another 30
million in 1918 around the world.
RiverboatGambler: The Thirty Year's War ended in 1648. My guess is that everyone was so disgusted
with the war and its effects that it took a while to work up steam for the next fight. Until fairly
late in the 20th century you'd hear Germans say that something in miserable shape "was just something
the Swedes left." The war was ended when Queen Christina in Sweden decided it had gone on long
enough. She later abdicated and retired to the Vatican, probably concerned for her sole.
World Wars I and II were pretty horrific. The Europeans were pretty damned sick of war by 1945.
The whole EU, political and economic flow from the European revulsion with those two wars.
Dear Riverboat Gambler: You might want to pull out a magnifying glass because the military
deaths are climbing sharply and that's with the latest, greatest (pretty incredible really) medical
advances saving lives that would have been lost just a decade ago. Between that and the apparent
secular nature of these trends seem to fly squarely in the face of your rose-colored perspective.
Care to expound?
Note that the web site that this chart comes from has many other interesting charts Here is
a link to the root of the site: http://ourworldindata.org/
It provides the charts bundled into a set of presentations. Including ones looking at longer term
issues of violet death rates and the like.
Nuclear weapons, the easy way to destroy far away enemies, has been avoided because the various
costs are so very high.
Large scale conventional bombing suffers from inefficiency and bad optics.
Targeted drone assualts make killing foreigners efficient and inexpensive. For example, one
human in the Western world kills one or more specific humans in the not-Western world from across
the globe using radio controlled weapons. No radiation, no flattened obstetricians, increasing
efficiency, and falling cost of technology.
In combination with recent federalization of decision making power, particularly domestic spying
and the non-criminalization of the US government killing its own wayward overseas citizens, I
see a wonderous new era on the horizon.
@nokidding: Your thoughts on the deterrent power associated with nuclear weapons assumes a
fairly rational world populated with fairly rational homo sapien actors. Sounds like science-fiction
to my eyes and ears. I'd welcome you to conduct a 5-10 minute foray using Google or DuckDuckGo
on the topic of nuclear near-misses, accidents, live (untriggered) nuclear warheads falling from
military aircraft, and take your thesis for another spin.
As U.S.-operated drones rain down Hellfire (missiles) on brown-skinned folks not named Smith,
Jones or Thomas, you have to grasp that this too will change. How long can that technology remain
under the exclusive control and purview of the US military "intelligence"?! Maybe a decade, at
most? Then what shall those military death figures look like?
During the post-Berlin Wall "peace dividend" era, our country has spent infinitely more blood,
treasure and prestige on advancing our ability to kill, destroy and incarcerate lives than we
have in saving and improving lives. IMHO, it is nearly inevitable that this misspent era will
come home to roost in unpredictable ways over the next 20-30 years. We can always pivot and change
course, but that may have little or no bearing on what others will do.
Washington has been leading a policy of economic espionage against France for more than a decade
by intercepting communications of the Finance minister and all corporate contracts valued at more
than $200 million, according to a new WikiLeaks report.
The revelations come in line with the ongoing
publications of top secret documents from the US surveillance operations against France, dubbed by
the whistleblowing site "Espionnage
Ιlysιe."
The Monday publications consist of seven top secret documents which detail the American National
Security Agency's (NSA) economic espionage operations against Paris.
According to the WikiLeaks report, "NSA has been tasked with obtaining intelligence on all
aspects of the French economy, from government policy, diplomacy, banking and participation in international
bodies to infrastructural development, business practices and trade activities."
The documents allegedly show that Washington has started spying on the French economic sector
as early as 2002. WikiLeaks said that some documents were authorized for sharing with NSA's Anglophone
partners the so-called "Five Eyes" group Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK.
The report strongly suggests that the UK has also benefited from the US economic espionage activities
against France.
"The United States not only uses the results of this spying itself, but swaps these intercepts
with the United Kingdom. Do French citizens deserve to know that their country is being taken to
the cleaners by the spies of supposedly allied countries? Mais oui!" said WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange in a statement on Monday.
The documents published on Monday also reveal US spying on the conversations and communications
the French Finance Minister, a French Senator, officials within the Treasury and Economic Policy
Directorate, the French ambassador to the US, and officials with "direct responsibility for EU trade
policy."
The leaked NSA documents reveal internal French deliberation and policy on the World Trade Organization,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the G7 and the G20, the 2013 French budget, the decline
of the automotive industry in France, and the involvement of French companies in the Oil for Food
program in Iraq during the 1990s, the report said.
"The US has been conducting economic espionage against France for more than a decade. Not
only has it spied on the French Finance Minister, it has ordered the interception of every French
company contract or negotiation valued at more than $200 million," said Assange.
"That covers not only all of France's major companies, from BNP Paribas, AXA and Credit
Agricole to Peugeot and Renault, Total and Orange, but it also affects the major French farming
associations. $200 million is roughly 3,000 French jobs. Hundreds of such contracts are signed
every year."
On June 23, WikiLeaks announced a plan to reveal a new collection of reports and documents on
the NSA, concerning its alleged interception of communications within the French government over
the last ten years.
In the first tranche of leaked documents WikiLeaks claimed that NSA targeted high-level officials
in Paris including French presidents Francois Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac, as well
as cabinet ministers and the French Ambassador to the US.
Despite the tapping claims made by WikiLeaks, US President Barack Obama has assured his French
counterpart Francois Hollande that Washington hasn't been spying on Paris top officials.
Hollande, on his part, released a statement saying that the spying is "unacceptable" and "France
will not tolerate it."
It's not the first time that the NSA has been revealed to be spying on European leaders. According
to documents leaked by Edward Snowden and published at the end of 2013 the US intelligence agency
had previously targeted the phone of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The tapping scandal is
believed to have created a rift between Washington and Berlin.
The US collects the information through spy operations regardless of its sensitivity, as it has
the ability to do so, Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst told RT.
"It's hard to be surprised by any revelations of this kind," he said. "The snooping
is conducted because it's possible to conduct it. In a new way we have a technical collection
on steroids. The President of the US said that just because we can collect this material, doesn't
mean we should. The thing has a momentum, an inertia of its own. Since about ten years ago it
has become possible to collect everything, and that's precisely what we're doing."
Canon Collins Educational and Legal Assistance Trust is alarmed both that GCHQ has been monitoring
and retaining the electronic communications of the
Legal Resources Centre and other international
NGOs and, despite breaches of process, that this should be ruled lawful (Rights
groups targeted by GCHQ spies, 23 June). The supposed balance between the security interests
of the state and the rights of citizens is currently not a balance at all, but a lopsided and unhealthy
bias towards the former. We urge the government to make known all the facts in this case and to ensure
that the rights of citizens in the UK and elsewhere are respected. Sandy Balfour
CEO, Canon Collins Educational
and Legal Assistance Trust
Am I the only person to be appalled that a US drone operation in a country not at war Yemen
is called Widowmaker (UK
faces call to explain role in US drone killing in Yemen, 25 June)? We have known for a long time
about some of the activities of NSA/NRO Menwith Hill, Denver and Alice Springs thanks to Edward Snowden
and others. A small group of people are at the gates of this most secretive and unaccountable US
base every Tuesday evening and has been there for nearly 15 years. We are awaiting for a brave, courageous,
principled and honest whistleblower like Edward Snowden to come out of the Menwith Hill woodwork. Lindis Percy Joint coordinator, Campaign for the
Accountability of American Bases
While the legal framework under which
GCHQ shares intelligence with the
US on drone strikes is an important issue, the direct role of NSA facilities located in the UK should
be the subject of investigation. Through the monitoring of electronic communications, combined with
satellite imagery, Menwith Hill plays a crucial role in US military power projection, including extra-judicial
killings by drone and missile strikes. The least we should expect is a parliamentary investigation
into the legality of NSA operations in the UK and a full, informed debate as to whether their continued
presence is in our interests. Steven Schofield Bradford
"...Let's just call it what it is. Mind rape." . "...'The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the less possible will it become
to have reasonable online discussions.' Which is the exact purpose of trolling, ever since the
internet became an alternate way of communication to gain awareness about issues TPTB/MSM would prefer
to bury, hide, distort, confuse, manipulate, lie, detract, deflect, digress, warp or deviate. GCHQ/NSA/Mossad
et al have elevated trolling to a professional level, with special budgets and official programs attached
to MILINT and foreign offices working 24/7 to advance their plans and take advantage of people's ignorance
and naivete about the internet world. It's the hasbara operatives multiplied exponentially to perpetuate
ignorance and confusion among the masses. " . "...It is unlikely that the British GHCQ is the only secret service using these tactics. Other government
as well as private interests can be assumed to use similar means. . To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" is exactly what
Internet trolls are doing in the comment sections of blogs and news sites. Usually though on a smaller
scale than the GHCQ and alike. The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the
less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions." . "...In the paranoid world of the web it is a badge of honor to claim you are being targeted
by the PTB. Sites that don't pose much threat to the status quo feel left out and have to create hidden
enemies so anyone who resists the dogma and groupthink must be branded as paid trolls. "
Glenn Greenwald atThe Intercept provides
new
material from the Snowden stash.
The British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
includes a "Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group" which "provides most of GCHQ's cyber
effects and online HUMINT capability. It currently lies at the leading edge of cyber influence practice
and expertise." In 2011 the JTRIG had 120 people on its staff.
Here are some of its methods, used in support of British policies like for regime change in Syria
and Zimbabwe:
All of JTRIG's operations are conducted using cyber technology. Staff described a range of methods/techniques
that have been used to-date for conducting effects operations. These included:
Setting up Facebook groups, forums, blogs and Twitter accounts that encourage and monitor
discussion on a topic (to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt)
Establishing online aliases/personalities who support the communications or messages in
YouTube videos, Facebook groups, forums, blogs etc
Establishing online aliases/personalities who support other aliases
Sending spoof e-mails and text messages from a fake person or mimicking a real person (to
discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deceive, deter, delay or disrupt)
Providing spoof online resources such as magazines and books that provide inaccurate information
(to disrupt, delay, deceive, discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter or denigrate/degrade)
Providing online access to uncensored material (to disrupt)
Sending instant messages to specific individuals giving them instructions for accessing
uncensored websites
Setting up spoof trade sites (or sellers) that may take a customer's money and/or send
customers degraded or spoof products (to deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive,
discredit, dissuade or deter)
Interrupting (i.e., filtering, deleting, creating or modifying) communications between
real customers and traders (to deny, disrupt, delay, deceive, dissuade or deter)
Taking over control of online websites (to deny, disrupt, discredit or delay)
Denial of telephone and computer service (to deny, delay or disrupt)
Hosting targets' online communications/websites for collecting SIGINT (to disrupt, delay,
deter or deny)
Contacting host websites asking them to remove material (to deny, disrupt, delay, dissuade
or deter)
It is unlikely that the British GHCQ is the only secret service using these tactics. Other government
as well as private interests can be assumed to use similar means.
To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" is exactly
what Internet trolls are doing in the comment sections of blogs and news sites. Usually though on
a smaller scale than the GHCQ and alike. The more these services grow and their methods proliferate
the less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions.
Fortunately, much of what they do is so ham-fisted and amateurish that only the gullible are
gulled (which pretty much explains why ALL of the patsies convicted in ter'rism frame-ups are
dimwits or cretins). Those pathetic cut & paste YouTube clips of NATO's "rebels" in Syria, swinging
briefly from behind some cover and firing (in a frenzy) at unseen targets or empty streets are
beyond ludicrous on many levels.
I'm unaware of any school of firearms use and techniques which encourages the firing of a weapon
merely because the bearer has plenty of spare ammo.
Lone Wolf | Jun 22, 2015 12:58:23 PM | 3
@b
The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the less possible will it
become to have reasonable online discussions.
Which is the exact purpose of trolling, ever since the internet became an alternate way of
communication to gain awareness about issues TPTB/MSM would prefer to bury, hide, distort, confuse,
manipulate, lie, detract, deflect, digress, warp or deviate. GCHQ/NSA/Mossad et al have elevated
trolling to a professional level, with special budgets and official programs attached to MILINT
and foreign offices working 24/7 to advance their plans and take advantage of people's ignorance
and naivete about the internet world. It's the hasbara operatives multiplied exponentially to
perpetuate ignorance and confusion among the masses.
Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 22, 2015 1:23:26 PM | 4
And don't forget that US/UK/NATO's Imperial Ambitions are rooted in greed and cowardice. Cowards
can never successfully project courage and resolve. Their over-compensation for ingrained cultural
short-comings always shows through.
NATO, for example, has yet to appoint a "Leader" whose demeanor doesn't resemble the un-charismatic
behaviour of a 6th Form Prefect at a Girl's College.
Watching these sissies strutting around their (private) stage, pretending to be Tough Guys
is funnier than Laurel & Hardy + the Three Stooges.
And the sincerity ... Tony Bliar where are you?
harry law | Jun 22, 2015 1:25:40 PM | 5
I still think it is possible to have online discussions, I agree with Hoarsewhisperer thinking
political types cannot be influenced [to any significant degree] by trolls. The only way they
can win is if you forget this golden rule "Never argue with stupid people trolls, they will
drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
― Mark Twain
And talking about hasbara, there is a petition requesting a billion dollars for "putting
lipstick on the pig" as a poster accurately described it above. No matter how much money zionazis
allow for hasbara trolls, a zionazi pig will always be a zionazi pig (my apologies to the animal
kingdom for the comparison.)
(...)Readers will recall that I have criticized the abysmal performance of Israeli public
diplomacy (PD) and its failure to present its case assertively and articulately to the world.
To recap briefly
I likened the effects of this failure to those of the HIV virus that destroys the nation's
immune system, leaving it unable to resist any outside pressures no matter how outlandish or outrageous.
Given the gravity of the threat, I prescribed that, as prime minister, my first order of business
would be to assign adequate resources to address the dangers precipitated by this failure.
To this end I stipulated that up to $1 billion should be allotted for the war on the
PD front, and demonstrated that this sum was eminently within Israel's ability to raise, comprising
less than 0.5 percent of GDP and under 1 percent of the state budget(...)
To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" communications
on the internet is the cyber equivalent of the US/UK's 'real world' policy of death, devastation
and destruction in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen and 'austerity' at home
in the US/UK/EU.
The 5-eyes and their European vassals, under control of the 5-eyed 5th column comprising the
government of the EU, are the largest single source of negativity on earth.
And their fantastically expensive pursuit of all these openly negative outcomes has come at
the cost of actually addressing any of our world's myriad real problems. Grillions in defense
of the perceived interests of the 1%, not a cent for the interests of the planet and humanity.
Wow! It's as if no one ever heard of psyops before, not to mention Cointelpro. The only new
wrinkle, though certainly worth noting, is that computers are now targeted. But seriously, who
really believed the imperialists would *not* be doing shit like this?
ToivoS | Jun 23, 2015 1:50:22 AM | 21
Possibly relevant to b's current topic is the comments sections at Russia Today. Those comments
have always looked to me as a real snake pit. There has always been some very ugly antisemitic
comments there. I noticed in the last week that their stories on crime in America have been deluged
with some of the worst white racist- antiblack comments. I kept wondering -- why would stories
in the Russian press attract such virulent anti (American) black comments? It seems the most likely
reason is that some outside agency is trying to discredit RT by showing only American racist read
it.
Almand | Jun 23, 2015 2:04:04 AM | 22
@TovioS
To be fair, a lot of real American nutjobs do frequent the RT comment section, since in the good
old USA, RT is treated as an "alternative" news source akin to Alex Jones' "Prison Planet". And
there is still a ton of ugly, virulent racism in the comments section of the New York Times, WaPo,
Fox News (especially)... they just seem to have bigger vocabularies.
It seems the most likely reason is that some outside agency is trying to discredit RT by showing
only American racist read it.
You got it. While this topic is about UK and their spies trying to disrupt, deceive, discredit,
etc. etc., but US and Israel are doing it for longer and on much greater scale. They took
manipulation of masses to such level (mass and social media, (mis)education, misusing science,
etc), that even Goebbels could only have dreamed about it.
Speaking of social media, there were reports in recent years of US having ten of thousands
employees focusing exclusively on social media. Each using software which helps to maintain x10
unique poster profiles. I think b' wrote about it as well. Therefore just US has 100.000+ of daily
"posters" all around the World, trying to push US agenda. Who knows what is total number of Western
propaganda trolls, and I bet the number is ever increasing.
This is surely going to render a lot of the new media ineffective in terms of obtaining fast
and accurate information. How the hell are we going to stop these bastards?
lysias | Jun 23, 2015 11:03:31 AM | 33
Let us remember that it was Obama staffer and adviser Cass Sunstein (Samantha
Power's husband) who advised "cognitive infiltration" of the Internet by the government.
Wayoutwest | Jun 23, 2015 11:50:46 AM | 35
In the paranoid world of the web it is a badge of honor to claim you are
being targeted by the PTB. Sites that don't pose much threat to the status quo feel left out and
have to create hidden enemies so anyone who resists the dogma and groupthink must be branded as
paid trolls.
I've witnessed a number of apparent operatives exposed on other blogs and they are usually easy
to identify but some are clever and they rarely return once they see people are watching and know
the difference between disagreement and deception.
Inconsistency. This may seem counter-intuitive, but they argue in the here-and-now,
against some other, usually only one, fact(s) / opinion / general trend from the past half hour.
In this way they sometimes contradict themselves or mix things up, or use arguments that couldn't
co-exist.
Impersonality. One more, counter-intuitive (specially as a common tactic is ad hominems,
insults, etc. to disrupt no matter what.) They are not involved in the discussion and probably
doing something else at the same time. This also means they don't answer questions (or only
rarely), don't quote sources (much), never agree with any another poster, and never raise issues
or ask genuine questions. (Any questions usually contain a pre-supposition, such as 'did
the captain beat his wife today?')
Persistence. An ordinary person appalled and frightened by crazed conspiracy theorists
tends to check out quickly.
Ad hominems bis. Brow-beating, authority card (sometimes some fake expertise is pulled
in, like being a pilot, worked in finance), because there is nothing other left to do
Posting during the same time each day, posting a similar amount of posts / words. Acceptable
sentence structure and OK spelling with a flat, pedestrian, vocabulary. It is paid work, after
all, quite similar to 'customer service for the complaints' (and note the cuteness of all words
beginning with D lame )
Being male and aged around 20+ - 36, maybe 40, that is presenting a persona in that
age range. Men are still much more respected than women on the intertubes, and afaik women are
asked to adopt a male persona and be 'aggressive' (Paul pilot, not Paula florist..)
I don't think all this is too effective, except in the sense of polarisation, getting ppl to
hysterically takes sides, create divisions, and so on. As a propaganda tool it is pretty much
a failure. The pay is low (no nos. does anyone know?) For now there is no Union of 'trolls',
as they are supposed to act sub rosa.
:) They should get together (from all sides) and set up a troll Union as 'propaganda agents'
and apply for membership in the ITUC!
Glenn Greenwald atThe Intercept
provides
new
material from the Snowden stash.
The British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
includes a "Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group" which "provides most of GCHQ's cyber
effects and online HUMINT capability. It currently lies at the leading edge of cyber influence practice
and expertise." In 2011 the JTRIG had 120 people on its staff.
Here are some of its methods, used in support of British policies like for regime change in Syria
and Zimbabwe:
All of JTRIG's operations are conducted using cyber technology. Staff described a range of methods/techniques
that have been used to-date for conducting effects operations. These included:
Setting up Facebook groups, forums, blogs and Twitter accounts that encourage and monitor
discussion on a topic (to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt)
Establishing online aliases/personalities who support the communications or messages in
YouTube videos, Facebook groups, forums, blogs etc
Establishing online aliases/personalities who support other aliases
Sending spoof e-mails and text messages from a fake person or mimicking a real person (to
discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deceive, deter, delay or disrupt)
Providing spoof online resources such as magazines and books that provide inaccurate information
(to disrupt, delay, deceive, discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter or denigrate/degrade)
Providing online access to uncensored material (to disrupt)
Sending instant messages to specific individuals giving them instructions for accessing
uncensored websites
Setting up spoof trade sites (or sellers) that may take a customer's money and/or send
customers degraded or spoof products (to deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive,
discredit, dissuade or deter)
Interrupting (i.e., filtering, deleting, creating or modifying) communications between
real customers and traders (to deny, disrupt, delay, deceive, dissuade or deter)
Taking over control of online websites (to deny, disrupt, discredit or delay)
Denial of telephone and computer service (to deny, delay or disrupt)
Hosting targets' online communications/websites for collecting SIGINT (to disrupt, delay,
deter or deny)
Contacting host websites asking them to remove material (to deny, disrupt, delay, dissuade
or deter)
It is unlikely that the British GHCQ is the only secret service using these tactics. Other government
as well as private interests can be assumed to use similar means.
To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" is exactly
what Internet trolls are doing in the comment sections of blogs and news sites. Usually though on
a smaller scale than the GHCQ and alike. The more these services grow and their methods proliferate
the less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions.
"..."It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and
they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn't it?" he said to applause."
At rally of young people in Turin, Francis issues his toughest condemnation to date of the
weapons industry, criticizing investors as well as workers
People who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves
Christian, Pope Francis said on Sunday.
Duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another --
-- Pope Francis
Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry at a rally of thousands
of young people at the end of the first day of his trip to the Italian city of Turin. "If you trust only men you have lost," he told the young people in a long commentary about war,
trust and politics, after putting aside his prepared address.
"It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and
they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn't it?" he said to applause.
He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying "duplicity is the currency of
today ... they say one thing and do another."
Francis also built on comments he has made in the past about events during the first and second
world wars. He spoke of the "tragedy of the Shoah", using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.
"The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration
camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn't they bomb (the
railway lines)?"
Discussing the first world war, he spoke of "the great tragedy of Armenia", but did not use the
word "genocide". Francis sparked a diplomatic row in April, calling the massacre of up to 1.5 million
Armenians 100 years ago "the first genocide of the 20th century", prompting Turkey to recall its
ambassador to the Vatican.
"...His talks are sure to draw Putin's ire as Moscow chafes under the prospect of continued sanctions." . "...It is the US whose belligerent and bellicose tune needs changing." . "...Finally, I find it curious that even with billions of dollars worth of satellites hovering
over the Ukraine/Russia border and numerous teams of observers, not one of the claims of "Russian armored
columns" has been substantiated with solid evidence. Rather, the pictures that have been presented to
date have all been exposed as fakes (pictures that were actually taken in Georgia in 2008, for example)." . "...Freudian slip, maybe. He's just voicing the intentions of the US policy elite, "regime change"
in Russia just like anywhere else with a government that doesn't bend over like Britain." . "...Well, at least an acknowledgement of limits of 'soft-power' tactics near RU borders, the
ante will always be upped on the one hand. The bolstering he speaks of is really a bolstering of lost
authority, thus the requirement for more weapons to give needed 'confidence'. Estonia, PL etc. now require
substantial 'trip-wire' forces in post-Obama Europe, and least in the minds of leaders of said nations."
A key theme at all his stops will be how the United States, Nato and other partners can best deal
with the Kremlin in the wake of Moscow's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region and its military backing
of separatists battling Ukraine's government on the eastern border.
But part of the calculus, Carter said, will be a new playbook for Nato that deals with Russia's aggression
while also recognising its important role in the nuclear talks with Iran, the fight against Islamic
State militants and a peaceful political transition in Syria.
... ... ...
Officials said Carter, who left Washington on Sunday, plans to encourage allied ministers to better
work together in countering threats facing Europe. His talks are sure to draw Putin's ire as Moscow
chafes under the prospect of continued sanctions.
kowalli -> peacefulmilitant 22 Jun 2015 00:04
oh come on, they will sacrifice Ukraine, Poland, baltic states, it will became new
Afghanistan. They will blame Russia for this and for economic meltdown too.
USA will sign TTP,TiSa, etc .
Right now you are just spounting nonsense (c)
Phil Greene 22 Jun 2015 00:03
It is the US whose belligerent and bellicose tune needs changing.
FiendNCheeses 22 Jun 2015 00:01
Russia suffered through 70 years of communism followed by another 7 years of the Western-backed,
drunken puppet, Boris Yeltsin. Love him or hate him, Putin turned that country around for the
better.
He doesn't want Russia to become another vassal of the West which is another reason why he's so
popular in his country and why he's so hated by the powers that be in the West. It will be a long
time before Putin retires but when he does, you can bet the Russian people will not accept anyone
who doesn't share their and Putin's vision for Russia.
I also doubt whether Russians share Carter's characterization of Western values as being 'forward
looking', rather, I suspect they consider the West as regressing exponentially. An honest, introspective
look at ourselves would reveal that maybe they're right.
Finally, I find it curious that even with billions of dollars worth of satellites hovering
over the Ukraine/Russia border and numerous teams of observers, not one of the claims of "Russian
armored columns" has been substantiated with solid evidence. Rather, the pictures that have been
presented to date have all been exposed as fakes (pictures that were actually taken in Georgia
in 2008, for example).
I couldn't care less if Russia supplied the rebels with weapons - seriously, after they overthrew
that country's democratically-elected president, Ukraine deserves to lose - but at least show
some solid, incontrovertible proof instead of relying solely on unsubstantiated propaganda.
NazMan 22 Jun 2015 00:00
Ash carter say 'blah blah blah' interpreted. Our president has now aimed our current missiles
to Russian targets, but lets not talk about that. Putin replies 'blah blah blah... We have just
ordered 40 ballistic missiles. Blah blah blah.' And the world watches as we go into another nuclear
arms race. We did all this in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Will our leaders never learn?
adognow ID5868758 21 Jun 2015 23:58
Freudian slip, maybe. He's just voicing the intentions of the US policy elite, "regime change"
in Russia just like anywhere else with a government that doesn't bend over like Britain.
Of course, by Einstein's definition, they're all insane because every "regime change" action has
resulted in nothing but abject failure and bloodbaths, and these assholes still continue peddling
the same rubbish.
Viktor Korsakov 21 Jun 2015 23:56
Yeah well Ash Carter is another naive numpty. Putin can be elected as President in 2018 and
if he didn't then his buddy Shoigu would. I hate the man, I have far more isolationist and aggressive
views, as do others, which is why the west should be glad he does such a fine job at appeasing
such people but not going as far to completely alienate those in Russian politics that would have
more cooperation with other countries.
Shame that not many outside the country understand that, the Crimean move was all about internal
politics while the rest of the murky and chaotic Ukrainian issue came as an unintended and uncontrollable
result.
Culturally, the everyday Russian citizen such as myself hates how the cost of living is rising
and how our life savings are being made worthless because of all this bollocks, but we understand
that a united country is important and would sooner blame foreign influence than betray a leader.
It's irritating that people thought sanctions would ever inspire some revolution or in the very
least weaken the ruling party, but rather it's quite the opposite here.
kowalli -> centerline 21 Jun 2015 23:39
It's not about nukes - USA have nuke in Europe, Israel have nukes( wtf really?) in german-made
subs, China have, etc.
it's about self-defence -> you don't have nukes -> USA will bomb you and steal your resources
and gold
Libya - gold stolen by USSA, Ukraine - gold stolen by USSA, etc...
AtraHasis 21 Jun 2015 23:38
For a start, Putin doesn't seem like he's intending on leaving any time soon.
On top of that, Russia sees the US as a genuine threat. Considering US behaviour in Europe, not
to mention their aggressive posturing in Asia, I can't say that I blame them.
I wonder if the US realises that they're just perpetuating the conditions which ensure Russia
will demand an aggressive leader in response. Not to mention the exclusionary tactics of the incoming
TPP-style policies.
Why do you think Russia is setting up as many trade deals as possible right now? Because both
they and China will be backed into a corner by the these policies. If we're not careful, we could
genuinely have a new Cold War on our hands. Hell, we may already.
Mike Purdon -> Zepp 21 Jun 2015 23:34
Its easy to call Medvedev a puppet but Russia's posture was significantly different under his
leadership. I would be more inclined to believe that is why Putin came back in the first place,
Profhambone 21 Jun 2015 23:30
Great. What happened when the USSR moved missiles into Cuba after the US move missiles into
Turkey? What would we do if Russia began to arm Mexico with equipment and an alliance?
Oh yeah, the Old Monroe Doctrine that no one ask the South Americans if they wanted it put
on them. But then they are not exceptional like Amerikans are. We're kinda like the Germans during
the late 30's and early 40's in the way we have thought about ourselves .......
Mike Purdon ID9492736 21 Jun 2015 23:29
Its clear the US is simply signalling they are in for the long game. Its part message to Russia
but also a message for Europe as Carter is there to discuss with his partners the long term strategy,
whatever that may be. I think we're at the point where peace in Ukraine is enough to get rid of
European sanctions. Americans probably won't drop most of theirs but they've always maintained
Russian specific sanctions.
ID9492736 -> Seriatim 21 Jun 2015 23:25
It is better to have a global house made of BRICS than the one made by dicks.
BMWAlbert -> KriticalThinkingUK 21 Jun 2015 23:25
Well, at least an acknowledgement of limits of 'soft-power' tactics near RU borders, the
ante will always be upped on the one hand. The bolstering he speaks of is really a bolstering
of lost authority, thus the requirement for more weapons to give needed 'confidence'. Estonia,
PL etc. now require substantial 'trip-wire' forces in post-Obama Europe, and least in the minds
of leaders of said nations.
CraigSummers 21 Jun 2015 23:23
".......At an investment conference on Friday in Russia, Putin blamed the US and the European
Union for triggering the Ukrainian crisis by refusing to take into account what he described as
Russia's legitimate interests....."
Legitimate Russian interests simply is double speak for Russia's legitimate area of influence
- a domination of eastern Europe by the USSR during the cold war. When the USSR collapsed, 15
countries were freed from Soviet control. Most chose to join the EU and NATO. Ukraine, Belarus
and a couple of others remained tightly controlled by Russia and the SVR. When Ukraine attempted
to develop closer relations with Europe, the Russian puppet, Yanukovych, put a stop to an economic
deal with Europe leading to the coup, the illegal annexation of Crimea and the war in Eastern
Ukraine (backed by Putin).
The cold war is over and Russia needs to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine. The Russian empire
collapsed in the latter part of the twentieth century and Putin needs to get over it.
ID9492736 21 Jun 2015 23:19
Joseph Stalin responds to Ash Carter: "Well, Comrade Ash, I've been itching to return. It's
been bitchin' cold in here, no vodka or cigars anywhere in sight, and I would like to go back
to my old job and kill some fifth column trolls, they seem to have started multiplying like amoebas
ever since that idiot Yeltsin sold to the Wall Street everything that wasn't nailed to the Kremlin
wall. I bring with me a glorious resume and a stellar list of accomplishments, including saving
the West from itself. When do I start?"
Seriatim -> Omniscience 21 Jun 2015 23:19
Every year we can celebrate decades of Washington led stupidity and lawlessness.
A long line of idiots who ensured the lives of millions of Americans were wrecked and 1000s of
innocents worldwide were murdered, and who terrorist great swathes of the world still today.
The icing on the cake was the rigged election of 20001 which put the murderer Bush in power.
There, fixed.
Meng Ian -> Omniscience 21 Jun 2015 23:00
only if economy is the sole indicator for measuring how much power one country wields. Need
I remind you that RF has one of the biggest nuke arsenals in the world. With a stick as powerful
as the one RF has, which is capable of shattering the world many times, no politician should call
it a middle-size power. Also, if RF were just one rogue middle-size power, then why the US not
just crashes it as it had crashed Iraq (a regional power in the middle east indeed), or makes
threats of crashing it as it had on Iran (another major player in the middle east)?
mikea1 -> Zepp 21 Jun 2015 22:32
If we are lucky, Putin or Leaders of his stature will be in place, the world needs it.
ID5868758 -> mikesmith 21 Jun 2015 22:29
Didn't read your post before I wrote mine, concur 100%. The neocons in the State Department
are on "overreach" now, they should have folded their hand when "Nuland's Folly" failed, instead
they seem be doubling down on stupid, and endangering the entire European continent in the bargain.
Dangerous people.
ID5868758 21 Jun 2015 22:22
And, of course, Carter has nothing but concerns about what's best for Russia and Russians,
right? Who buys this nonsense? It's embarrassing to have it voiced by an official so high in the
Obama administration, really, it's pure propaganda that reflects none of the reality in Russia,
and the support that President Putin receives from the Russian people.
mikesmith 21 Jun 2015 22:19
As an American, I can only hope that once Obama is gone that the US will come to its senses
and make some significant changes in its belligerent attitude to Russia. It's quite frightening
that Obama, Carter, Kerry and their cabal are deliberating fomenting war when there is clearly
no real threat and certainly no desire for war on the part of the Russians. Quite embarrassing.
Rest assured that most Americans do not share their hostility towards the rest of the world, and
are rather ashamed of what Obama has been doing. We want peaceful relations with the rest of the
world. In addition, it's rather embarrassing that the US should be confronting the Russians, while
cozying up to the utterly despicable and repressive regime in Saudi Arabia. Talk about misplaced
priorities and distorted values.
PaddyCannuck 21 Jun 2015 22:07
Still pushing the same old canard of Russian reaction to NATO aggression being "Russian aggression",
and still pressing for regime change. Plus ca change etc.
"...Why should Americans have their pretty little heads bothered with such unpleasantries? Just leave
"national security" to us, U.S. officials say, and we'll do whatever is necessary to "keep you safe"
from all those scary creatures out there who want to come and get you and take you away. Oh, and
be sure to keep all those trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flooding into our "defense" coffers."
... Ever since 9/11, the American people have operated under the quaint notion that all the violence
that the Pentagon and the CIA have been inflicting on people in foreign nations has an adverse effect
only over there. The idea has been that as long as all the death, torture, assassinations, bombings,
shootings, and mayhem were in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, Americans could
go pleasantly on with their lives, going to work, church, and fun sporting events where everyone
could praise and pray for the troops for "defending our freedoms" and "keeping us safe."
Through it all, the national-security state, with the cooperation of the mainstream media, has
done its best to immunize Americans from all the violence, death, and mayhem that they've been wreaking
on people over there.
Don't show the American people photographs of wedding parties in which brides and grooms and
flower girls have been blown to bits by a U.S. bomb or missile.
Hide those torture records at Abu Ghraib. Lock them away in a secret vault forever.
Destroy those torture videos and redact that torture report.
And above all, don't even think of keeping count of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Anything and everything to keep the American people from having to confront, assimilate, and process
the ongoing culture of violence that the national-security state has brought to people in other parts
of the world.
Why should Americans have their pretty little heads bothered with such unpleasantries? Just leave
"national security" to us, U.S. officials say, and we'll do whatever is necessary to "keep you safe"
from all those scary creatures out there who want to come and get you and take you away. Oh, and
be sure to keep all those trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flooding into our "defense" coffers.
As an aside, have you ever noticed that Switzerland, which is one of the most armed societies
in the world, is not besieged by a "war on terrorism" and by gun massacres? I wonder if it has anything
to do with the fact that the Swiss government isn't involved in an ongoing crusade to violently remake
the world in its image.
Ask any American whether all that death and destruction at the hands of the military and the CIA
is necessary, and he's likely to say, "Well, of course it is. People all over the world hate us for
our freedom and values. We've got to kill them over there before they come over here to kill us.
The war on terrorism goes on forever. I'm a patriot! Praise the troops!"
The thought that the entire scheme of ongoing violence is just one great big racket just doesn't
even occur to them. That's what a mindset of deference to authority does to people.
All that ongoing violence that has formed the foundation of America's governmental structure since
the totalitarian structure known as the national-security state came into existence after World War
II is at the core of the national sickness to which Rand Paul alludes.
And so is the extreme deference to authority paid to the national-security establishment by all
too many Americans who have converted the Pentagon and the CIA into their god - one who can do no
wrong as it stomps around the world killing, torturing, bombing, shooting, invading, maiming, and
occupying, all in the name of "national security," a ridiculous term if there ever was one, a term
not even found in the U.S. Constitution.
As I have long written, the national-security establishment has warped and perverted the values,
morals, and principles of the American people. This totalitarian structure that was grafted onto
our governmental system after World War II to oppose America's World War II partner and ally the
Soviet Union has stultified the consciences of the American people, causing them to subordinate themselves
to the will and judgment of the military (including the NSA) and the CIA and, of course, to surrender
their fundamental God-given rights to liberty and privacy in the quest to be "kept safe" from whoever
happens to be the official enemy of the day.
The discomforting fact is that the American people have not been spared the horrific consequences
of the ongoing culture of violence that the U.S. national-security establishment has brought to foreign
lands. The ongoing culture of violence that forms the foundation of the national security state -
killing untold numbers of people on a perpetual basis - has been a rotting and corrosive cancer that
has been destroying America from within and that continues to do so.
It's that ongoing culture of violence that brings out the crazies and the loonies, who see nothing
wrong with killing people for no good reason at all. In ordinary societies, the crazies and the loonies
usually just stay below the radar screen and live out their lives in a fairly abnormal but peaceful
manner. But in dysfunctional societies, such as ones where the government is based on killing, torturing,
maiming, and destroying people on a constant basis, the crazies and the loonies come onto the radar
screen and commit their crazy and loony acts of violence.
"...Torture is and has been illegal in the US, so no new law is needed. Prosecute to the full
extent anyone who authorized, implemented or has or is covering up these grave crimes. Starting at the
Very Top on down. Now. " . "...Obama appears to see as his primary goal greasing the skids of American decline. Washington
has lost all credibility as presiding over a democracy governed by the rule of law, what with this two-tiered
justice system. Celebrate the betrayers of the constitution and punish those who blow the whistle on
them. While it's five years old, Alfred McCoy's article on the US decline was cited twice last week,
reminding me of how hard-hitting McCoy's argument is. It can be found at
TomDispatch" . "...The routine use of torture by Savak may well have contributed heavily to the failure of
the Shah, particularly considering that these people were probably concentrated in the cities where
most of the action took place."
Torture architects are television pundits and given enormous book contracts while Guantanamo detainees
still can't discuss what happened to them
GUANTANAMO
Prisoners haven't been allowed to talk about what happened to them here. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty
Wednesday 17 June 2015 07.15 EDT Last modified on Wednesday 17 June 2015 13.35 EDT
Torture is and has been illegal in the US, so no new law is needed. Prosecute to the full
extent anyone who authorized, implemented or has or is covering up these grave crimes. Starting at
the Very Top on down. Now.
CraigSummers, 17 Jun 2015 16:16)
The evidence that torture doesn't work is overwhelming.
The president's oath is to obey the law, the constitution, not to "keep Americans safe." Torture
is illegal for good and proper reasons. It cannot be used and, if used, must be prosecuted and
punished.
It is immaterial if it "works" ... this is not Dirty Harry or Jack Bauer; this is real governance:
a govt of laws, not men.
bloggod 17 Jun 2015 16:07
"The only reason a host of current and former CIA officials aren't already in jail is because
of cowardice on the Obama administration," says Timm
________
An emphatic collusion of many more complicit parties would seem to suggest the world is not
run by Obama...
ID8667623 17 Jun 2015 15:30
Obama appears to see as his primary goal greasing the skids of American decline. Washington
has lost all credibility as presiding over a democracy governed by the rule of law, what with
this two-tiered justice system. Celebrate the betrayers of the constitution and punish those who
blow the whistle on them.
While it's five years old, Alfred McCoy's article on the US decline was cited twice last week,
reminding me of how hard-hitting McCoy's argument is. It can be found at TomDispatch:
I, being a US citizen, feel that it is up to us to stand up to US imperialism.
Until we, in the US, stand up and say "Enough", this country will continue it's attack upon the
world.
Wake up America --
PS. You see that the war has come home... just look at the military armament being used by
the police. And, we need to stand up all together! Please, Mr. Policeman, don't shoot us. Protect
us against the 1%.
JimHorn 17 Jun 2015 11:20
In the run up to the Iranian Revolution, I worked with an Iranian woman in a restaurant. She
wore the same short sleeve blouse as the others, and her skirt was only an inch or two longer.
Her husband was a grad student at the university. Obviously thoroughly westernized. I took the
opportunity to ask an actual Iranian about the events that were happening in her homeland.
She told me that her brother, a student, had been picked up and tortured by Savak, the Shah's
secret police. She said
"No one in my family, my father, my brothers, my uncles, my cousins, - will support
the Shah. We hate Khomeini, but we also hate the Shah. We will let Khomeini overthrow the Shah
and then we will overthrow Khomeini."
These were people who should have been on the side of the westernizing Shah but sat on the
sidelines. Some reports say that Savak may have treated up to 100,000 people like this woman's
brother. Allowing for ten adult relatives per victim, we get a million westernized Iranians. The
population at the time was about 30 million. The routine use of torture by Savak may well
have contributed heavily to the failure of the Shah, particularly considering that these people
were probably concentrated in the cities where most of the action took place.
Note that Savak, sadly, trained by our CIA, was intent on preventing a communist takeover and
concentrated on those who wished to westernize government as well as the economy. They utterly
failed to deal with the threat from religious conservatives.
The Sunday Times has a story claiming that Snowden's revelations have caused danger to MI6 and disrupted
their operations. Here are five reasons it is a lie.
1) The alleged Downing Street source is quoted
directly in italics. Yet the schoolboy mistake is made of confusing officers and agents. MI6 is staffed
by officers. Their informants are agents. In real life, James Bond would not be a secret agent. He
would be an MI6 officer. Those whose knowledge comes from fiction frequently confuse the two. Nobody
really working with the intelligence services would do so, as the Sunday Times source does. The story
is a lie.
2) The argument that MI6 officers are at danger of being killed by the Russians or Chinese is
a nonsense. No MI6 officer has been killed by the Russians or Chinese for 50 years. The worst that
could happen is they would be sent home. Agents' generally local people, as opposed to MI6 officers
identities would not be revealed in the Snowden documents. Rule No.1 in both the CIA and MI6 is
that agents' identities are never, ever written down, neither their names nor a description that
would allow them to be identified. I once got very, very severely carpeted for adding an agents'
name to my copy of an intelligence report in handwriting, suggesting he was a useless gossip and
MI6 should not be wasting their money on bribing him. And that was in post communist Poland, not
a high risk situation.
3) MI6 officers work under diplomatic cover 99% of the time. Their alias is as members of the
British Embassy, or other diplomatic status mission. A portion are declared to the host country.
The truth is that Embassies of different powers very quickly identify who are the spies in other
missions. MI6 have huge dossiers on the members of the Russian security services I have seen and
handled them. The Russians have the same. In past mass expulsions, the British government has expelled
20 or 30 spies from the Russian Embassy in London. The Russians retaliated by expelling the same
number of British diplomats from Moscow, all of whom were not spies! As a third of our "diplomats"
in Russia are spies, this was not coincidence. This was deliberate to send the message that they
knew precisely who the spies were, and they did not fear them.
4) This anti Snowden non-story even the Sunday Times admits there is no evidence anybody has
been harmed is timed precisely to coincide with the government's new Snooper's Charter act, enabling
the security services to access all our internet activity. Remember that GCHQ already
has an archive of 800,000 perfectly innocent British people engaged in sex chats online.
5) The paper publishing the story is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is sourced to the people who
brought you the dossier on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, every single "fact" in which proved
to be a fabrication. Why would you believe the liars now?
There you have five reasons the story is a lie.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador
to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007
to 2010.
"...In short, the propaganda we should be worried about is not Russia's, it's our
own. And it comes from just about every news article we're fed. We're much less than six degrees removed
from Orwell." . "...Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling
the Iraq War to the public is that it's hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity
to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously
voiced claims as Truth. But they've learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of
how major US and British media outlets "report," especially in the national security area. And journalists
who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials laundered
through their media as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting."
Through the last decades, as we have been getting ever more occupied trying to be what
society tells us is defined as successful, we all missed out on a lot of changes in our world.
Or perhaps we should be gentle to ourselves and say we're simply slow to catch up.
Which is somewhat curious since we've also been getting bombarded with fast increasing amounts
of what we're told is information, so you'd think it might have become easier to keep up. It was
not.
While we were busy being busy we for instance were largely oblivious to the fact the US
is no longer a beneficial force in the world, and that it doesn't spread democracy or freedom.
Now you may argue to what extent that has ever been true, and you should, but the perception was
arguably much closer to the truth 70 years ago, at the end of WWII, then it is today.
Another change we really can't get our heads around is how the media have turned from a source
of information to a source of pre-fabricated narratives. We'll all say to some extent or another
that we know our press feeds us propaganda, but, again arguably, few of us are capable of pinpointing
to what extent that is true. Perhaps no big surprise given the overdose of what passes for information,
but duly noted.
So far so good, you're not as smart as you think. Bummer. But still an easy one
to deny in the private space of your own head. If you get undressed and stand in front of the mirror,
though, maybe not as easy.
What ails us is, I was going to say perfectly human, but let's stick with just human, and leave
perfection alone. What makes us human is that it feels good to be protected, safe, and prosperous.
Protected from evil and from hard times, by a military force, by a monetary fund, by a monetary union.
It feels so good in fact that we don't notice when what's supposed to keep us safe turns against
us.
But it is what happens, time and again, and, once again arguably, ever more so. What we think
the world looks like is increasingly shaped by fiction. Perhaps that means we live in dreamtime.
Or nightmare time. Whatever you call it, it's not real. Pinching yourself is not going to help. Reading
Orwell might.
The Sunday Times ran a story today -which the entire world press parroted quasi verbatim- that
claimed MI6 had felt compelled to call back some of its operatives from the 'field' because Russia
and China had allegedly hacked into the encrypted files Edward Snowden allegedly carried with him
to Russia (something Snowden denied on multiple occasions).
Glenn Greenwald's take down of the whole thing is for good reasons- far better than I could
provide, and it's blistering, it leaves not a single shred of the article. Problem is, the die's
been cast, and many more people read the Times and all the media who've reprinted its fiction, than
do read Greenwald:
Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling
the Iraq War to the public is that it's hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give
anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept
those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they've learned no such lesson. That tactic continues
to be the staple of how major US and British media outlets "report," especially in the national
security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by
unnamed, unseen officials laundered through their media as gospel, no matter how dubious are
the claims or factually false is the reporting.
We now have one of the purest examples of this dynamic. Last night, the Murdoch-owned Sunday
Times published their lead front-page Sunday article, headlined "British Spies Betrayed to Russians
and Chinese." Just as the conventional media narrative was shifting to pro-Snowden sentiment in
the wake of a key court ruling and a new surveillance law, the article claims in the first paragraph
that these two adversaries "have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive
US whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile
countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services."
Please read Greenwald's piece. It's excellent. Turns out the Times made it all up.
At the same time, it's just one example of something much more expansive: the entire world view of
the vast majority of Americans and Europeans, and that means you too, is weaved together from a smorgasbord
of made-up stories, narratives concocted to make you see what someone else wants you to see.
Last week, the Pew Research Center did a survey that was centered around the question what 'we'
should do if a NATO ally were attacked by Russia. How Pew dare hold such a survey is for most people
not even a valid question anymore, since the Putin as bogeyman tale, after a year and change, has
taken root in 99% of western brains.
And so the Pew question, devoid of reality as it may be, appears more legit than the question
about why the question is asked in the first place. NATO didn't really like the results of the survey,
but enough to thump some more chests. Here's from an otherwise wholly forgettable NY Times piece:
Poles were most alarmed by Moscow's muscle flexing, with 70% saying that Russia was a major
military threat. Germany, a critical American ally in the effort to forge a Ukraine peace settlement,
was at the other end of the spectrum. Only 38% of Germans said that Russia was a danger to neighboring
countries aside from Ukraine, and only 29% blamed Russia for the violence in Ukraine. Consequently,
58% of Germans do not believe that their country should use force to defend another NATO ally.
Just 19% of Germans say NATO weapons should be sent to the Ukrainian government to help it better
contend with Russian and separatist attacks.
Do we need to repeat that Russia didn't attack Ukraine? That if after all this time there
is still zero proof for that, perhaps it's time to let go of that idea?
Over the past week, there have been numerous reports of NATO 'strengthening' its presence in Eastern
Europe and the Baltics. Supposedly to deter Russian aggression in the region. For which there is
no evidence. But if you ask people if NATO should act if one of its allies were attacked, you put
the idea in people's heads that such an attack is a real risk. And that's the whole idea.
This crazy piece from the Guardian provides a very good example of how the mood is manipulated:
The US and Poland are discussing the deployment of American heavy weapons in eastern Europe
in response to Russian expansionism and sabre-rattling in the region in what
represents a radical break with post-cold war military planning. The Polish defence ministry said
on Sunday that Washington and Warsaw were in negotiations about the permanent stationing of US
battle tanks and other heavy weaponry in Poland and other countries in the region as part of NATO's
plans to develop rapid deployment "Spearhead" forces aimed at deterring Kremlin attempts to destabilise
former Soviet bloc countries now entrenched inside NATO and the EU.
Warsaw said that a decision whether to station heavy US equipment at warehouses in Poland
would be taken soon. NATO's former supreme commander in Europe, American admiral James Stavridis,
said the decision marked "a very meaningful policy shift", amid eastern European complaints that
western Europe and the US were lukewarm about security guarantees for countries on the
frontline with Russia following Vladimir Putin's seizure of parts of Ukraine. "It provides
a reasonable level of reassurance to jittery allies, although nothing is as good as troops stationed
full time on the ground, of course," the retired admiral told the New York Times.
NATO has been accused of complacency in recent years. The Russian president's surprise
attacks on Ukraine have shocked western military planners into action. An alliance summit
in Wales last year agreed quick deployments of NATO forces in Poland and the Baltic states. German
mechanised infantry crossed into Poland at the weekend after thousands of NATO forces inaugurated
exercises as part of the new buildup in the east. Wary of antagonising Moscow's fears of western
"encirclement" and feeding its well-oiled propaganda effort, which regularly asserts that NATO
agreed at the end of the cold war not to station forces in the former Warsaw Pact countries, NATO
has declined to establish permanent bases in the east.
It's downright borderline criminally tragic that NATO claims it's building up its presence
in the region as a response to Russian actions. What actions? Nothing was going on until
'we' supported a coup in Kiev, installed a puppet government and let them wage war on their own citizens.
That war killed a lot of people. And if Kiev has any say in the matter, it ain't over by a long shot.
Poroshenko and Yats still want it all back. So does NATO.
When signing a post-cold war strategic cooperation pact with Russia in 1997, Nato pledged
not to station ground forces permanently in eastern Europe "in the current and foreseeable security
environment". But that environment has been transformed by Putin's decision to invade and annex
parts of Ukraine and the 1997 agreement is now seen as obsolete.
Meanwhile, Russia re-took Crimea without a single shot being fired. But that is still what the
western press calls aggression. Russia doesn't even deem to respond to 'our' innuendo, they feel
there's nothing to be gained from that because 'our' stories have been pre-cooked and pre-chewed
anyway. Something that we are going to greatly regret.
There are all these alphabet soup organizations that were once set up with, one last time,
arguably, good intentions, and that now invent narratives because A) they can and B) they need a
reason to continue to exist. That is true for NATO, which should have been dismantled 25
years ago.
It's true for the IMF, which was always only a tool for US domination. It's true for the CIA and
FBI, which might keep you safe if that was their intent, but which really only function to keep themselves
and their narrow group of paymasters safe.
It's also true for political unions, like the US and EU. Let's leave the former alone for now,
though much could be said and written about the gaping distance between what the Founding Fathers
once envisioned for the nation and what it has since descended into.
Still, that is a story for another day. When we can find our way through the web of narratives
that holds it upright. Like the threat from Russia, the threat from China, the threat from all the
factions in the Middle East the US itself (helped) set up.
The EU is much younger, though its bureaucrats seem eager to catch up with America in
fictitious web weaving. We humans stink at anything supra-national. We can have our societies
cooperate, but as soon as we invent 'greater' units to incorporate that cooperation, things run off
the rails, the wrong people grab power, and the weaker among us get sacrificed. And that is what's
happening once again, entirely predictably, in Greece.
That Spain's two largest cities, Barcelona and Madrid, have now sworn in far-left female mayors
this week will only serve to make things harder for Athens. Brussels is under siege, and it will
defend its territory as 'best' it can.
What might influence matters, and not a little bit, is that Syriza's Audit Commission
is poised to make public its findings on June 18, and that they yesterday revealed they have in their
possession a 2010 IMF document that allegedly proves that the Fund knew back then, before the first
bail-out, that the Memorandum would result in an increase in Greek debt.
That's potentially incendiary information, because the Memorandum -and the bailout-
were aimed specifically at decreasing the debt. That -again, allegedly- none of the EU nations have
seen the document at the time -let's see how the spin machine makes that look- doesn't exactly make
it any more acceptable.
Nor of course does the fact that Greece's debt could and should have been restructured, according
to the IMF's own people and 'standards', but wasn't until 2012, when the main European banks had
been bailed out with what was subsequently shoved onto the shoulders of the Greek population, and
had withdrawn their 'assets' from the country, a move that made Greece's position that much harder.
The narrative being sold through the media in other eurozone nations is that Greece is
to blame, that for instance German taxpayers are on the hook for Greek debts, while they're really
on the hook for German banks' losing wagers (here's looking at you, Deutsche!). And that
is, no matter how you twist it, not the same story. It's again just a narrative.
Once more, and we've said it many times before, Brussels is toxic -and so is the IMF- and Greece
should leave as soon as possible, as should Italy, Spain, Portugal. And we should all resist the
spin-induced attempts to demonize Putin, Athens and China any further, and instead focus on the rotten
apples in our own basket(s).
In short, the propaganda we should be worried about is not Russia's, it's our own.
And it comes from just about every news article we're fed. We're much less than six degrees removed
from Orwell.
The government has an obligation to respond to the Sunday Times report that MI6 has been
forced to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries
The Sunday Times produced what at first sight looked like a startling news story: Russia and China
had gained access to the cache of top-secret documents leaked by former NSA contractor turned whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
Not only that, but as a result, Britain's overseas intelligence agency, the Secret Intelligence
Service, better known as MI6, had been forced "to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries".
These are serious allegations and, as such, the government has an obligation to respond openly.
The story is based on sources including "senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and
the security services". The BBC said it had also also been briefed anonymously by a senior government
official.
Anonymous sources are an unavoidable part of reporting, but neither Downing Street nor the Home Office
should be allowed to hide behind anonymity in this case.
1. Is it true that Russia and China have gained access to Snowden's top-secret documents? If
so, where is the evidence?
Which cache of documents is the UK government talking about? Snowden has said he handed tens of thousands
of leaked documents over to journalists he met in Hong Kong, and that he has not had them in his
possession since. Have Russia and China managed to access documents held by one of the journalists
or their companies?
In addition, if agents had to be moved, why? Which Snowden documents allegedly compromised them
to the extent they had to be forcibly removed from post?
2. Why have the White House and the US intelligence agencies not raised this?
Snowden is wanted by the US on charges under the Espionage Act. The White House, the US intelligence
agencies and especially some members of Congress have been desperate to blacken Snowden's reputation.
They have gone through his personal life and failed to come up with a single damaging detail.
If the UK were to have evidence that Russia and China had managed to penetrate his document cache
or that agents had been forced to move, London would have shared this with Washington. The White
House would have happily briefed this openly, as would any number of Republican and even Democratic
members of Congress close to the security services. They would not have stinted. It would have
been a full-blown press conference.
Related: UK under pressure to respond to latest Edward Snowden claims
The debate in the US has become more grownup in recent months, with fewer scare stories and more
interest in introducing reforms that will redress the balance between security and privacy, but there
are still many in Congress and the intelligence agencies seeking vengeance.
3. Why have these claims emerged now?
Most the allegations have been made before in some form, only to fall apart when scrutinised. These
include that Snowden was a Chinese spy and, when he ended up in Moscow, that he was a Russian spy
or was at least cooperating with them. The US claimed 56 plots had been disrupted as a result of
surveillance, but under pressure acknowledged this was untrue.
The claim about agents being moved was first made in the UK 18 months ago, along with allegations
that Snowden had helped terrorists evade surveillance and, as a result, had blood on his hands. Both
the US and UK have since acknowledged no one has been harmed.
So why now? One explanation is that it is partly in response to Thursday's publication of David Anderson's
373-page report on surveillance. David Cameron asked the QC to conduct an independent review and
there is much in it for the government and intelligence services to like, primarily about retaining
bulk data.
Anderson is scathing, however, about the existing legal framework for surveillance, describing
it as intolerable and undemocratic, and he has proposed that the authority to approve surveillance
warrants be transferred from the foreign and home secretaries to the judiciary.
His proposal, along with another surveillance report out next month from the Royal United Services
Institute, mean that there will be continued debate in the UK. There are also European court rulings
pending. Web users' increasing use of encryption is another live issue. Above all else though, there
is the backlash by internet giants such as Google, which appear to be less prepared to cooperate
with the intelligence agencies, at least not those in the UK.
The issue is not going away and the Sunday Times story may reflect a cack-handed attempt by some
within the British security apparatus to try to take control of the narrative.
4. Why is the Foreign Office not mentioned as a source?
It seems like a pedantic point, but one that could offer an insight into the manoeuvring inside
the higher reaches of government. The Foreign Office is repsonsible for MI6, but the Home Office
is quoted in the story. Is it that the Home Office and individuals within the department rather than
the Foreign Office are most exercised about the potential transfer of surveillance warrant approval
from the home secretary, the proposed scrapping of existing legislation covering surveillance and
other potential reforms?
5. What about the debatable assertions and at least one totally inaccurate point in the Sunday
Times piece?
The Sunday Times says Snowden "fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president,
after mounting one of the largest leaks in US history". In fact he fled Hong Kong bound for Latin
America, via Moscow and Cuba. The US revoked his passport, providing Russia with an excuse to hold
him in transit.
The Sunday Times says it is not clear whether Russia and China stole Snowden's data or "whether he
voluntarily handed over his secret documents in order to remain at liberty in Hong Kong and Moscow".
The latter is not possible if, as Snowden says, he gave all the documents to journalists in Hong
Kong in June 2013.
The Sunday Times also reports that "David Miranda, the boyfriend of Guardian journalist Glenn
Greenwald, was seized at Heathrow in 2013 in possession of 58,000 'highly-classified' intelligence
documents after visiting Snowden in Moscow".
This is inaccurate. Miranda had in fact been in Berlin seeing the film-maker Laura Poitras, not in
Moscow visiting Snowden. It is not a small point.
The claim about Miranda having been in Moscow first appeared in the Daily Mail in September under
the headline "An intelligence expert's devastating verdict: Leaks by Edward Snowden and the Guardian
have put British hostages in even greater peril". It was written by Professor Anthony Glees, the
director of the centre for security and intelligence studies at the University of Buckingham, and
has never been corrected. Maybe the Sunday Times can do better.
Following what are now daily reports of evil Russian hackers penetrating AES-encrypted
firewalls at the IRS, and just as evil Chinese hackers
penetrating "Einstein 3" in the biggest US hack in history which has allegedly exposed every
single federal
worker's social security number to shadowy forces in Beijing, the message to Americans is clear:
be very afraid, because the "evil hackers" are coming, and your friendly, gargantuan, neighborhood
US government (which is clearly here to help you) will get even bigger to respond appropriately.
But don't let any (cyber) crisis go to waste: the porous US security firewall is so bad, Goldman
is now pitching cybersecurity stocks in the latest weekly David Kostin sermon. To wit:
The meteoric rise in cybersecurity incidents involving hacking and data breaches has shined
a spotlight on this rapidly growing industry within the Tech sector. Cyberwar and cybercrime are
two of the defining geopolitical and business challenges of our time. New revelations occur daily
about compromised financial, personal, and national security records. Perpetrators range from
global superpowers to rogue nation-states, from foreign crime syndicates to petty local criminals,
and from social disrupters to teenage hackers. No government, firm, or person is immune from the
risk.
Because if you can't profit from conventional war, cyberwar will do just as nicely, and as a result
Goldman says "investors seeking to benefit from increased security spending should focus
on the ISE Cyber Security Index (HXR)."
The HXR index has outperformed S&P 500 by 19pp YTD (22% vs. 3%). Since 2011, the total return
of the index is 123pp higher than the S&P 500 (207% vs. 84%). The relative outperformance of cybersecurity
stocks versus S&P 500 matches the surge in the number of exposed records (see Exhibit 2).
Goldman further notes that "the frequency and seriousness of cyberattacks skyrocketed during 2014.
Last year 3,014 data breach incidents occurred worldwide exposing 1.1 billion records,
with 97% related to either hacking (83%) or fraud (14%). Both incidents and exposed records jumped
by 25% during the last year. The US accounted for 50% of total global incidents and exposed
records. Businesses accounted for 53% of all reported incidents followed by government entities
at 16%. Exhibit 1 contains a list of selected recent high-profile cyberattacks."
It is almost as if the US is doing everything in its power to make life for hackers that much
easier, or alternatively to make Goldman's long HXR hit its target in the shortest possible time.
Or perhaps the US is merely giving the impression of a massive onslaught of cyberattacks,
one which may well be staged by the biggest cybersecurity infringer, and false flag organizer of
them all, the National Security Administration in conjunction with the CIA
We won't know, however just to make sure that the fear level spread by the Department of "Developed
Market" Fear hits panic level promptly, overnight the UK's Sunday Times reported
via Reuters, "citing unnamed officials at the office of British Prime Minister David Cameron,
the Home Office (interior ministry) and security services" that Britain has pulled out agents
from live operations in "hostile countries" after Russia and China cracked top-secret information
contained in files leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
MI6 building in London.
It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files,
but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted and
even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom
corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue to
turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic.
British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Snowden had done a huge amount of damage to the
West's ability to protect its citizens. "As to the specific allegations this morning, we never
comment on operational intelligence matters so I'm not going to talk about what we have or haven't
done in order to mitigate the effect of the Snowden revelations, but nobody should be in any doubt
that Edward Snowden has caused immense damage," he told Sky News.
Reading a little further reveals that in the modern world having your spies exposed merely lead
to invitations for coffee and chocolates.
An official at Cameron's office was quoted, however, as saying that there was "no evidence
of anyone being harmed." A spokeswoman at Cameron's office declined to comment when contacted
by Reuters.
So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them,
nor harmed them in any way. How cultured.
Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building:
A British intelligence source said Snowden had done "incalculable damage". "In some cases the
agencies have been forced to intervene and lift their agents from operations to stop them being
identified and killed," the source was quoted as saying.
Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where
the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big debate
on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate.
The revelations about the impact of Snowden on intelligence operations comes days after Britain's
terrorism law watchdog said the rules governing the security services' abilities to spy on the
public needed to be overhauled. Conservative lawmaker and former minister Andrew Mitchell said
the timing of the report was "no accident".
"There is a big debate going on," he told BBC radio. "We are going to have legislation
bought back to parliament (...) about the way in which individual liberty and privacy is invaded
in the interest of collective national security.
"That's a debate we certainly need to have."
Cameron has promised a swathe of new security measures, including more powers to monitor
Briton's communications and online activity in what critics have dubbed a "snoopers' charter".
And because Britain's terrorism laws reviewer David Anderson said on Thursday the current system
was "undemocratic, unnecessary and - in the long run - intolerable" and called for new safeguards,
including judges not ministers approving warrants for intrusive surveillance, saying there needed
to be a compelling case for any extensions of powers, this is precisely why now
was the right time for some more "anonymously-sourced" anti-liberty propaganda.
So between the IRS and the OPM hacks, not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches
shown on the top chart, allegedly almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not
only how much US citizens make, spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal
worker, the two "isolated" nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself.
If this was even remotely true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both
nations.
All in all, for me the Sunday Times story raises more questions than it answers, and more importantly
it contains some pretty dubious claims, contradictions, and inaccuracies. The most astonishing
thing about it is the total lack of scepticism it shows for these grand government assertions,
made behind a veil of anonymity. This sort of credulous regurgitation of government statements
is antithetical to good journalism.
James_Cole
The sunday times has already deleted one of the claims in the article (without an editors note)
because it was so easily proved wrong. Whenever governments are dropping anonymous rumours without
any evidence into the media you know they're up to some serious bullshit elsewhere as well, good
coverage by zh.
MonetaryApostate
Fact A: The government robbed Social Security... (There's nothing left!)
Supposed Fact B: Hackers compromised Social Security Numbers of Officials...
suteibu
Just to be clear, Snowden is not a traitor to the people of the US (or EU).
However, it is perfectly appropriate for the governments and shadow governments of those nations
to consider him a traitor to their interests.
One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter.
Renfield
<<The New Axis of Evul.>>
Which is drastically stepping up its propaganda effort to justify aggressively attacking the
rest of the world, in an effort to start WW3 and see who makes it out of the bunkers.
Fuck this evil New World Order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNHOUrYFj70
It took a long time to build and set in place, and it sure as hell isn't going to be easy taking
it down. They couldn't be any clearer that they have their hand poised over the nuke button, just
looking for any excuse to use it. I think they know they've lost, so they've resorted to intimidate
the rest of the world into supporting the status quo, by showing just how desperate they are and
how far they are willing to go. The USUK government, and its puppet governments in Europe, Canada,
Australia, and Japan -- are completely insane. Ukraine is acting out just who these people are.
They would rather destroy the whole world than not dominate everyone else. The 'West' is run by
sociopaths.
<<It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files,
but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted
and even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom
corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue
to turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic...
So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them,
nor harmed them in any way. How cultured. Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building...
Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where
the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big
debate on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate... So between the IRS and the OPM hacks,
not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches shown on the top chart, allegedly
almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not only how much US citizens make,
spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal worker, the two "isolated"
nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself. If this was even remotely
true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both nations.>
Bighorn_100b
USA always looks for a patsy.
Bravo, Tyler. This is truth very clearly written. It is incredible how the onslaught of propaganda
is turning into deluge. I'm glad you have the integrity to call it what it is. Propaganda is also
an assault on journalism.
This is the very opposite of journalism. Ponder how dumb someone has to be at this point to read
an anonymous government accusation, made with zero evidence, and accept it as true.
(greenwald rants mostly about media sock puppets with this)
HowdyDoody
And the US SFM86 files contained details of British spies? Consider this bullshitish.
foghorn leghorn
Goldman is looking to make a fast buck off the stupid uninformed public trying to cash in
on totalitarianism. If Goldman is running this pump and dump I suggest waiting till the price
looks like a hockey stick. As soon as it starts to cave in short the hell out of it but only
for one day. Government Sacks is the most crooked bank in the history of the whole entire
world from the past up till now. In case you are wondering about the Fed well Gioldman Sachs
runs the joint.
talisman
"Snowden encryption"???
Just more US Snowden-bashing propaganda.
You mean US has not tightened up its encryption since Snowden's whistleblowing two years ago??
Shame -- ! !....
Snowden information likely had nothing to do with the latest hacks, but the blame goes on--
Blaming Snowden a lot simpler than figuring out how to solve the basic problem
of overwhelming US Homeland Security incompetence
The other day, Eugene Kaspersky noted:
"We discovered an advanced attack on our own internal networks. It was complex,
stealthy, it exploded several zero-day vulnerabilities, and we're quite confident that
there's a nation state behind it."
The firm dubbed this attack Duqu 2.0, named after a specific series of malware called Duqu,
considered to be related to the Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran in 2011.
It is, of course, now well-known that Stuxnet originated as a Israel/US venture; however
this time it would appear that CIA/Mossad may have got a bit overconfident and shot themselves
in the foot when they inserted very advanced spyware into Kaspersky's system
Kaspersky is not just some simple-minded backward nation state; rather they are the
unquestioned world leader in advanced cybersecurity systems, so when they found this malware
in their own system, of course they figured it out, and of course got a bit pissed-so, since
they are in the business of providing advanced cybersecurity to various nations---they very
legitimately passed on the critical encryption information to their clients, and it is not at
all inconceivable that some of the clients decided to take the system for a spin and see what
it could do .
And, of course, a bit later at the opportune moment after they let the cat out of the bag,
to rub a bit of salt in the wound Kaspersky mentioned: "And the attackers are now back to the
drawing board since we exposed their platform to the whole IT security industry. "They've now
lost a very expensive technologically-advanced framework they'd been developing for years,"
Am I still the only one that sees this whole Snowden thing as a CIA ruse?
My favorite is the strategic "leaking" out of information as needed by a Jewish reporter
working for a noiZ-media outlet. I have even read Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide, and I'm
still not buying it.
I'm not buying any of it, but then I'd prefer to not ask for a "refund."
My personal opinion is that the CIA, in their ongoing battle with the Pentagon, penetrated the
NSA, then tapped a photogenic young man in their mitts to serve as the "poster boy" for the
ensuing "leaks." Once they have the attention of the sheeple, they can then claim anything, as
any NSA defense will not be believed.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
"They lie about everything. Why would they lie about this?"
Christ Lucifer
Either Snowden read the play for some decade to come and took the key pieces of info with
him that he keeps secret but those pieces of intel currently allow him to access and control
all covert govt surveillance including that adapted due to being compromised, there maybe some
grains of truth in this in a cyber dependant organization created in an incorrectly perceived
superiority complex. Or maybe his name is synonymous with modern spying, the geek who made
good for the people, and his credibility is used to market a large amount of information
releases for public digestion. A figurehead if you will. Not to say that some years on, the
shockwaves from his actions reverberating around the planet coincide in specific places as
various imperatives are displaced by the dissolution of the foundation he cracked, while the
public are still only really concerned about their dick pics, which apparently women do not
enjoy so much anyway.
Promoted as a storm in a teacup by those who suffer to the transparency he gave, but it is
the woodchips the show the direction of the wind, not the great lumps of timber, and when the
standing trees fall it is the woodchips that have shown the truth, such is the way that key
figures move the static behemoths of overstated self importance ignorant to the world they
create. The hemorrhage has been contained but for some reason it continues to bleed out at a
steady rate, slowly washing the veil from the eyes who suffer the belief of attaining
prosperity or power through subjecting themselves to the will of others.
He's good, but was he that good? What else is playing in his favour, or the favour of his
identity?
Poor deluded child. You still believe that the POTUS runs the show? He's merely the MC of a
long running cabaret act called "US Politics". He reads the script, you applaud - or else!
SamIamgreeneggsanham 2 Jun 2015 21:27
So this is great, but what about the man who sacrificed his life so that we could have this
information? Surely if this passage is a vindication of his actions, then the conversation needs
to move towards allowing him to return to the US (if he wishes to) or at least not make him a
wanted criminal...?
EdChamp -> russmi 2 Jun 2015 21:22
I guess to most of his supporters this is one instance where "the results justify the means."
Actually, we don't have to argue that the end justify the means. The end was that we were all
aware of what had been kept secret from us, culminating in the failure to renew metadata collection.
The means to that was the illegal distribution of classified information. I applaud both the ends
and the means, it might have been better if he had not been required to break the law, but in
this case, I applaud his doing so.
He should return home and accept the legal consequences of his actions. Someone who truly
felt he or she was in the right would do so.
Nonsense, but how nice of you to easily volunteer that he give up his freedom. Where is it
written that we must be prepared to spend the rest of our lives in prison to make known a secret
program, effecting every American, violating the constitution, and subsequently ruled illegal
by the courts?
Joe Stanil -> osprey1957 2 Jun 2015 21:21
Remind me. Who said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? Ah, yes, Dr Johnson.
Joe Stanil 2 Jun 2015 21:17
Does anyone honestly believe that passing a little law will stop the NSA from continuing its
collection of data? Like, it's against the law to steal, that's why there aren't any thieves.
Wake up children. This whole game, starting with Snowden, was a calculated "limited hangout" operation,
ie show a bit of naughtiness, get the public used to it, then go back under cover. Now the real
spying begins.
James Saint-Amour 2 Jun 2015 21:06
Pardon Edward Snowden! He's a patriot just like the Founding Fathers, who were also considered
criminals when they stood up for freedom. It's interesting that our government doesn't see that
side of the story (but then again, who am I kidding to think they would?)
Nyarlat -> russmi 2 Jun 2015 21:04
Snowden is so baaaad!
The CIA and NSA is soooo trustworthy!
(Of course they helped Pinochet dispose of Allende and also killed thousands of Vietcong with
black ops death squads etc.)
osprey1957 2 Jun 2015 21:04
Whatever happens, know that Snowden is, was, and always will be a great patriot. he may be
a deluded libertarian...but his patriotism can never be questioned.
shininhstars122 2 Jun 2015 21:01
>>>>New Mexico senator Martin Heinrich, another Democrat on the intelligence committee, praised
the bill's passage on Tuesday, saying: "Ben Franklin would have been proud of this outcome."
HAH! What altered universe is the Ben Franklin from that the Senator from the Land of Enchantment
is referring to?
Ben Franklin would have said this sir.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety."
Waterdown liberty is what the USA Freedom Act is plain and simple.
awoolf14 -> TeamAmerica2015 2 Jun 2015 20:58
Come out of the 1950's for 10 seconds and you might notice that there is no longer any difference
whatsoever between the vested interests of either Party other than the window dressing... Wake
up.
russmi 2 Jun 2015 20:54
Personally I'm tired of Snowdon. He still stole and illegally distributed classified info.
I guess to most of his supporters this is one instance where "the results justify the means."
But how often do they let others get away with that excuse? He should return home and accept the
legal consequences of his actions. Someone who truly felt he or she was in the right would do
so.
awoolf14 2 Jun 2015 20:53
Its great to know that we're all being 'protected' and are 'safe' in the hands of Obamas
exorbitantly expensive "national security professionals."
.
...Professionals like The TSA, who recently failed 95% of a 'Red Team' national airport security
infiltration test, including but not limited to failing to notice a team member walking by them,
with a fake bomb taped to his back (face-palms).
Or The NSA, who have just been forced by their own Govornment to shut down a 4 year multi million
dollar bulk surveillance program that- er- didn't actually catch any 'terrorists,' because they
don't make a point of sending open emails or telephone calls to each other to discuss their evil
plans (something an 8 year old could figure out).
Please, please lets get somebody sane into the White House this time- because the only job these
people are doing, is making all of us look like complete fools.
et_tu_brute -> Oneiricist 2 Jun 2015 20:44
Yeh... the surveilance worked so well, that they didn't see the 'Boston Bombers' coming. People
have every right to question the NSA's self-given right to delve into peoples lives, all without
any independent oversight, no checks and balances, no transparency. No wonder people don't trust
them.
et_tu_brute -> BradBenson 2 Jun 2015 20:38
You are absolutely correct, however the o/p is a member of a tribe that choses to believe Snowden
was a traitor, no matter what facts were presented or are revealed by his actions.
et_tu_brute -> delphinia 2 Jun 2015 20:35
Yeh, I remember that. Bush & Cheney promoting the looney neo-con cause by creating the fiction
of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Now look at the mess left behind by these stupid idiots
who were intent on creating a new mess by trading up on the goodwill they received internationally
that backed the US in their quest to go into Afghanstan after 9/11.
et_tu_brute -> MtnClimber 2 Jun 2015 20:29
There has been no evidence that that ever happened. What did happen though was Snowden leaking
embarrassing information which gave cause to his fellow citizens to wake up and smell the flowers,
that they were being illegally 'spied upon', collectively, through the bulk collection of telecommunications
data, without legal authority to do so.
Now go back to looking for commies or jihardists lurking around the corner. I guess
you are just a simple victim of politicians' rhetoric that promotes 'fear, uncertainty & doubt'
within the community, a.k.a. 'The F.U.D. principle'.
Gary M. Wilson -> Nicholas_Stone 2 Jun 2015 20:28
THE MAN IN THE ARENA:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where
the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs,
who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but
who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who
spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement,
and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt
Posh_Guardianista -> JohnDavidFletcher 2 Jun 2015 20:28
Do you know who controls them, who governs the use of the data, what happens to it? That's
a bigger danger to your freedom than the NSA.
Key difference being that you can block them. You can't block the NSA surveillance.
et_tu_brute -> shortcircuit299 2 Jun 2015 20:19
Unfortunately, I suspect this won't curtail the NSA's nefarious activities, just change the
goal posts. No doubt 'Plan B' had already been devised a long while ago and would come into play
in such a contingency. The lack of independent oversight and transparency of the activities of
the NSA will mean that another 'whistle-blower', if they are game enough, would be needed to come
forward to further expose wrong-doing. Most, if not all members of Congress and the Senate still
haven't got a clue about any of this, and most never will.
Leondeinos 2 Jun 2015 20:18
This so-called reform is very limited: as he "praised" the passage of this bill, Obama said
he will "work expeditiously to ensure our national security professionals again have the full
set of vital tools they need to continue protecting the country." You bet! That means he'll set
the NSA and the other "competent organs" to work on new ways to gobble up even more useless data.
He will also continue telling lies, repressing revelation of truth throughout the government,
and driving war all over the planet.
Senators Sanders and Paul are right about the USA Freedumb Act.
TiredOfTheLies 2 Jun 2015 20:11
McConnell should be ashamed of himself. The bulk collection of cell phone data was a stalker's
candy store, and there are just as many predators on the inside of government as on the outside.
The Republicans were well aware of problem agents, some even suspected of abduction, rape, and
murder. As if the founding fathers didn't know about rape, and the problem with abusers of all
kind having too much information on innocent peoples' lives.
Search warrants are there for a reason. They leave a paper trail. If the only thing that missing
women have in common are search warrants by the same agent or group of agents, then police have
the suspect list that they need. When they don't have search warrants, you're likely to find bodies
all over the country with no idea of how they got there, which is what the US has now.
And by the way, that beloved program of theirs was of no use for solving those crimes because
criminals are smart enough not to leave phone record evidence. The only people who leave a trail
that can be found this way are the innocent (read: victims), and the stupidest criminals on earth.
redbanana33 2 Jun 2015 20:05
"US Congress passes surveillance reform in vindication for Edward Snowden"
Those are the headlines on this Guardian story.
To vindicate, my dictionary says, means to clear of blame or suspicion.
Well, then, COME ON HOME, ED!!
No? You won't? Well,..... why? Then why would the Guardian say you are vindicated by the passage
of this stupid half-bill in the U.S. Congress?
Someday soon, though.
Sydneyfl -> Nicholas_Stone 2 Jun 2015 19:57
Traitor to WHAT? Oppression? Spying? Conjured up enemies? The military industrial complex,
financed by the bankers, cabal? Hooray for Snowdon!
MKB1234 2 Jun 2015 19:54
Mitch "The Party of Smaller Government" McConnell destroying America from the inside.
Lesm -> Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:51
No his refusal to do so shows he recognises the complete and utter failure of the US legal
system, as is evidenced almost daily by the revelations emerging about the mass torture, incarceration
without trial and sometimes death of innocent people whose only sin was to be in the wrong place
at the wrong time.
Lesm -> Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:51
No his refusal to do so shows he recognises the complete and utter failure of the US legal
system, as is evidenced almost daily by the revelations emerging about the mass torture, incarceration
without trial and sometimes death of innocent people whose only sin was to be in the wrong place
at the wrong time.
Posh_Guardianista -> FoolsDream 2 Jun 2015 19:51
You should read the entire article.
NSA "reform" is essentially a reset - existing legislation has passed, reorganisation will
now take place and the mass surveillance will still continue as before.
Make no mistake, PRISM, mass surveillance of the world, XKEYSCORE, widespread backdoors in
routers and computer equipment; compulsory sharing of data (whether for security or corporate
gain, as with Petronas) with the US Government - will still continue. If you think otherwise,
then it is you who is deluded.
FoolsDream -> JohnDavidFletcher 2 Jun 2015 19:49
Only if you assume we visit this page unprotected my friend. Besides, the argument
of they do it so it's not a problem if the others do it, is a poor argument.
Lesm 2 Jun 2015 19:48
It would be nice if all the troglodytes who bagged Snowden for his act of conscience would
recognise the courage that he showed in doing so, but that is about as likely to happen as Hell
freezing over. These loons, who spend hours every day blogging about the State trying to take
away their freedoms have the capacity that Orwell talked about as "doublespeak" and doublethink"
where you can hold two completely conflicting ideas in your head at the same time and believe
both, as they see Snowden as a traitor for revealing the traducing of the American people by their
own government.
Washington_Irving SteB1 2 Jun 2015 19:44
Unfortunately, the NPP committee consists of discarded politicians. And when it comes to
standing up to Uncle Sam, Norwegian politicians are as a general rule a bunch of despicable
cowards.
Snowden was awarded a £12500 freedom of expression prize earlier today (well, yesterday), and
the chances of him being allowed to accept it in person in September are virtually non-existent.
FoolsDream Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:44
You'd have been great back in the witch-hunting days. "If you drown, you're a witch and we'll
burn you. If you live, you're a witch.. and guess what?.. yep, burned."
Audience Science
Facebook Social Graph
Google Dynamic Remarketing
Krux Digital
NetRatings SiteCensus
Outbrain
PointRoll
ScoreCard Research Beacon
Twitter Badge
That's the 9 companies/organisations tracking you on this very page. They will then record where
you go next, what you do on this page, the frequency of these visits, what links you click on
your emails etc.
Do you know who controls them, who governs the use of the data, what happens to it? That's a bigger
danger to your freedom than the NSA.
Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:38
If Mr. Snowden has been, as The Guardian says, "vindicated", will he now be returning to the
U.S. to receive whatever apologies, honors and rewards are bestowed on those who have been "vindicated"?
Or, alternatively, will he continue to reside in Russia, remaining a fugitive from justice in
the U.S.? And, if he chooses to do the latter (which I predict he will do--anybody want to make
a bet?), in what sense has he been "vindicated".
The passage of this legislation doesn't change the fact that Snowden has been charged with multiple
violations of U.S. law regarding confidential, secret information, and his refusal to stand trial
is powerful evidence that those charges are well-founded.
awoolf14 2 Jun 2015 19:36
Re Obama: "work expeditiously to ensure our national security professionals again have the
full set of vital tools they need to continue protecting the country".
- Ah yes, the famous 'National Security Professionals." That would be Star Trek fan Kieth Alexander,
who had the command center of the NSA converted into a full scale replica of the bridge of the
'USS Enterprise,' complete with whooshing doors and a Captain Kirk chair for him to sit in, and
his 'Mr Spock' James Clapper (oddly unretired) who lied to Congress during the NSA hearings, then
absolved himself by saying he'd given the "least untruthful answer."
- "Professional?' What on earth is Obsms talking about, these people are obviously stark raving
bonkers!
bodicca 2 Jun 2015 19:23
Orwell lives on! What is this "Freedom" that government intrusion into our lives and activities
is protecting? Is it the freedom to work harder and longer than people in other developed countries
for less access to advanced education, healthcare and free time than those people?
Or is it the freedom to pay excessive salaries and benefits beyond our imagination to CEOs
of corporations? Or the freedom to exist with a crumbling infrastructure while funds for repairs
are diverted? Or the freedom to pay for bribes (er lobbying) for legislators elected by us, so
that they will pass laws that oppose the wishes of the people. How long will we tolerate being
lied to? Freedom, indeed!
Jim Mansberger 2 Jun 2015 19:20
It is the military and intelligence agencies that do not want to drop all criminal charges
against Snowden, and rather do the right and just thing, which is to recognize him as a US Government
whistleblower and protect him.
Wharfat9 2 Jun 2015 19:12
On cutting out the bulk surveillance ...
This makes one a little uneasy - this, so they say - stopping of bulk data collection. Look here:
you got that big ΄ol facility out at Bluffdale, Utah. A huge mongramamous caw that can take in
all the e-mails, phone this and that and every other thing - including, probably, the kitchen
sink - and don΄t tell me that they gonna just put all those huge gears and terabytes and fans
and flywheels and nobs and buttons and doodlygooks on idle?
Idle? A ΄sweet machine΄ like that?
No way, Josι.
Sydneyfl 2 Jun 2015 19:10
America no longer has a press. Foreigners and Neocons have used the international banksters
to finance their buying up of 99% of our newspapers, book publishers, TV content, magazines, radio,
etc.,.. and who they didn't buy out ...they try to bribe or muzzle with the threat of job loss.
Snowdon had no choice. Remember we are the "huddled masses yearning to BREATHE FREE". We will
keep chipping away until we get our God Given country back. Snowdon risked himself to help us
do just that. He had no choice!! Some people can't be bought!!
Dugan222 Edward Frederick Ezell 2 Jun 2015 19:08
The advantage is that this third party is a NSA front operation. :) Do you know what it means???
Every night, all the data being stored by this company are being transferred and backed up by
the NSA. Hehehehehhee......
The NSA still keeps all the data but the public won't assume the NSA has the data since we
are supposed to think that the NSA is no longer storing out phone data..... No one talks about
who is running this third party company...
Edward Frederick Ezell 2 Jun 2015 19:07
Since users of communications services will be required by the private providers to agree to
the recording of their communications, this procedure nicely sidesteps the limitations placed
on the government by the Constitution.
Although it seems quite clever it is in effect a conspiracy between the government and providers
to facilitate government violation of the constitution.
WadeLovell 2 Jun 2015 18:49
ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer says, "This is the most important surveillance reform
bill since 1978, and its passage is an indication that Americans are no longer willing to give
the intelligence agencies a blank check." I don't see this as vindication. OTOH, I don't believe
it would have passed without the lingering bitter taste of overzealous government and the people
like Snowden who helped expose it.
Dugan222 2 Jun 2015 18:41
Sigh...I am not convinced. The NSA would go after where the data is. If they are in the hands
of the phone company, they would have operatives working there. Worst, the phone company would
outsource the data management retention to a third party, NSA front company. Here, on the surface,
the NSA may appear to have no connections and responsibilities for storing the phone data. Again,
who is policing the phone company. And who is policing this "third party."
vr13vr 2 Jun 2015 18:08
Why does the Congress have to name laws with such fanfare? Freedom Act, Patriot Act, and so
on? Just to sound self righteous? Or to make sure that whoever does not agree with it could be
viewed as a unpatriotic and against freedom?
Would that be much better, and practical as well, not to over-hype laws but give them reasonable
and descriptive names?
sbabcock 2 Jun 2015 18:07
Seems to me the difference is the NSA has to actually go to the phone companies and plug in
to their server to vacuum up the data instead of having it delivered on a silver platter. Let's
face it, there are loop-holes galore in the "Freedom" Act. This is the Senate pretending to do
their jobs. "Hey, you pretend to be against this to save face. We'll pretend to pass something
that is 'different' and then we'll go on vacation again. People will think we 'do' stuff. Problems
solved." But it's simply re-shuffling the paperwork, something the House, headed by the Orange
Man, are experts at.
There's another story here today about FBI planes, registered under fake business identities,
using Sting-Ray to scoop up all kinds of phone data from above... so... look over here! so you
don't see what's going on over there! smfh
mcstowy DerekHaines 2 Jun 2015 18:07
During the McCarthy hearings, the easiest way to come under suspicion was to be "prematurely
anti-fascist." You see "good Americans" (meaning the right-wing corporate elite) supported Hitler
and Mussolini.
ID9492736 2 Jun 2015 17:50
The Most Transparent Administration In American History.
Even the sponges and mollusks are fainting from too much laughter.
Barry D. Lauterwasser wardropper 2 Jun 2015 17:29
It's amazing how a few people, and the internet can make such a difference. Throughout
the annals of history, many have sacrificed much, even their lives, for the good of the nation.
Like you, I'd like to see him come home and pardoned, but I'm sure his safety would be in jeopardy
due to the fanaticals here. Someday, history will hopefully judge these brave souls that came
forward to shed light on the things government does under the guise of "security." Time will tell...
madamefifi 2 Jun 2015 17:11
Not a week goes by without my thoughts (and I am just an ordinary joe with no political connections
whatsoever) turning to Edward Snowden and the gross injustice he has and still is suffering. Please
watch Citizenfour if you have not already done so, to understand the full magnitude of this injustice.
I hope I will live to see this injustice corrected and hope this is a step forward in an inhumanely
long process. Edward Snowden is one of the world's true heroes. I believe he deserves the Nobel
peace prize or some other worldwide recognition for his sacrifice but sadly no prizes or freedoms
are within my remit and never will be. Mr Snowden, this is all I can do and it might not count
for much, but I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
TrueCopy 2 Jun 2015 16:59
USA Freedom act is not what it is made to be. It has so many loopholes that makes it essentially
irrelevant. For example to get records a subpoena need to be issued, but the subpoena doesn't
need to be for one number or one individual, or even a roaming individual, they can issue a subpoena
for Verizon and another for AT&T and another for Sprint and T-mobile, and pretty cover everyone.
This is pretty much the same as what they were doing, but a little more cumbersome, which can
be overcome by a few software applications. Rand Paul wanted to limit the subpoena to an individual
living and breathing person or persons, rather than a telecom company which failed. So you know
where this is going, the lawyers at NSA can argue because that amendment failed, the intent of
congress was to allow them to subpoena phone company records.
Jbons990 2 Jun 2015 16:36
Fantastic. The fact that the mass collection of telecommunication data was hidden from the
public (and would have remained hidden were it not for a certain whistle blower) just demonstrates
that the NSA and GCHQ will never tell us the truth. This shiny new surveillance reform is one
giant metaphorical rug, for the NSA to sweep all attention underneath, before proceeding to collect
everybody information again. Because that's America. And that's democracy. *cough* Bureaucracy.
freeandfair tbv954 2 Jun 2015 16:34
Yep, the CIA were caught hacking into White House computers (about 6 months ago ? ) in order
to see the information on torture. Anything happened after they were caught red-handed and lies
about being caught under oath?
Nope. Just business as usual in the self-proclaimed shining city on the hill, the most democratic
country on Earth.
Let me put this another way: The developed world is in depression. It has been in depression since
2007. It never left depression. Within that depression, there is still a business cycle: There
are expansions, and recessions, and so on. Better times and worse times.
The business cycle is again turning down and is doing so sharply. Not only in the U.S. but also
in Europe and Asia.
Every central bank has been throwing money at the local economies but that money finds no productive
use. Why would a company invest even at 0% interests when nobody will buy the additional products
for a profitable price? How could consumers buy more when wages are stagnant and they are already
overburdened with debt taken up in the last expansion cycle? The central banks are pushing on a string
while distorting normal market relations. This intensifies the original crisis.
My believe is that the global crisis we see is one of overproduction, an excess or glut of supplies
and on the other side a lack of consumption. The exceptional cheap money created by the central banks
makes investment in machines preferable over employment of a human workforce. The result:
Manufacturing hub starts work
on first zero-labor factory
Chen predicted that instead of 2,000 workers, the current strength of the workforce, the company
will require only 200 to operate software system and backstage management.
The (Central) bank gave Mr. Chen cheap money and at an interest rate of 0% a complete automation
of his company may indeed be profitable. It is unlikely though that he would make the same move at
an interest rate of 10%. But on the larger macro economic scale Mr Chen needs to ask this question:
"How will the 1,800 laid off workers be able to buy the products my company makes?" Some of the laid
off people may find marginal "service" job but the money they will make from those will likely be
just enough to keep them alive. And over time flipping burgers will also be automated. And then?
Karl Marx described such overproduction crises. Their cause is a rising share of an economy's
profits going to an ever smaller class of "owners" while the growing class of marginal "workers"
gets less and less of the total pie. In the last decades this phenomenon can be observed all over
the developed world. The other side of the overproduction crisis is an underconsumption crisis. People
can no longer buy for lack of income.
While a realignment of central bank interest rates to historical averages, say some 6%, would
help to slow the negative process it would not solve the current problem. Income inequality and overproduction
would still increase though at a lesser pace. The historic imperialist remedy for local overproduction,
capturing new markets, is no longer available. Global trade is already high. There is little land
left to colonize and to widen the markets for ones products.
There are then two solutions to such an crisis.
One is to tackle the underconsumption side and to change the distribution of an economy's profits
with a much larger share going to "workers" and a smaller share going to "owners". This could be
achieved through higher taxes on "owners" and redistribution by the state but also through empowerment
of labor unions and like means. But with governments all over the world more and more captured by
the "owners" the chance that this solution will be chosen seem low.
The other solution for a capitalist society to a crisis of overproduction is the forced destruction
of (global) production capabilities through a big war. War also helps to increase control over the
people and to get rid of "surplus workers".
The U.S. was the big economic winner of World War I and II. Production capacities elsewhere got
destroyed through the wars and a huge number of global "surplus workers" were killed. For the U.S.
the wars were, overall, very profitable. Other countries have distinct different experiences with
wars. In likely no other country than the U.S. would one find a major newspaper that arguing that
wars make us safer and richer.
I am therefore concerned that the intensifying crisis of overproduction and its seemingly casual
preference for war will, in years to come, push the U.S. into starting a new global cataclysmic conflict.
Neoconservatives like Victoria Nuland tried to goad Russia and the EU into a big war over Ukraine.
The top lobbyist of the military industrial complex, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is
trying to instigate a war between China and its neighbors over some atolls in the South China
Sea. The U.S. is at
least complicit in the rise of the Islamic State which will leave the Middle East at war for
the foreseeable future.
Are these already, conscious or by chance, attempts by the U.S. to solve the problem
of global overproduction in its favor?
Marx's early writings, including the Communist Manifesto, did indeed focus on crises of overproduction.
But, in Capital, he explained that falling rates of profit are the key dynamic. For a popular
blog on these issues, see Michael Roberts:
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/
Of course, there is plenty of debate on these matters within Marxian political economy. The
best academic source is the journal, Historical Materialism:
Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 1, 2015 2:38:15 PM | 5
I think you're right, b. The U.S. will not allow regional hegemons who are not clients
let alone a global one to challenge its unipolar world. That's why we're seeing all these
wars in various stages -- hot in the Middle East; hot and cold in Ukraine; cold in Southeast Asia.
The U.S. prefers smashed failed states to anything remotely challenging its full-spectrum dominance.
The neoliberal prescription for low growth/no growth is the complete cannibalization of
the state. Privatized health care is being exported to Europe, while in the U.S. public education
is being devoured by corporations.
Since the subject is blacked out by corporate media, we have to decipher the news to try to
figure what is actually happening. The only stimulus acceptable to the elite and their politicians
is war. 2,300 Humvees seized by Islamic State. Instead of containment, ship thousands of anti-tank
missiles to Baghdad; more money in the pocket of the Military Complex.
The problem is that it is psychotic. The Islamic State's end game is Mecca. The shutoff of
11% of the world's oil supply will collapse the world economy. Yet, this is not an aberration.
A civil war was started in Ukraine right on Russia's border; a nuclear power who has said they
will use them if there is a shooting war with NATO.
The Greeks are being pillaged to pay debts that cannot ever be paid back. Unless the debt is
written off, the Eurozone will splinter asunder.
The only description for this is greed. Get rich today; the hell with tomorrow and the rest
of mankind.
Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 1, 2015 3:57:03 PM | 9
The good news is that this U.S.-led neoliberal hegemony (what Tariq Ali calls the "Radical
Center") is rapidly losing any popular legitimacy. Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, Sinn Fein
in Ireland, SNP in the UK, even Bernie Sanders in the U.S. His first day of campaigning last week
in Iowa 700 hundred people showed up to hear him speak, compared to 50 for Martin O'Malley, another
corporate shill.
Sanders is no antiwar crusader, but his basic ideas -- cutting military spending, breaking
up the big banks, raising marginal tax rates on the wealthy, creating jobs by investing in infrastructure
-- have proven the most popular, at least based on turnout, in Iowa of any candidate, Republican
or Democrat, so far.
Posted by: tom | Jun 1, 2015 4:17:23 PM | 10
We have to look at the perspective of the class war too, where the corporate and elite class
have growing contempt for the lower/middle classes more than they already do. So, how can one
grow the economy, when the elite and corporate class are exploiting, growing inequality, and hate
for us even more ?
Posted by: Bill | Jun 1, 2015 5:15:09 PM | 12
The prime vote holder of the IMF himself states the IMF has "served US National and economic
interests" since it's inception, across Latin America, Europe and the world, and that "US Leadership"
in the IMF is "critical".
The ideas behind the institutions that came out of Bretton Woods were already in the mind of
FDR and Keynes long before the conference. One of FDR's key advisors was James Warburg whose father
had funded Hitler as well as the USSR, and founded the Federal Reserve Bank.
US financiers funded Russian manufactured trucks which went to the North Vietnamese forces,
and today BP hold stakes in Russian energy firms while Hilary Clinton sells Russia the US Uranium
supply.
As Major General Smedley Butler said in 1935 "War is a Racket". All that has changed is the
quality of the supporting propaganda.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 1, 2015 5:50:10 PM | 16
I think that it is not "overproduction", but the result of improved transportation, communication
and more free trade. What is the advantage of paying wages in USA or Western Europe if you can
put all labor consuming operations in China, where there is good infrastructure, or in countries
where infrastructure is not as good but the labor much cheaper, like Bangladesh? The answer is
that while some advantages do exists, there are less and less frequent. Even automation can be
performed elsewhere.
Historically, in 16-th century The Netherlands were the chief European center of non-agricultural
production, international trade and banking, and afterwards there was less and less production,
but the country retained for a while its position in trade and banking. That cycle affected northern
Italy earlier, and England, later. I think that one part of the solution would be a moderate,
and yet effective, policy supportive of domestic production and domestic employment.
But there is also a bit of overproduction. Average American could perfectly well live in a
smaller home, drive a smaller vehicle, buy fewer gadgets etc. with hardly decreasing the quality
of life. Those below the average income can be out of luck, but they do not consume much anyway.
Additionally, there is an excessive gap between "micro-economic" and "macro-economic" optimum
behavior.
Most American household has so little savings that the suffer a crisis very easily, so it would
be better for them to spend less, e.g. by cooking more and eating out less, cutting down impulse
buying etc. However, the cut in demand is recessionary on a macro-scale. It would be sensible
to have policies that would concentrate not on "growth" but on satisfaction of needs.
America is drowning in the sewer of the national political system. There is no candidate or
incumbent in Washington, DC who serves the country. These elitists rape our liberties, steal
our wealth, entice our grandchildren into killing people in foreign lands and subject the future
of the nation to be slaves to the debt masters.
The American people must exercise the only peaceful option left to restore the federal republic
which is rapidly being transformed into a unitary style government like much of Europe. On November
8, 2016, the nation must stay home and not give its consent to continue being abused by the plutocracy
of puppets bribed by the global bankers, multinational corporations and foreign state lobbyists.
Abstinence is not benign as some would believe, it is a very powerful check on government when
it becomes so infested with opportunists who pursue their own self-serving aggrandizement through
the passage of law and regulation to benefit themselves and their criminal syndicate. Without
a democratic mandate the cabal cannot hold power and therefore the legislative function of law
making is extinguished. The bureaucracy remains in place until the fiscal budget ends in October
of the following year which means social security payments will still be made, Medicare claims
will still be processed and other central government functions will continue. During those 10
months, the people must demand from the governors of each of their respective States new elections
with candidates who are independent of the two-party dogma that has corrupted Washington, DC.
An implied vote of 'No Confidence" or "None of the Above" is the only sensible way to end this
long running nightmare of tyrannical fascism and nationalism that is destroying the country.
The motto of new liberty must be, "Dissolve it, start over!"
Posted by: chuckvw | Jun 1, 2015 7:26:53 PM | 19
So much for the surplus value of labor... All surplus and no labor... The global capitalist
system has become bulimic.
Posted by: Tom Murphy | Jun 1, 2015 8:59:08 PM | 20
I remember in school in the early 1980's a teacher said something really disgusting to the
class: "want to boost an economy, have a war" (clearly the powers that be have made sure that
there propaganda gets fed to the public) another ugly thing a teacher tried to push was the notion
that WWII's economic effect was some sort of special boost yet at the same time trying to obscure
the basic fact that it was government spending that took us out of the depression so war was not
needed at all. A lot of work has gone into pushing the manipulative propaganda which is meant
to manipulate and sell the agenda of the powerful.
How it was presented was "FDR tried the New Deal but it took WWII to get us out of the Great
Depression." The framing of it that way is intentionally manipulative in order to obscure the
role government spending had in getting us out of the depression and it is phrased that way to
sell war.
Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 1, 2015 9:08:58 PM | 21
in re 14 --
Nor did they suffer from overproduction of
T-34's,, even though they cut cost
and production time in half. But they still had sufficient to defeat Hitler, thank Ford! The Space
Station is in trouble if there are shortages of
Proton rockets.
And the Federation is still enjoying some Union leftovers in education and healthcare, see Lisa
Marie White's accounting of
why American liberals are wrong about Russia.
For an artistic take on overproduction in capitalism, see Brave New World. Ending is better
than mending!
Whatever happened to waste not, want not? Just a throwaway line....
Posted by: Copeland | Jun 1, 2015 9:12:41 PM | 22
Piotyr Berman @ 16
I think you're on the right track. Before capitalism ran amok and metastasized into a global
zombie, there were guilds. I believe the Netherlands had a rich history of those organizations.
These were created to protect the rights and privileges of members (to be sure); but they also
preserved and improved the skills, and passed these on through apprenticeship. The obsession in
consumerism is about having something brand new, and also relies on planned obsolescence, which
needs to produce shoddy goods such as plastic footwear, that will be discarded as junk in a few
months. Having things made which are durable enough to go through several cycles of repair, would
moderate the overheated production.
If labor is expunged by automation-crazed corporations; then war or revolution, or even both
at once, is possible. The cataclysmic outcome that b sketched out is then possible. Of course
it's all very short-sighted; but I once read somewhere that at the onset of the 1930s Great Depression,
the capitalists examined the option of reducing working hours for everyone so that workers might
still muddle through.
On closer examination, capitalists calculated that dumping workers into the trash heap
would add a few dollars more to the corporate bottom line, and be more agreeable to shareholders.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 1, 2015 9:46:47 PM | 23
@b
Since you mentioned Karl Marx, the exclusion of a very valid third option, revolutionary war/class
struggle, makes itself evident. From the trend we witnessed after WWII, we cannot expect as you
correctly noted, a redistribution of wealth out of the greedy and gluttonous transatlantic empire
and its minions, since concentration, centralization and consolidation of capital has been the
order of the day ever since. The other major trend after WWII has been imperial wars, either by
proxy or direct intervention, fought against countries that followed the path to independence
from colonial powers by means of revolutionary wars, in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The potential
for another period of revolutionary war is real, given the abject misery of the wretched of the
earth, which have been left with nothing to lose but their chains. The main obstacle they face
is the lack of a scientific tool to interpret their current predicament, and at the same time
provide them with a vision of the social paradigm they aspire at, out of the ruins left of their
societies. With its inherent limitations given by dogma, Marxism was that tool for Mao, Lumumba,
Ben-Bella, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and many other African, Asian and Latin American leaders who took
upon their shoulders to shake their peripheral dependency. Many of them were successful in their
revolutionary endeavors, and were able to trace an independent path for their societies, even
if burdened with all the problems typical of the "third world." Nevertheless, even before the
fall of the Soviet Union, Marx and Marxism were thrown under a pile of dead dogs, even more after
the fall, which was attributed to the utter failure of Marxism as a social science.
Marx and Marxism were part of the "end of history," a thing of the past, a post-Hegelian utopian
philosophy whose ultimate results were the creation of dystopian societies until the crisis of
2007, when suddenly everybody wanted to understand WTF is a cyclical crisis, and why do they happen.
Das Kapital became a best seller in Germany and beyond; becoming a model for new works tailored
after Marx's statistically saturated magnus opus, e.g. Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First
Century, " and others. Despite all the intellectually gifted resisters to the empire, and the
vast expansion of knowledge of the digital age, no new revolutionary theory has appeared, able
to inspire the masses of dispossessed as Marxism did at the turn of the XIX c., one that changed
the course of history forever during the XX c.
It is in this vacuum, a modern epistemological crisis, that the neocons, bastard children of
Trotskyism, took ownership of Trotsky's "Theory of Permanent Revolution," and turned it into a
counterrevolutionary instrument for their nefarious global domination purposes. Hence revolutions
became bastardized, categorized by "colors" or "seasons" according to the whims of the vulgar
ruling elites, and lost their power to change societies from the bottom up. This crisis of knowledge
of their own socio-economic/political conditions are having a profound effect on the masses worldwide,
who in many instances rise up against their oppressors, e.g. Egypt/Arab "Spring," without a leadership,
without a clear vision of their goals, without a social agenda that guides their movements, and
they end up getting crushed or coopted by the new rulers, toys for the empire games of regime
change. These are the "Twitter" and "Facebook" so-called "revolutions," mass movements with no
direction, no aim, and no strategy for social change. What kind of society did the Egyptians,
Tunisians, et al want? Did they have a program for the society they wanted to build? Was there
a clear strategy and tactics to achieve their goals? "Crisis," say Gramsci, that giant of Italian
Marxism, "is when the old has not died and the new has not been born." Humanity is now facing
an epistemological crisis of galactic proportions, in serious need of a new revolutionary theory
that, like Marxism in the XIX/XX c., gives the masses a vision of a future to build with their
own hands, and hope there is a better world other than sweat-shops, slavery, toiling without rewards,
exploitation, misery, crime, and an ever-growing gap between the ruling elites and the working
masses.
@12, Sutton is an ass. He pushes the theory that Communism and Fascism are equally bad and
what is needed is some mystical third way: Libertarians with their squirrel rifles hunkerin down
behind cotton bales. So Wall St. offered Lenin free cash, and he took it! Well, duh!
The motto of new liberty must be, "Dissolve it, start over!"
PokeTheTruth@18- I tend to agree, with the caveat that plenty people need to be held accountable.
Texas might be getting that idea.
Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 1, 2015 10:44:18 PM | 27
PB @ 16, Copeland at 22
Historians of the United Provinces point out that Holland and her allied provinces lacked a
sufficient population base to administer and defend the holdings she gained in her revolt against
Spain ("The Eighty Years War"). With the loss of revenue, croqetten and circuses became less affordable.
The House of Orange were elevated from elected Statholders to Kings, the thinking being a monarchy
would better keep the lower classes down than a republic. This environment proved conducive to
the spread of revolutionary ideas in the Low Countries after 1789.
Historian of the later Renaissance attribute the decline of the urban republics to several
factors. The prevailing aristocratic values induced merchant families to move their capital from
commercial and industrial operations to urban and rural real estate -- especially country tracts
that came with patents of nobility. Failing that, you could, like the Medici, subvert the Republic
with wealth and buy a title from the Papacy or Holy Roman Emperor. And a more mundane factor --
they ran out of good shipbuilding timber.
England for her part had a large population. It had plenty of timber -- North America was a
shipwright's wet dream, and before this, measures prioritized available timber for maritime uses.
When elites think protecting domestic markets and workers will add to their bottom line, they
will. But if the see money to be made in "outsourcing" and "off-shoring", well, away the factories,
jobs, salaries, and purchases from suppliers go.
England began to lose her superiority in textiles and iron and steel to cheaper American and
German production. And these two rivals took advantage of what Gershenkron has called "the advantage
of the latecomer." The major industrial expansions of both took place in the Second Industrial
Revolution, where steel, chemicals, and electrics were the new driving technologies, and both
were leaders in these fields. After a rearguard action up to World War II, they accepted de-industrialization
whole-hearted under Thatcher.
PTT at 18 -- The elite will be totally fine with abstention. Less voters to bribe. Not only
will things continue as they were, we'll have to endure fools like David Brooks lecturing us on
our lack of civic engagement.
Go to the polls. If you can't bring yourself to vote for the left(over) parties down the ballot,
write in you favorite choice -- "none of the above" will do. And not just for President, do it
for all the races. The rightists will bring more of the same, only with more Pharisee-style false
piety or boring Ayn Rand novels. Friends don't let friends vote Tea Party.
Lone Wolf at 23 -- Time permits me only to say -- Gramsci Rules!
Posted by: meofios | Jun 1, 2015 10:55:26 PM | 28
I think the over-production we see is caused by zombie companies all around the world, that
don't generate any profit, sustained by zero interest rate loans, over produce goods, causing
a glut of products, and cause price deflation.
The 'elites' spend billions of dollars every election cycle to encourage or frighten people
into the voting booth. Without that 'consent of the people' their minions have no mandate or legal
right to rule over us. Throwing your vote away by voting for or against someone or even writing
FU on the ballot is still supporting the corrupt system that they will continue to use to rule
and if voting could change anything, it would be illegal.
This doesn't mean that elections and voting may not someday be useful again but there is no
possibility they can now be used to change our corrupt system.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 2, 2015 1:32:21 AM | 30
I agree with that.
Lone Wolf @ #23's Gramisci perspective is on the money.
Russell Brand, my favourite non-revolutionary revolutionary, makes the (laboured) point that
a govt elected by less than 50% of eligible voters cannot claim legitimacy.
But Gramisci was righter than everyone else in pointing out that "Crisis is when the old has
not died and the new has not been born."
It should be obvious to everyone, by now, that Twitter and Facebook "revolutions" aren't revolutions,
or journeys, and have no useful or coherent destination.
Posted by: Chipnik | Jun 2, 2015 7:25:37 AM | 31
b
This is the 'atto-fox problem' in biology, addressed by the Lotka-Volterra equation in Brauer,
F. and Castillo-Chavez, C., Mathematical Models in Population Biology and Epidemiology, Springer-Verlag,
(2000), and many others, the bifurcation relationship allowing two mutually independent steady-state
solutions, one with higher predation and lower prey population used to justify higher resource
extraction rates, ...but it remains just a theory and requires a rigorous definition of who is
the 'prey'.
Is the prey the poor and downtrodden? No, those are the losers.
We can all agree the 'prey' is ultimately the energy needed to continue surviving for another
day, not the staid pedantic 19thC Marxist 'Das Kapital', but just the 'real' value of evolutionary
currency and trade. We've transferred the value of energy into gold, then fiat paper today 1's
and 0's, and now there's too many of them. They'really part of a non-viable fractional-reserve
usury-based ecosystem that's running out of balance, Koyaanisqatsi.
The rich prey on the energy developed by the poor through usury and credit, but also, the socialist
state preys upon the destitute as a source of $Bs public program, using public tax extraction
to generate private wealth in much the same way as usury and credit. More rice tents!!
If we de-anthropomorphize the Marxist class-struggle dialectic, and the rabbinical Maker-Taker
meme, the answer pops right out like a jujube: not overproduction, not QEn, not oligarchs and
monopolies, but usury and taxes.
Wah-lah. Usury. Taxes. Same as it ever was. Que sera, sera.
Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 2, 2015 8:16:58 AM | 32
Wayout at 29 --
The standard line of us reds is that participation in elections is a useful tool for educating
the masses and marshaling and mobilizing progressive forces. And that mass action, e.g., the general
strike, is the real means of social change.
Bhagavan Chippy at 31 --
I'd stick to physics and Eastern mysticism.
Predation occurs between, not within species. Socialism is about the workers controlling the
means of production that they service. Social welfare capitalism bought their birthright for "a
mess of pottage" (Gen. 25: 29-34). But austerity is taking that off the table.
I find the overtones of the "rabbinical meme" and the emphasis on usury and taxes disturbing.
See this handy comparative chart; fascism is "Strongly against international financial markets
and usury." The Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party is recent spawn of that brood.
Our own home-grown TeaBaggers don't feel too good about it either.
You might consider a clarification or restatement of your position.
Posted by: paulmeli | Jun 2, 2015 8:28:43 AM | 33
"We've transferred the value of energy into gold, then fiat paper today 1's and 0's, and now
there's too many of them"
Well, there's too much savings (accumulated financial wealth) but not enough spending. We know
this because we have too much unemployment. Properly targeted spending cures unemployment.
Spending is a function mainly of money printing, existing money (previously created) mostly
just earns interest and so is parasitic to the system in the net (economic rent), which leads
to a paradox.
In the old days in the U.S. between 1933 and the mid-1960's the top marginal tax rate remained
around 90% and then around 70% until Reagan was elected.
This maintained some sort of balance between money printing and saving. Now, money creation
just piles up at the top which creates huge inequalities of power.
Posted by: geoff29 | Jun 2, 2015 9:24:35 AM | 34
It's simple to conclude that the "ruling class" and their spokes-people are if not absolutely
greedy and mendacious, then at least criminally stupid.
But I think that's short-sighted. The financial crisis could be resolved in a moment's notice,
since money is more or less an "imaginary" construct, especially now that it's just 1s and 0s,
as was mentioned. The population is clamoring for "higher wages," but if we here were the small
ruling class, we must know that "higher wages" means more mouths to feed from a growing population.
Or, it means more disgruntled minions crying for "revolution" carrying pitch forks to the very
gates of the gated communities and wilderness tracts where the very wealthy keep themselves concealed,
when calamity strikes and food is scarce.
And the "ruling class" despite their equivocations, surely discusses amongst themselves
the growing unsustainability of the ever encroaching environmental calamities, and dwindling resources,
etc. What wars are being threatened between great powers, are are not about the resolution
of world wide perils in terms of repairing the global over indulgence in carbon based technologies,
in fact they seem to be based on increasing their use and further extracting scarce resources
and more rapidly burning down the house.
Intelligent discussions are conducted here at MOA, it would be foolish to conclude that
some semblance of intelligent discussions are not also held in the upper rooms and chambers of
power, stripped of pretense and falsehood. If so, if one of us were sitting with those chosen
few, I'm sure we would come to the conclusion that we were in a serious fix. And our backs are
up against the wall. "Austerity" would be pushed to its extremities to decrease productivity and
reduce the population through Urie's principle of immiseration.
Put yourself in the shoes of this ruling class, our primary MO would no doubt be self-preservation
from the encroaching revolutions and chaos, and destruction, and a preservation of some kind of
status quo. Otherwise, all that we had, were we sitting on the porch overlooking our estate, would
be gone.
If nothing else works like the current financial immiseration to reduce the current state of
affairs to a simpler and more manageable system where our ruling class rank and stature in society
remained permanent and secure (because really our whole being has been reduced to measuring ourselves
by our imagined sense of self-worth determined by our wealth, etc.) but the elimination of so
many annoying minions through some kind of controlled burn, like a war, then certainly we would
go about that?
I'm sure nothing pleases these folks more but for us to deride them constantly and poke fun
at their ineptitude and call them all sorts of "evil," because that would just be so much more
grist for the mill.
===
Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 2, 2015 10:25:43 AM | 36
There is a famous anecdote about a General Motors executive showing off their newest automated
assembly line to a United Auto Workers Union boss and remarking "Not one of them is a union member!"
To which the UAW boss replied, "And not one of them is a GM customer, either."
Posted by: Willy2 | Jun 2, 2015 11:15:49 AM | 40
There's a lack of demand worldwide because since say 1981 workers/employees have received wage
increases below inflation. In that regard workers have seen their purchasing power being reduced
for over 30 years. No wonder, households/workers aren't able or willing spend lots of money.
From 1981 up to 2008 households/workers were willing to increase their debtload. By going deeper
into debt those households were able to keep their spending at a reasonable level.
But since 2008 households are reluctant to go deeper into debt and that has weakened the worldwide
economy.
As long as workers don't get wage increases at or above inflation (levels) or are willing increase
their debtloads (again) there's no chance for a economic recovery.
Posted by: HnH | Jun 2, 2015 11:23:22 AM | 41
b,
you normally publish highly insightful analyses and information nuggets that I have trouble
finding elsewhere. On this topic, however, you jumped short.
Yes, we are struggling with overproduction and lack of consumption, but it is important to
know where this development comes from. If you look at historical data, then you might realize
that the purchasing power of people in the Western World started decreasing at the start of the
80s last century. The *growth* in purchasing power decreased since the 1960s. And debt is a significant,
but small, part of it. The average growth in GDP has been consistently shrinking since the 1960s.
Can you even remember a time, when the economy in one of the Western countries has been growing
by more than 4% YoY? I don't. For Germany you have to go back to before the 70s oil crisis to
find two years with a consecutive growth of 4% for more than one year. I wasn't even born then.
The main problem is this: We have to invest more and more energy to pump the same amount
of oil, mine the same amount of ores and produce the same amount of food. And there are more and
more people living right now.
This main problem, the diminishing returns, makes it that people have to spend more and more
to afford the basic necessities. Corporations and enterprises react to their diminishing sales
by cutting their costs to pay their loans. The easiest way to cutting costs is letting go of workers.
Since 2008, the crash happened after the crash of the oil price, Western Central Banks
needed to keep their interest rates a 0%, because there was no growth. If they are ever crazy
enough to raise interest rates, they will be blamed for the worst market crash in human history.
The reason is that we have reached the limits to growth. There is no more growth to be
had for the industrialized civilization. That is over. For good. Unless we find an unlimited energy
source that is very, very cheap. None is on the horizon so far.
Currently, a country can only produce growth, for a very short time, at the expense of others.
That too will stop. Then, in a few years at the latest, global GDP will start to shrink. That
is when the wars will start in earnest. That is when the killing and dying will start in earnest.
That killing and dying will not stop, until the world will have found a means to reduce its
energy consumption to the physical and geological realities out there. That will take a while,
and I have no clue how the world will look like.
Best wishes,
HnH
Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Jun 2, 2015 11:38:36 AM | 43
Sorry, but I again disagree.
First of all, the robots in the example are there because there the Chinese labor pool has
been growing slower than the economy for years now.
Secondly, robots need to be made by somebody. They cost lots of money. They have to be maintained
and often upgraded. The physical operation of the plant might take 90% less workers, but the remaining
workers are paid as much or more as the previous entire work force.
Thirdly, the production noted in the article isn't for China - at least, not yet. It is for
the 1st world. Thus the "replacement" of the worker is a dynamic of cheaper labor elsewhere rather
than actual replacement with mechanization.
As for economics: an entire series of fallacies.
a) Overproduction. While I will certainly agree that the 1st world can do with less, this is
irrelevant. Every labor saving device ever created has ultimately had the labor savings spent
on higher standards of living. There is nothing to indicate any change in this dynamic. Thus while
we no longer have tens and hundreds of thousands of workers making automobiles, we now have tens
and hundreds of thousands of workers doing other things like fracking oil and natural gas, servicing
the cars via a nationwide array of repair, refueling, and upkeep (car washes, etc). Equally, we
don't drive Model T's anymore. Ford used to be nearly entirely self sufficient outside of the
metals - this is no longer true. Ford doesn't make computer chips or any of hundreds of parts
in present day Fords.
b) Labor isn't the problem - consumption is. In terms of overall productivity, Americans as
a whole are producing more than ever before. Hours worked has been inching down, but hours of
work isn't what dictates the actual output - it is a function of productivity times hours worked,
and that product continues to increase overall.
The primary difference between today and post World War II is that of the economic rewards.
Americans who aren't in the managerial class get paid a smaller percentage of the overall production
created than ever before. This also has been decreasing for decades.
Thus the problem isn't one of too much productivity or too much automation - the problem is
one where the rich get all the money.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 2, 2015 12:08:31 PM | 44
"The main problem is this: We have to invest more and more energy to pump the same amount
of oil, mine the same amount of ores and produce the same amount of food."
This may well be true, but if one looks at the history of spending growth (or more accurately
public investment) by the U.S. federal government one will see that spending growth suddenly dropped
by 1/3rd in the early 1980's (around the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidency). This can be
observed visually very easily by looking at the FRED series FGEXPND on a log scale the breakpoint
is obvious and so is the one at around 2010.
U.S. federal spending has averaged 7% since WWII overall about 9% through 1985 dropping to
about 5% thereafter. Since 2010 growth has been an anemic 1.6%.
It's no wonder GDP growth has been on decline since the 80's, and it's no wonder we are experiencing
a slowdown now.
Posted by: james | Jun 2, 2015 12:34:50 PM | 46
@43 ǝn⇂ɔ quote.. "Thus the problem isn't one of too much productivity or too much automation
- the problem is one where the rich get all the money."
who is buying the produce ǝn⇂ɔ ?
Posted by: dh | Jun 2, 2015 12:38:22 PM | 47
@46 A lot of money goes into remodelling. Look at the proliferation of home improvement stores.
Posted by: james | Jun 2, 2015 1:22:48 PM | 48
@47 dh.. the big money is in the mic/fic complex... chump change in most other areas relatively
speaking.. i think the big money is coming from gov't spending.. it is a self sustaining vicious
circle for everyone.. that's my simplistic rendition of it! who pays for those orange jump suits
anyway?
Posted by: dh | Jun 2, 2015 1:33:19 PM | 49
@48 Not everybody in the US is in jail or on food stamps. There is a lot of disposable income
in the US. People buy new vehicles, improve their homes, upgrade their entertainment systems,
send kids to college, go on trips. The trick is to keep interest rates low and keep printing money.
So far it seems to be working.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 2, 2015 3:09:14 PM | 52
@geoff29 @34
And the "ruling class" despite their equivocations, surely discusses amongst themselves the
growing unsustainability of the ever encroaching environmental calamities, and dwindling resources,
etc.
I am sure they discuss those and many other subjects under heaven, problem starts with
their conclusions. Ever heard of the
"smart idiot effect"?
(...)Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one's political
party affiliation, one's acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one's level
of education. And here's the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree
didn't appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated
Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren.
Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human
actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.
For Democrats and Independents,
the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science-among
Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats
was 23 percentage points.
This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the "smart idiots" effect:
The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and
less persuadable, than the ignorant. It's a reality that generates endless frustration
for many scientists-and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.(...)
I'm sure nothing pleases these folks more but for us to deride them constantly and poke
fun at their ineptitude and call them all sorts of "evil," because that would just be so much
more grist for the mill.
Well, their lack of awareness is legendary, and their indifference to their damage on the planet
and the suffering of others is their trademark. They might laugh all the way to the bank, in total
ignorance of the legacy their greed and possessiveness are leaving in their wake.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 2, 2015 3:52:00 PM | 53
A Report on an Interdisciplinary Wargame conducted by the
U.S. Army War College
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
Posted by: james | Jun 2, 2015 4:04:04 PM | 54
@49 dh.. i know that but thanks for the reminder..almost zero interest rates is the name of the
game and has been for some time.. if people had a different interest rate on their line of credit
- the jig would be up.. for now it is 'free money' with anyone silly enough to not 'invest' in
the wall st casino, or is in any way pragmatic financially - will watch what money they have devalue
quicker then you can say 'quicksand'..and, i am always reminded of the racial divide when i think
of the states - food stamps verses big brand new automobiles.. what a weird culture.. canada isn't
a lot different in some regards.. it is and it isn't..
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/karl_marx_was_right_20150531
by Chris Hedges
Karl Marx exposed the peculiar dynamics of capitalism, or what he called "the bourgeois mode
of production." He foresaw that capitalism had built within it the seeds of its own destruction.
He knew that reigning ideologies-think neoliberalism-were created to serve the interests of the
elites and in particular the economic elites, since "the class which has the means of material
production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production"
and "the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships
the relationships which make one class the ruling one." He saw that there would come a day when
capitalism would exhaust its potential and collapse.
~~~
The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately
familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system
would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity,
the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing
the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens.
~~~
The corporations that own the media have worked overtime to sell to a bewildered public the fiction
that we are enjoying a recovery. Employment figures, through a variety of gimmicks, including
erasing those who are unemployed for over a year from unemployment rolls, are a lie, as is nearly
every other financial indicator pumped out for public consumption. We live, rather, in the twilight
stages of global capitalism, which may be surprisingly more resilient than we expect, but which
is ultimately terminal. Marx knew that once the market mechanism became the sole determining factor
for the fate of the nation-state, as well as the natural world, both would be demolished. No one
knows when this will happen. But that it will happen, perhaps within our lifetime, seems certain.
"The old is dying, the new struggles to be born, and in the interregnum there are many morbid
symptoms," Antonio Gramsci wrote.
What comes next is up to us.
Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 2, 2015 8:18:47 PM | 57
lonewolf #52
Your comment reminds me of something once said by a retired law professor. "We spend considerable
effort looking for bright young students for admittance into law school. Then we spend the next
three years beating out their common sense".
Having been involved in graduate school education during my career that statement also applies
to grad student education in English and Social Science departments.
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists,"
Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed
by a judge just like the constitution says."
"... With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory. ..."
"... "I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government, unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it." ..."
"... Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized". ..."
"... By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in. ..."
"... politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens. ..."
"... Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands. ..."
"... "This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws." ..."
Rand Paul indicated his intention on Friday to filibuster a surveillance reform bill that he considers insufficient, as privacy
advocates felt momentum to tear the heart out of the Bush-era Patriot Act as its Snowden-era expiration date approaches.
With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and
Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory.
... ... ...
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists,"
Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed
by a judge just like the constitution says."
... ... ...
"Right now we're having a little bit of a war in Washington," Paul said at the rally on Friday. "It's me versus some of the rest
of them or a lot of the rest of them."
... ... ...
In the middle is a bill that fell three votes shy of a 60-vote threshold. The USA Freedom Act, supported by Obama, junks the NSA's
bulk collection of US phone records in exchange for extending the lifespan of the Patriot Act's controversial FBI powers.
While McConnell, Obama and many Freedom Act supporters describe those powers as crucial, a recent Justice Department report said
the expiring "business records" provision has not led to "any major case developments". Another power set to expire, the "roving
wiretap" provision, has been linked to abuse in declassified documents; and the third, the "lone wolf" provision, has never been
used, the FBI confirmed to the Guardian.
... ... ...
The White House has long backed passage of the USA Freedom Act, calling it the only available mechanism to save the Patriot Act
powers ahead of expiration now that the House has recessed until Monday.
Obama on Friday chastised what he said were "a handful of Senators" standing in the way of passing the USA Freedom Act, who he
alleged risked creating an intelligence lapse.
James Clapper, the director of national intelligence whom Paul has criticized for lying to Congress about surveillance, issued
a rare plea to pass a bill he has reluctantly embraced in order to retain Patriot Act powers.
"At this late date, prompt passage of the USA Freedom Act by the Senate is the best way to minimize any possible disruption of
our ability to protect the American people," Clapper said on Friday.
At the Beacon Drive-in diner in Spartanburg, Paul chastised proponents of the Patriot Act for arguing the law would prevent another
9/11. "Bull!" a woman in the crowd exclaimed, as others groaned at the national security excuse cited by more hawkish lawmakers.
"I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government,
unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it."
Multiple polls released this month have found overwhelming public antipathy for government surveillance.
Still, it remains unclear if the USA Freedom Act has the votes to pass. Senate rules permit Paul to effectively block debate on
the bill until expiration. Few who are watching the debate closely felt on Friday that they knew how Sunday's dramatic session would
resolve.
But privacy groups, sensing the prospect of losing one of their most reviled post-9/11 laws, were not in a mood to compromise
on Friday.
"Better to let the Patriot Act sunset and reboot the conversation with a more fulsome debate," said Anthony Romero, the executive
director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
He opposes indefinite detention in the NDAA, he opposes TPP and the fast track. He opposes the militarization of local police.
He opposes the secrecy of the Federal Reserve. He opposes unwarranted civil asset forfeiture. He opposes no-knock home searches.
He opposes the failed drug war. He opposes war without congressional approval. What is it about him you don't like?
Trenton Pierce -> masscraft 30 May 2015 21:14
Then line up behind Rand. He polls the best against Hilary. The era of big government Republican is over. Realize that or get
ready for your Democrat rule.
Vintage59 -> Nedward Marbletoe 30 May 2015 16:20
The machine would chew him up and spit him out and he's smart enough to know that.
ripogenus 30 May 2015 07:47
Just listened to NPR's On the Media. They did a special podcast just on the patriot act and the consequences if it expires.
Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized".
seasonedsenior 29 May 2015 22:20
New technology is beginning to equal the playing field somewhat whether it be video of police misconduct or blocking out Congress
from 10,000 websites to stop NSA spying. This part of technology is a real positive. There are too many secrets in our democracy-light
that should be exposed for the greater good. There is too much concentrated power that needs to be opened up. I am happy to see
these changes happening. Keep up the good work.
AmyInNH cswanson420 29 May 2015 22:12
By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in.
Viet Nguyen -> cswanson420 29 May 2015 17:44
politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens.
Best examples? Retarded laws that discriminate against gay people in states like Indiana. When major corporations such as Wal-Mart
and Apple, who only cares about money, condemn such retarded laws with potential boycotts, their political lackeys quickly follow
in line.
I am waiting for another multinational corporation to declare the NSA process detrimental to businesses, and see how many former
government supporters of the NSA do a complete 180 degree stance flip.
EdChamp -> elaine layabout 29 May 2015 17:22
Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands.
Congratulations! You win the award of the day for that one gleaming guardian comment that truly made me smile.
Repent House 29 May 2015 16:13
"This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking
your access until you end mass surveillance laws."
This is so freekin awesome... mess with the bull you get the horns as I always say!
They seem to under estimate the strength, knowledge, tenacity, of the "AMERICAN PEOPLE" This is what we need to do on a wider scale for a number of things wrong!
Awesome!
...Politicians and editors look for opportunities to step up its campaign for the accession to
NATO, and in the spring of 2016, the parliament is expected to approve a host-country agreements
that make it easier for NATO to with Swedish permission to use our territory as a base for
military activities, "including the attack", "in peace, emergencies, crisis and conflict or
international tensions".
Everything appears to be and sold as a speedy response to Russian aggression. Sweden and
other countries are prepared after the end of the cold war in the belief that European peace was
secured. But the president saw in our kindness as a weakness and took the opportunity to obtain
tear up a security order that has prevailed for decades.
The story goes is repeated again and again every day in our media. Vladimir Putin, with the
annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine have shown "that he does not
respect the European order that had been in place since the second world war and statutes that
borders cannot be changed by force", writes, for example, the Daily News, in an editorial on
January 12.
Such an argument is a deliberate memory gap. MSM presstitutes push the button "forget" and
suddenly a decade of war in the former Yugoslavia erased from the public consciousness.
We can argue about reasons and circumstances of intervention, but it is undeniable that the
USA, NATO and EU countries intervened using military force to redraw the map of the Balkans. The
leadership in Moscow has thus set a precedent to cite. Putin reiterates at the conflicts with
Georgia and Ukraine, word-for-word the reasons the western powers claimed for the bombing of
Serbia and the recognition of cessation of Kosovo.
But the right to put himself above the principles of the inviolability of borders and
non-interference in other countries ' internal affairs is in our official propaganda worldview a
privilege reserved for the "international community", which is in reality the United States and
its entourage of small and medium-sized European satellites. International law applies to all
other states, but not for the United States, NATO and the EU.
NATO expanded in 1999 their mutual defense obligations to include global dangers
such as terrorism and the "disruption of the flow of vital resources", and in 2003, the EU
adopted its first security strategy, inspired by the Bush doctrine on the right to preventive war
against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction: "With the new threats the first line of
defense will often be abroad ... We need to develop a strategic culture that fosters early,
rapid, and when necessary, robust intervention."
It was the doctrine of the first line of defense not the dreams of peace, who guided the
Swedish defense military industrial complex. Territorial defense was abandoned at the end of the
1990s, literally send to the junkyard. What was left was prestigious military projects in
industry and the individual units of professional soldiers trained for NATO operations in foreign
countries. The restructuring was led by a consulting firm from the united states, closely tied to
the Pentagon, the NSA and the CIA The armed forces would prepare for "global action -
especially in the continents of the world in which Sweden has a vital economic and/or political
interests," the consultants wrote in a secret report.
"Sweden's role as a regional power in the Baltic sea changed from neutrality to leadership",
was said. Now for some reason "koalitionskrigfφring and Sweden's ability to operate in
collaboration with organizations such as NATO ... get a new and greater significance". This was
written in 1998, long before the war in Ukraine.
When the U.S. interest in the Arctic and the north flank, now rising to the fore the plans.
Sweden becomes a bridgehead in the quest to penetrate back to Russia. Gotland will again be
anchored, Russian submarines tops the news and B-52 bombers taking over the sky.
The major powers have never hesitated to tramp the UN-principles, but with the doctrine of the
preventive intervention there is nothing left of the respect of all the member states'
sovereignty. If NATO considers itself have the right to place a first line of defense in
Afghanistan or Libya, then does not Russia the same rights in Ukraine?
The Russian leadership will see in the western privilege for preemptive interventions a
precedent. Europe is sinking into a black hole that draws misfortune of countries and people.
Several politicians, editors, and the military now proclaim that that we should jump in, leave
the last of the neutrality and comply with NATO going directly into the black hole. Multiyear
efforts of dragging the country into the the alliance, shall result in the membership.
We should do the opposite. Pull us out. Keep us away. Say yes to the exclusion.
It reduces the risk that our own government or the foreign power will drag us into the war.
But not only that. Swedish neutrality is also an opening for the people in eastern Europe who are
looking for a rescue out of the tug-of-war between the Russian oil and gas barons, domestic
oligarchs and western financial oligarchs.
Being outside zone of US protectorate, we can jointly deal with the social issues.
More can be read about the NATO mutual fφrsvarsfφrpliktelser in "The Alliance's Strategic
Concept, Approved by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North
Atlantic Council in Washington, D. C., 990424".
The text was written in 1998 is available in the "SAIC: Perspective Study Dominant? Awareness
2020", Final Report, September 2, 1998, For The Swedish High Command, p. 5, 7
The West scored major geopolitical victory against Russia: As Paul said (see below): "My limited
knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not?
That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake."
Poor Ukrainian citizen. Poor Ukrainian pensioners existing on a $1 a day or less (with exchange
rate around 26.5 hrivna per dollar, pension around 900 hrivna is around $1 per day. Some pensioners
get less then that ( miserable 1500 hrivna per month considered to be "decent" pension and monthly salary
4000 hrivna is a "good" salary by Ukrainian standards).
The last thing EU wants is an additional stream of refugees from Ukraine escaping miserable salaries
and lack of decently paying jobs and pressure of Ukrainian migrant workers on unqualified job market
positions.... So far the main hit for this was not in Western but in Russian job market, but that may
change. At the same time making the Ukraine enemy of Russia is a definitive geopolitical victory, achieved
with relatively modest financial infusions (USA estimate is 5 billions, the EU is probably a half of
that) and indirect support of Western Ukrainian nationalists.
One year ago there was a hope the Donetsk problem will be solved. Now in 2016 this civil war entered
the third year -- Kiev government can't squash unrecognized Donetsk Republic with military force and
it does not want to switch to federal state to accommodate their pretty modest demands: initially use
of Russian language and reverse of "creeping cultural colonization" of this region by Western Ukraine.
Initially the official language question was the one of the most important and Kiev Provisional government
rejected Canadian variant of using the same language as its powerful, dominant neighbor and unleashed
a civil war (with full blessing of the USA, which pursue "divide and conquer strategy in this region
from the moment of dissolution of the USSR). Now after so much bloodshed the positions are hardened...
Imagine that the Quebec nationalists came to power in Canada by French supported and financed coup,
and instantly outlawed the English language for official usage and in schools and universities.
Notable quotes:
"... If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved? ..."
"... That has surely been largely achieved. ..."
"... That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR. ..."
"... Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. ..."
"... They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. ..."
"... I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond. ..."
"... If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat. ..."
"... Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained. ..."
"... It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia. ..."
"... True, but again a very short term achievement. ..."
"... NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible ..."
"... The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either. ..."
"... [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term. ..."
"... Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. ..."
"... All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment. ..."
"... As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical. ..."
"... To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done. ..."
"... No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. ..."
"... As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it. ..."
"... If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. ..."
"... I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. ..."
"... As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does. ..."
"... Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially. ..."
"... The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar. ..."
"... And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage? ..."
"... Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it like the black earth and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies. ..."
"... NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage. ..."
"... I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. ..."
"... NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was. ..."
"... My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake. ..."
"... My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do. ..."
"... The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth. ..."
"... There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children ..."
"... Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg. ..."
"... To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. ..."
"... Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there. ..."
"... Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays. ..."
"... I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN. ..."
"... Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia ..."
"... The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles. ..."
"... This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'? ..."
The premise that the West must be losing is a bit simplistic. If you made a list of perhaps
ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been
achieved?
For example, one goal was to destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that
were oriented towards Russia. That has surely been largely achieved.
Another goal was to radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. That has largely
happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into
the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR.
Another goal was to stress the Russian military with having to respond to too many problems
in a short period of time, which may be relevant if and when the West hits on several fronts
at once.
Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western
corporations is about to begin. Doubt Russia can stop that.
Not denying that Putin and his circle have survived, and that the Russian economy is in better
shape than most expected, but we should try to think long and hard about the pros and cons of
the Kremlin's approaches.
They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. Approximately
zero soft power in a place that it should have been straightforward to create.
People have been writing novels and articles for a long time about how the West could gin up
a war in the Ukraine to start an attack on Russia or otherwise break the establishment in Moscow.
It was fairly obvious.
I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it
very hard for Russia to respond.
Kiev would start a major offensive against Donetsk and Lugansk.
Transdnistria is currently blockaded by Moldova and Ukraine with no food supplies allowed
to pass. Moldovan military operation might follow and Russia would be mostly unable to respond
by other means than missile strikes against Moldova which Russia under extremely cautious
Putin would never do.
Azerbaijan would launch an offensive against Armenia in Nagarno-Karabakh. Russia lacks
common border with Armenia so Russia's options would again be limited.
Albanian proxies, supported and trained by the West, would start military and terrorist
attacks against Macedonian authorities.
NATO would start to bomb Syrian military and capital to oust and kill Assad.
Georgia might start another military operation against South Ossetia in parallel with others
if it thinks Russia is too preoccupied to respond.
NATO-funded and -trained Islamic militants would attack authorities in Central Asian countries
like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either
capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with
conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major
geopolitical defeat.
Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability
is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago,
and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained.
The Moldovan army is not capable of defeating Transdnistria by itself, so victory would
require NATO troops to join in the attack. And if it comes to the point where NATO is willing
to directly assault Russian forces, then there's no reason to hold back anyway.
The West plays the short game, so initially it may look
like they have achieved much, much like their foreign policy successes at first, which then turn
out to be disasters with the West reduced to firefighting.
1:..destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented
towards Russia.This has not succeeded. It has without doubt caused problems and will
affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some
products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production
of components to Russia.
2: ..radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia.True, but again
a very short term achievement. Food on plates and jobs don't grow on trees. What we do have
is the ones in the middle who gravitated to the traditional Russophobes, aka swing voters,
but things are only going to get worse in the Ukraine and the Nazi junta cannot deliver. Those
swing voter will swing the other way, not a Russia love in, but a pragmatic middle ground. That
is where they started.
3: Another goal was to stress the Russian military..What evidence is there of
this? Apart from quite a number of massive snap military exercises that Russia has pulled off
and impressed even the Russo-skeptic military crowd at RUSI and other MIX fronts, it is quite
efficient to fly 50 year old Tu-95 bombers around Europe wearing out expensive western military
equipment that will need to be replaced much sooner now than later. All those austerity plans
that call for holding off on major defense spending in Europe are messed up. Money going in to
weapons is money going away from jobs and the economy. Ukraine's rocket cooperation with Brazil
is dead (now switched to Russia) and also with other partners. So far the US has not actively
banned commercial satellites from being launched from Russian rockets, but the US cannot get its
billion dollar spy sats in to space without Russian rocket engines. No-one has yet pulled the
plug
NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible.
It's one thing to scream and shout, its another to drop their trousers. It is quite the paper
tiger. The USAF is set to rapidly shrink according to their own admission. The F-35 is designed
to replace 5 aircraft hubris or what? The F-15, F16, AV-8B, A-10 & the F-18. It's a pig of an
aircraft that will perform those missions worse, in most cases, than those designed in the late
1960s early 1970s. The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to
make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either.
4:the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations
is about to begin. [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable,
but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than
just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium
to long term.
This is exactly what almost happened to Russia and then look how things turned out. Ukraine
is of course a different case and the West will certainly try and manage it to their advantage,
but it won't work if it is not for sustained profit. Either way it is the West to whom the
Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. This is long before we throw
any legal questions in to the mix. Whoever is in power now will pay the political price in future
sooner or later. All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right
moment.
As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit
harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as
much as possible, only intervening when critical.
Part of the problem with western politics and the Pork Pie News Networks of the last 25 years
is the we must do something now mentality. Let's put it this way, you go in to hospital
for a non-critical undiagnosed condition. Would you a) want to have the tests done and the best
course of action chosen with your consent, or b) panic & be rushed to the operating theater so
that they can just have a look around?
To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative.
If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must
be done.
In short, as it is written on the cover of the good book, DON'T PANIC!
No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has
played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. The
science of mind manipulation has made great progress over the last century. It is a big mistake
to just deal on an oligarchic level. Ukrainians have a legitimate gripe that their country is
insanely corrupt and they can easily blame Moscow. That being the case, measures needed to be
taken. And not creating any semblance of a pro-Russian political or intellectual class was similarly
stupid.
As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to
your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just
smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the
Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop
a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the
Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it.
If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems
on the periphery as possible. Could be Georgia; could be Central Asia; could be Transnistria.
What would be your advice to those in US think tanks who are trying to keep domination of the
world? What would be a good strategy? And, for what it is worth, I wouldn't take the problems
with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. That
is where all the money and technology have gone for the last 30 years. Do you really think the
US would struggle to get to the Moon now and did it in 1969? Be serious all technology is tremendously
better today.
As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia
occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last
a lot longer than the Ukraine does.
Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's
where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the
US to over-extend itself politically & financially.
The US want to do more but it can't
do it the old expensive way it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to
give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move
of some oil trading out of the US dollar.
And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created?
For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will
bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the
West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem
on their plate they can't quite manage?
I have no doubt that the US has been trying to tie up Russia, but it is just more frenetic
than before, the main planks of NATO enlargement (and weakening) resolved, but the rest has gone
a bit wrong. The West is growing increasingly desperate and is trying all sorts of things to undermine
Russia, but it could be much, much worse from a sanctions point of view. Level heads in the West
understand that trying to pull the rug out completely from under Russia is a massive risk and
one they are very careful in making.
As for their wonder-weapons, the US cannot afford enough of them or make them cheap enough
for their allies to buy in sufficient numbers. It is much easier and cheaper to upgrade the sensors
and missiles on a SAM system than to design and bring to production standard a brand new wonder-weapon.
The old days of easily blinding air-defenses are almost over when you can have a lot of cheap
distributed sensors providing the information, passively & actively. The countermeasure is a lot
cheaper.
In al, Money Money Money and every passing day the US has less to leverage and has to spread
it far and wide:
Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment,
and except in the case of what they can strip from it like the black earth and take away,
that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago,
that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies.
NATO has
not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit,
but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm
in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much
of anything but manage.
I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and
a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern
borders. The part that NATO is having trouble with is getting Russia to destroy it, so that
it will be in the minds of Ukrainians for generations who did this to them.
NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know
how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians
what a failure the promise of western largesse was.
That's all reasonable, though it is hard to believe that there isn't a lot more than just some
black earth to expropriate.
My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do
blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made
a mistake.
That's true enough, and it appears there has always been a certain amount of hostility to Russia
west of the Dneipr, so they perhaps did not need too much coaxing. My main point in rubbing
the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early
days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do.
The country it said it would confidently bat aside in its confident stroll to victory has not
only weathered western attempts to crush its economy and put in place safeguards which will hurt
western business opportunities in future, it has strengthened a powerful alliance with Asia and
garnered considerable international sympathy, which implies increased hostility toward the west.
Meanwhile, the country the west bragged it would snatch from Russia's orbit and make a model of
a prosperous western democracy is miserable, poor and angry.
The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally
this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond
lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with
plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs
in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth.
There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve
a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. Many such opportunities
rely on western interests taking over Ukrainian businesses and asset-stripping them like crazy;
however, the main buyer in many cases would be Russia, which has no interest in making western
businesses rich, or other western buyers who would have to take over and run a Ukrainian business
in a very uncertain environment in which its biggest market is Russia.
A copypaste from Auslander (formelry of MPnet), originally from Saker's blog:
"This is not the first time such atrocities [the mutilated rebel prisoner] have happened
in this conflict and it will not be the last.
The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains
of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building
on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right
sector called their own during the maidan debacle.
The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll
there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children.
I know the official death toll and I know the real death toll. We also lost a friend in that
atrocity, not in the building but at the far end of the square, beaten to death because he
was walking home from work at the wrong place and the wrong time. Why was he beaten to death?
He had a speech impediment and when he got nervous he literally could not talk. Since he could
not say 'salo yucrane' 5 right sector boys beat him to death in broad daylight.
Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned
to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed
in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were
too few to defend the berg.
The killings of innocents and not so innocents have been ongoing since the beginning and
well before the beginning of the conflict that let to what is now Novorossiya. One can not
morally justify killing all the UAF because of the acts of a relative few, but you can rest
assured that documentations are being kept for all who can be identified as committing either
individual or mass atrocities.
To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who
when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands
of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay
for their crimes. Do you think all those 'people' who commit atrocities and then post
photos of the atrocities and openly brag about them on social media will walk away unscathed?
Again, no hardly. Do you think we don't know who was and is abducting young women and even
girl children for their use and then killed and discarded them like less than animals? They
are known.
I can go on for reams but you get the idea. These are crimes being committed by a relative
few of UAF, and for the record anyone fighting for Ukraine against Novorossiya is a member
of UAF, their military unit does not matter. In the end justice will be done, by the law and
with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice,
like revenge, is a dish best served cold.
As for those few of you who are still aghast at the total and deafening silence from USEU
over these ongoing atrocities and crimes, I urge you to forget any chance of anything being
said about we untermenschen being slaughtered by those civilized denizens of USEU. It is not
going to happen so stop complaining about it. Never forget, never forgive, always remember,
but don't complain, it's useless."
Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment
because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine
and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there.
Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited
to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And
it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev
or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays.
He says "In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible.
Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold."
I do believe various people involved in Odessa have disappeared or turned up. Dead. Some have
had to go to ground. Some have "died" under unbelievable circumstances, but their new name will
probably still have the same face. The biggest obstacle will be all this wearing of masks, but
with more recent atrocities, where they are garrisoned in the cities for months, they'd be known
anyway..
The spirit of Novorossiya will be expanding (not yet). Things may slowly go back towards normal.
But fully normal it can never be, while murderers and torturers walk free by the hundreds. It
is going to be a very long headache for Ukraine.
I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that
hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged,
but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought
the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather
than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely this would not even register
on those who get all their news from CNN.
Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other
who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate
proof that Tupak is alive
in Serbia
The election of Poland's new president spells
big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just
recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who
forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200
thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles.
Of course J Hawk's take is probably on the money. J.Hawk's Comment:
Not so fast. I'm not so sure that Duda wants to do any of the things described above. One
of the major reasons Duda won is the defection of the rural voters, whose average income declined
by 14% in 2014 in large measure due to Russian food embargo. Since Duda knows on which side
his bread is buttered (no pun intended), deep down he also realizes the importance of that
embargo lifting. His UPA criticism may well be only an excuse, a pretext to allow himself to
maneuver out of his election campaign pro-Ukraine position while saving face. Because, ultimately,
what is the likelihood that the Rada will actually pass a law that "de-heroizes" UPA to a sufficient
degree? And even if it does, will Bandera monuments start disappearing from Lvov and other
parts of Western Ukraine?
This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk
the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective
in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the
preservation of ill-gotten capital!'?
"... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit
to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on
the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in
the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known
as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given
the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly
complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize
them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even
less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine
is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with
scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
... ... ...
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly
voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict
is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive
"within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.
... ... ...
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's)
preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely,
that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities
to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no
agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple,
undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick
in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous
military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass
- despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between
two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war
that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.
Igor
Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist
of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian
army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple
things...
Imba > Igor
Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West,
while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring
articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
Please respect him ;)
Dima Lauri > Imba
I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin
troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.
folktruther
a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event
of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq.
Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe,
especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese
bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.
"... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit
to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on
the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in
the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known
as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given
the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly
complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize
them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even
less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine
is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with
scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
... ... ...
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly
voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict
is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive
"within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.
... ... ...
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's)
preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely,
that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities
to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no
agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple,
undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick
in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous
military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass
- despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between
two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war
that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.
Igor
Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist
of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian
army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple
things...
Imba > Igor
Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West,
while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring
articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
Please respect him ;)
Dima Lauri > Imba
I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin
troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.
folktruther
a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event
of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq.
Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe,
especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese
bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.
Stephen Kinzer is a masterful storyteller, creating an historical record that is readily accessible
to all levels of readers. Besides writing history-or more importantly, rewriting history correctly-he
is able to draw out the personal characteristics of the people involved, creating lively anecdotal
stories that carry the reader through the overall narrative.
His book,
The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret War, delves into the personal
beliefs and perspectives of the Dulles brothers and those associated with them. From that he creates
a picture of the nature of U.S. foreign policy as shaped by and being embodied by the brothers and
the various Presidents and other corporate and political wheeler and dealers they interacted with
over a span of fifty years:
"If they were shortsighted, open to violence, and blind to the subtle realities of the world,
it was because these qualities help define American foreign policy and the United States itself ..they
embodied the national ethos .They were pure products of the United States."
The historical narrative is clearly presented, the ties to corporations, their employment with
powerful law firms, the power they gained within the political system such that after the Second
World War they became the two most powerful figures in U.S. politics and foreign affairs. Apart from
the basic historical record, the most intriguing aspect is the different natures of the brothers,
and the basic similarity that few people gave very much credence to their abilities for deep thought.
Personalities
They came from a relatively rigid Christian upbringing. John Foster retained the dourness of that
upbringing through his life, while his younger brother Allen proved to be a dilettante and womanizer.
Their concept of freedom
"was above all economic: a country whose leaders respected private enterprise and welcomed
multinational business was a free country."
The other component of freedom was religion,
"Countries that encouraged religious devotion, and that were led by men on good terms with
Christian clerics, were to them free countries .These two criteria they conjured an explanation
of why they condemned some dictatorships but not others."
This doctrinaire system of thought did not allow for much in the way of critical thinking skills.
Sir Alexander Cadogan, Britain's undersecretary to the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, "wrote in
his diary, "J.F.D. the wooliest type of useless pontificating American .Heaven help us!"
Eden himself "considered Foster a narrow minded ideologue always ready to go on a rampage .Churchill
agreed. After one of their meetings he remarked,
"Foster Dulles is the only case I know of a bull who carries his own china shop around
with him."
It was not just the British. American political scientist Ole Holsti found that Foster dealt with
"discrepant information" by "discrediting the source" and "reinterpreting the new information so
as to be consistent with his belief system; searching for other information. The advice of subordinates
was neither actively sought nor, when tendered, was it often of great weight." Arthur Schlesinger
Jr. said that Allen "was a frivolous man" who would "make these decisions which involved people's
lives, and never would really think them through."
and history
From a privileged upbringing with many family contacts in both the political and corporate world,
the brothers had little trouble maneuvering through the intricacies of the global power structures
they encountered. They were steeped in the ethos of pioneers and missionaries," and
"spent decades promoting the business and strategic interests of the United States .they were
vessels of American history."
That history spans half a century. It starts with the Versailles peace talks and ends only with
the death of Foster in 1959 and the senescence and increasing senility of Allen during that same
time period. Its major impact occurred after World War II, with John Foster becoming Secretary of
State with President Eisenhower, while Allen worked himself into founding leader of the FBI.
From both these positions, one of great public power (wielded with much secrecy) and the other
with great covert power, they steered the course of U.S. history through the early days of the Cold
War. Their rabid anti-communism, combining their religious and corporate beliefs, shaped the world
as we know it today.
Kinzer leads the reader through the "Six Monsters", the foreign leaders who became the most public
targets of the Eisenhower/Dulles administration: Mossadegh (Iran), Jacabo Arbenz (Guatemala), Ho
Chi Minh (Vietnam), Sukarno (Indonesia ), Patrice Lumumba (Congo), and Castro (Cuba). The ongoing
repercussions and blowback from these actions continue to shape our world today.
The last three of these had other impacts. UN Secretary Dag Hammarskjold was involved with Sukarno
and Lumumba, and was killed by CIA backed covert action in the Congo. The assassination of John F.
Kennedy has several possible claimants, of which his interactions with Sukarno and Castro are the
most telling. Significantly, Allen Dulles was appointed to the Warren Commission by President Johnson
as it had "some foreign complications, CIA, and other things." Allen "systematically used his influence
to keep the commission safely within bounds, the importance of which only he could appreciate."[1]
Kinzer's
The Brothers is an excellent source of information concerning the development of U.S. foreign
policy during the Twentieth Century. A reader will develop a much stronger understanding of our current
geopolitical crisis with this as a background source. It provides not just the historical data behind
the events, but more importantly it examines the mindset of the U.S. administration and the people
who are both shaped by it and are shaping it:
"The story of the Dulles brothers is the story of America. It illuminates and helps explain the
modern history of the United States and the world."
Note
(1) See The Incubus of Intervention-Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen
Dulles. Greg Poulgrain. Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, Selangor, Malaysia.
(Click
here to read Jim Miles' review of Incubus of Intervention.)
"If we're training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up
as soldiers, when are they going to pick up the mentality
of soldiers? If you look at the police department, their creed is to protect and to serve.
A soldier's mission is to engage his enemy in close combat and kill him. Do we want police officers
to have that mentality? Of course not."
- Arthur Rizer, former civilian police officer and member
of the military
Talk about poor timing. Then again, perhaps it's brilliant timing.
Obama also indicated that less heavy-duty equipment (armored vehicles, tactical vehicles, riot
gear and specialized firearms and ammunition) will reportedly be
subject to more regulations such as local government approval, and police being required to undergo
more training and collect data on the equipment's use. Perhaps hoping to sweeten the deal, the Obama
administration is also offering $163 million in taxpayer-funded grants to "incentivize
police departments to adopt the report's recommendations."
distributed equipment designed for use on the battlefield to local police departments,
provided private grants to communities to incentivize SWAT team raids,
redefined "community policing" to reflect aggressive police tactics and funding a nationwide
COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program that has contributed to dramatic rise in SWAT
teams,
encouraged the distribution of DHS anti-terror grants and the growth of "contractors that
now cater to police agencies looking to cash DHS checks in exchange for battle-grade gear,"
ramped up the use of military-style raids to crack down on immigration laws and target "medical
marijuana growers, shops, and dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug,"
defended as "reasonable" aggressive, militaristic police tactics in cases where police raided
a guitar shop in defense of an obscure environmental law, raided a home looking for a woman who
had defaulted on her student loans, and terrorized young children during a raid on the wrong house
based on a mistaken license plate,
and ushered in an era of outright highway robbery in which asset forfeiture laws have been
used to swindle Americans out of cash, cars, houses, or other property that government agents
can "accuse" of being connected to a crime.
It remains to be seen whether this overture on Obama's part, coming in the midst of heightened
tensions between the nation's police forces and the populace they're supposed to protect, opens the
door to actual reform or is merely a political gambit to appease the masses all the while further
acclimating
the populace to life in a police state.
Certainly, on its face, it does nothing to ease the misery of the police state that has been foisted
upon us. In fact, Obama's belated gesture of concern does little to roll back the
deadly menace of overzealous police agencies corrupted by money, power and institutional immunity.
And it certainly fails to recognize the
terrible toll that has been inflicted on our communities, our fragile ecosystem of a democracy,
and our freedoms as a result of the government's determination to bring the war home.
It's a safe bet that our little worlds will be no safer following Obama's pronouncement and the
release of his
"Task Force on 21st Century Policing" report. In fact, there is a very good chance that life
in the American police state will become even more perilous.
Among the report's 50-page list of recommendations is a call for more police officer boots on
the ground, training for police "on the importance of de-escalation of force," and "positive
non-enforcement activities" in high-crime communities to promote trust in the police such as
sending an ice cream truck across the city.
Curiously, nowhere in the entire 120-page report is there a mention of the Fourth Amendment, which demands
that the government respect citizen privacy and bodily integrity. The Constitution is referenced
once, in the Appendix, in relation to Obama's authority as president. And while the word "constitutional"
is used 15 times within the body of the report, its use provides little assurance that the Obama
administration actually understands the clear prohibitions against government overreach as enshrined
in the U.S. Constitution.
For instance, in the section of the report on the use of technology and social media, the report
notes: "Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement
duties, the legal framework
(warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data obtained from cell
phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent, or respond to
crime."
Translation: as I document in my book
Battlefield
America: The War on the American People, the new face of policing in America is
about to shift from waging its war on the American people using primarily the weapons of the battlefield
to the evermore-sophisticated technology of the battlefield where government surveillance of our
everyday activities will be even more invasive.
This emphasis on technology, surveillance and social media is nothing new. In much the same way
the federal government used taxpayer-funded grants to "gift" local police agencies with military
weapons and equipment, it is also funding the distribution of technology aimed at making it easier
for police to monitor, track and spy on Americans. For instance, license plate readers, stingray
devices and fusion centers are all
funded by grants from the DHS.
Funding for drones at the state and local levels also comes from the federal government, which
in turn accesses the data acquired by the drones for its own uses.
If you're noticing a pattern here, it is one in which the federal government is not merely transforming
local police agencies into extensions of itself but is in fact federalizing them, turning them into
a national police force that answers not to "we the people" but to the Commander in Chief. Yet the
American police force is not supposed to be a branch of the military, nor is it a private security
force for the reigning political faction. It is supposed to be an aggregation of the countless local
civilian units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every
American community.
So where does that leave us?
There's certainly no harm in embarking on a
national dialogue
on the dangers of militarized police, but if that's all it amounts to-words that sound good on paper
and in the press but do little to actually respect our rights and restore our freedoms-then we're
just playing at politics with no intention of actually bringing about reform.
Despite the Obama Administration's lofty claims of wanting to "ensure that
public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence
of justice," this is the reality we must contend with right now:
Americans still have no real protection against police abuse. Americans
still have no right to self-defense in the face of SWAT teams mistakenly crashing through
our doors, or police officers who
shoot faster than they can reason. Americans are still
no longer innocent until
proven guilty. Americans still don't have a right to private property.
Americans are still
powerless in the face of militarized police.
Americans still don't have a
right to
bodily integrity.
Americans still don't have a right to the
expectation of privacy.
Americans are still being acclimated to a police
state through the steady use and sight of military drills domestically, a heavy militarized police
presence in public places and in the schools, and a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign aimed
at reassuring the public that the police are our "friends." And to top it all off, Americans
still can't rely on the courts, Congress or the White House to mete out justice when
our rights are violated by police.
To sum it all up: the problems we're grappling with have been building
for more than 40 years. They're not going to go away overnight, and they certainly will
not be resolved by a report that instructs the police to simply adopt different tactics to accomplish
the same results-i.e., maintain the government's power, control and wealth at all costs.
This is the sad reality of life in the American police state.
Two separate reviews of The Fourth Star, a new book by David Cloud and Greg Jaffee, touch
on a theme that has fascinated me since I wrote a dissertation on the subject.
"The Fourth Star" paints wonderfully dramatic portraits of the four senior officers highlighted
here, but at its heart it's a story about bureaucracy. As an institution, the United States Army
has much more in common with, say, a giant corporation like General Motors than with a professional
sports team like the New York Giants. You can't cut players who don't perform, and it's hard to
fire your head coach. Like General Motors, the Army changes very slowly, and once it does, it's
hard to turn it around again.
Actually, it's arguably easier to "cut" bad soldiers than bad football players nowadays, since
the latter often have huge signing bonuses and hold teams hostage in a salary cap era. But,
otherwise, Filkins is right. While the military is relatively efficient, it's not only a bureaucracy
but the very thing bureaucracy was modeled after. Which makes it amusing when conservatives
simultaneously rant about the inefficiency of bureaucracy while extolling the virtues of military
efficiency. (The military, along with their brethren in the intelligence community and foreign
service, does tend to be more motivated and obedient to orders from above than your average bureaucracy.)
One of the most trenchant discussions of these wrong "lessons learned" post-Vietnam is General
David Petraeus'
PhD dissertation,
which the review of The Fourth Star mentions tangentially. While Petraeus might have
"irritated many of his fellow officers on his way up," he also identified an important bureaucratic
reality, noting it in his dissertation: any serving officer who writes a PhD dissertation critical
of the US Army as an institution and publishes it as a book will not rise to the ranks
of the general officer corps. Petraeus, of course, heeded his own advice, as his dissertation
remained safely tucked away in the Princeton library (until the age of scanning and posting to
the Internet; h/t to Paula Broadwell for sharing the link). He was able to continue his upward
trajectory, unlike such recent soldier-scholars as
Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) John Nagl,
whose Oxford DPhil became Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, arguably a self-inflicted
career wound as an Army officer because of its coherent, incisive critique of the Army's failures
as a learning organization.
Brigadier General H.R.
McMaster, however, is the exception that proves the rule, because it was only
the patronage of General Petraeus that made him a general officer after twice being passed
over for promotion from colonel to brigadier general. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty
was the oft-cited, seldom-read mantra of senior officers in the last decade and appeared to be
part of the hold-up for his advancement. Further compounding the delay, his successful counterinsurgency
campaign as the commander of an armored cavalry regiment in Tall Afar made his conventionally-minded
brigade commander peers look bad (or at least that's one interpretation of how it was viewed within
the Army).
How a bureaucracy without lateral entry promotes and selects its leaders is a vital issue with
implications measured in decades, dollars, and lives. I look forward to reading how Cloud and
Jaffe capture this dynamic in the US Army today.
One could argue McMaster exemplifies, rather than serving as an exception, to the rule. Generally,
being passed over - let alone twice - for promotion pretty much indicates that you're done.
Certainly as a prospective general officer. Conversely - and I don't claim to have any
inside scoop here - Nagl certainly seemed to be an officer on a fast track who left the Army voluntarily
to 1) so his family could settle down and 2) to take advantage of a flood of opportunities to apply
his expertise in the think tank arena. It seemingly proved a wise choice, as he soon
wound up as president of CNAS.
It is impossible to
overstate the magnitude of the warfare-state revolution that transformed the federal government and
American society after World War II. The roots of America's foreign-policy crises today,
along with the massive infringements on civil liberties and privacy and the federal government's
program of secret indefinite incarceration, torture, assassination, and extra-judicial executions
can all be traced to the grafting of a national-security apparatus onto America's federal governmental
system in the 1940s.
Certainly, the seeds for what happened in the post-WWII era were sown prior to that time, specifically
in the move toward empire, which, interestingly enough, occurred during the same period of time that
Progressives were inducing Americans to abandon their system of economic liberty and free markets
in favor of socialism and interventionism in the form of a welfare state and regulated economy.
I'm referring to the year 1898, when the U.S. government intervened in the Spanish American War,
with the ostensible aim of helping the Cuban and Filipino people win their independence. It was a
false and fraudulent intervention, one that was actually designed to place Cuba and the Philippines
under the control of the U.S. government. The result was a brutal war in the Philippines between
U.S. forces and the Filipino people, along with a never-ending obsession to control Cuba, one that
would ending up becoming a central focus of the national-security state.
A national-security state and an empire certainly weren't among the founding principles
of the United States. In fact, the revolution in 1776 was against an empire that the British
colonists in America no longer wanted to be part of. They were sick and tired of the endless wars
and ever-increasing taxes, regulations, and oppression that come with empire and overgrown military
establishments.
In fact, there was a deep antipathy toward standing armies among the Founding Fathers.
The words of James Madison, the father of the Constitution, reflect the mindset of our American ancestors:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions
to liberty.The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments
of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt
was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved
the people.
What about foreign interventionism? The speech that John Quincy Adams delivered to Congress on
the 4th of July, 1821, entitled "In Search of Monsters to Destroy," expressed the sentiments of our
predecessors. Adams pointed out that there were lots of bad things in the world, things like tyranny,
oppression, famines, and the like. He said though that America would not send troops to slay these
monsters. Instead, America would build a model society of freedom right here at home for the people
of the world. In fact, if America ever became a military empire that would engage in foreign
interventionism, Adams predicted, it would fundamentally change the character of American society,
one that would look more like a society under dictatorial rule.
That's not to say that 19th-century America was a libertarian paradise with respect to warfare,
any more than it was a libertarian paradise in general, as I pointed out in my article "America's
Welfare-State Revolution." But the fact is that there was no overgrown military establishment, no
CIA, no NSA, no conscription, no foreign interventionism, and no foreign aid (and no income tax,
IRS, Federal Reserve, and fiat money to fund such things).
There was a basic military force but in relative terms it wasn't very large. There were also wars,
such as the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the Mexican War, and many military skirmishes, but with
the exception of the Civil War, the casualties were relatively low, especially compared with such
foreign wars as World War I and World War II.
Moreover, it was an established practice to demobilize after each war.That
is, a permanent war machine and perpetual war were not built into the system. War and military interventionism
were the exception, not the rule.
That all changed with the embrace of a national-security establishment after World War II.
In his Farewell Address in 1961, President Eisenhower observed that the national-security state -
or what he called the military-industrial complex - constituted an entirely new way of life for the
American people, one that entailed what amounted to a new, permanent warfare-state branch of the
federal government, consisting of an overgrown military establishment, a CIA, and an NSA, along with
an army of private-sector contractors and subcontractors who were feeding at the public trough on
a permanent basis.
Most significantly, Ike pointed out that this national-security apparatus constituted
a grave threat to the liberties and democratic processes of the American people.
This revolutionary transformation was justified in the name of "national security," which
have become the two most important words in the American lexicon, notwithstanding the fact
that no one has ever been able to define the term. The warfare-state revolution would be characterized
by an endless array of threats to national security, beginning with communism and communists, the
Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and others, and later morphing into Saddam Hussein,
terrorism, terrorists, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan,
the Taliban, and even the Muslims.
In the process, Adams proved right. By grafting a totalitarian-like structure onto America's
federal governmental system, the United States began displaying the characteristics of a dictatorial
society.
Assassination, torture, rendition, secret prisons, medical experiments on unsuspecting Americans,
the hiring of Nazis, indefinite detention, partnerships with criminal organizations and foreign dictators,
coups, sanctions, embargoes, invasions, undeclared wars, wars of aggression, and extra-judicial executions.
When any of those types of things occurred in the 19th century, they were considered exceptions to
the system. Now they have become permanent parts of the system.
And look at the results of this gigantic warfare-state transformation: ever-increasing
infringements on liberty and privacy, ever-increasing spending, debt, and taxes, and ever-increasing
anger and hatred toward our country. Yes, all the things that characterized the British
Empire that British colonists revolted against in 1776. How's that for irony?
Meanwhile, like the welfare state, modern-day Americans continue to remain convinced that
their system of government has never changed in a fundamental way. They continue to play
like their governmental system is founded on the same constitutional principles as when the country
was founded. It is a supreme act of self-deception.
The truth is that America has now had two different governmental systems: One without a national-security
apparatus and one with it. It seems to me that it's a no-brainer as to who was right and
which system was better in terms of freedom, privacy, peace, prosperity, and harmony.
Thin_Ice
This! You should see the faces on people when I try to explain to them that we're not supposed
to have an ever present military. They call me unpatriotic and a hater of our verterans. WTF?!?!
I try explaining to them we shouldn't have "veterans", that many of the conflicts they were part
of should never have happened. Still, I'm the bad guy despite the fact that the country's ideals
have drifted so far off course. I'm reluctantly getting more and more used to the deer in the
headlights response from people, which is sad.
El Vaquero
Calm down, don't get angry, and use the Socratic method with them. The cognitive dissonance
will still fight back, but ask them about why we were in Vietnam and Iraq. Lead them to the conclusion
that those wars never should have been fought. Unplugging from the matrix is very, very difficult
and very, very uncomfortable. You want them to understand your point of view so that it is much
harder for them to condemn you for it. You are dealing with deeply ingrained cultural values that
they have never questioned.
And be nice to the troops. Most of them were duped into believing that they were doing good.
You want them to turn on their masters if their masters turn on us.
q99x2
There is no America. There's parts of the globe that are labeled United States but the Banks
and Corporations have more money and power than nations. They control the land mass that people
refer to as America. They control the military that wears American uniforms and they control the
nuclear weapons that used to be American weapons. That is why nuclear weapons can be removed from
the US without prosecution or military intervention. Deal with it bitchez.
Chupacabra-322
The biggest dilemma facing today's younger Generation is the lack of a point of reference.
911 & other False Flag / PsyOp's have diluted their minds full of lies & deception.
A former KGB Agent interviewed by G. Edward Griffen explained that for a propaganda campaign
to be truly effective it has to cross over generations or be "Generational."
We"re well into the second decade of the biggest PsyOp ever conducted over the masses on a
Global Scale, 911. The Social Engineers / Revisionists have been very busy rewriting history.
"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the future controls the past."
-George Orwell.
Fun Facts
The mightiest nation on earth is run exclusively for the benefit of the mightiest banks on
earth.
Too big to fail, too big to bail, too big to jail.
The politico are the puppet class.
The people [at the very bottom of the pyramid] are the serf class with no money, no voice,
no power.
All as intended. Follow the money. Read the protocols for more detail.
Pitiful
If it were so easy. Unfortunately there are people who want control, for who knows what reason.
I always wondered myself why anyone would want more than they need but I have never been able
to come up with a clear answer that makes any logical sense. I can give a prime example: I had
a friend in college who was very wealthy and frugal, so frugal they went to a community college
with me. He was always telling me he needed more money (he already had an eight figure stash)
and one day I asked him why he needed more. The only response he could come up with was: Becuase
I want it. Again, I asked what for and he couldn't ever come up with a reasonable explanation
other than he wanted it. I don't know about anyone else here but I can say for sure that if I
was able to scrounge seven figures in my savings, I would be done saving with no need for any
more. But I'm a simple, realistic person and I would expect that my children (not that I will
ever have any) pave their own road like I did and I would leave nothing for them or anyone else
and expect them to do the same. My money will all be spent and recycled back into the economy
when I'm gone. There is no use for it after death. I'm a firm believer that if you can't survive
on your own, you don't deserve to survive at all. The animals have already figured this out and
humans knew it at one point to. Leave the weak to die or be dragged down with them.
If I ever had the opportunity to ask one of the banksters who has some "end-game" plan for
power and control over others I would only have one question: How is that going to improve your
life and why would you do that anyway? You already have everything you could possibly need for
the next 100 generations of your family. What is the fucking point?
TacticalZen
We are Rome and will follow their pattern of decline, although vastly accelerated given our
modern communications and banking.
Herdee
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Treasury Official in Ronald Reagan's Administration puts it
pretty bluntly in what he's telling Americans.Americans reading this need to wake up to what a
right wing neo-fascist government is doing to their society.
All religious Americans especially need to pay heed to his insights.It's no joke,it's what's
happening right now.Can evil be defeated?The founding fathers warned you about it.
Amish Hacker
The MIC will always need a credible boogeyman to justify its existence. For years this role
was played by the Soviet Union. We were told to be afraid of commies in Moscow, in the State Department,
in Hollywood, and under every bed. Then, suddenly, came the end of Ivan, and the MIC was threatened
with irrelevance, even dissolution. We the People were beginning to wonder aloud about a "peace
dividend." Obviously, this could not be allowed.
The MIC solution was to replace the Soviet menace with the terrorist menace. Really, you
have to admire the psychopathic brilliance of this move, since terrorism is a conceptual boogeyman
that will never expire or be deposed. Multiple, ongoing wars are now our new normal, and saddest
of all, we seem to be getting used to it.
Jack Burton
This post somehow brings to mind a High School Class Reunion I attented 5 years ago.
We are all old enough now to have been set in our careers for 30 years. So when you talk to people
you can get a good insight into how they all made their livings after High School. My town School
was small, my class was 145 students.
What amazed me was what we all ended up talking about. It was the Military. Because as Americans
THIS was the common bond we men share. Over half of the men there were veterans, me included,
but even more than that, there was our lives after military service, and those who went direct
to college. The college kids grew up and from those I talked to, there we many who work for the
big defense industries in the Minneapolis Metro Area. Plus we had students who went west and worked
for giant defense industries out there. Our conversations revolved around missiles, torpedoes,
radars, air craft and high explosives. I met a class mate who designed the explosives for Bunker
Busters and other High Energy weapons. One class mate helped build the guidance for the type of
torpedoes my ship used. One class mate knew the type of detection gear I operated in the Navy,
as his father designed much of it. On and On it went.
By the end of the night, it seems half of our class was employed in military design and construction,
the other half of average guys were all vets. Yes, Middle America, out where I live, is a totally
militarized entity. It really hit home when you talk to a group you have known all your life.
Monetas
If we ever had an Empire .... it was a Moral Empire .... and it needs to be regained,
improved and expanded .... it's called American Exceptionalism .... and I'm not impressed with
the pretenders to our throne .... nor their bootlicking lackeys .... a bunch of chickens ....
cackling in the Barnyard of Life !
Errors and Lies, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Surprise! It turns out that there's
something to be said for having the brother of a failed president make his own run for the White
House. Thanks to Jeb Bush, we may finally have the frank discussion of the Iraq invasion we should
have had a decade ago
The Iraq war wasn't an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence
that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war.
The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at
that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.
This was, in short, a war the White House wanted, and all of the supposed mistakes that, as
Jeb puts it, "were made" by someone unnamed actually flowed from this underlying desire.
Now, you can understand why many political and media figures would prefer not to talk about
any of this. Some of them may have fallen for the obvious lies, which doesn't say much about their
judgment. More, I suspect, were complicit: they realized that the official case for war was a
pretext, but had their own reasons for wanting a war, or, alternatively, allowed themselves to
be intimidated into going along.
On top of these personal motives, our news media in general have a hard time coping with
policy dishonesty. Reporters are reluctant to call politicians on their lies, even when these
involve mundane issues like budget numbers, for fear of seeming partisan. In fact, the bigger
the lie, the clearer it is that major political figures are engaged in outright fraud, the more
hesitant the reporting. And it doesn't get much bigger - indeed, more or less criminal - than
lying America into war.
But truth matters, and not just because those who refuse to learn from history are doomed in
some general sense to repeat it. The campaign of lies that took us into Iraq was recent enough
that it's still important to hold the guilty individuals accountable. Never mind Jeb Bush's verbal
stumbles. Think, instead, about his foreign-policy team, led by people who were directly involved
in concocting a false case for war.
So let's get the Iraq story right. Yes, from a national point of view the invasion was a mistake.
But (with apologies to Talleyrand)
it was worse than a mistake, it was a crime.
pgl said
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney knew all along what the real deal in Iraq was when they
went in. General Zinni knew too and he said this would be a disaster. Bush pretends he listened
to his generals. Really> Zinni warned us not to go in back in 2002. So yea - Jeb and his advisers
would have invaded knowing what we know today as they knew all of this back then. But hey - it
worked to get Bush-Cheney reelected in 2004!
ilsm said in reply to pgl
Most of the generals (I was in the business of buying) saw Iraq as business development,
a fine little war to get the budgets up.
It has been fine at getting the budgets up.
The GOP move to raise the pentagon limits over the sequestration depends on more crazed
activity in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. While rattling the saber at Russia over the CIA's mistake
in Kiev. Since 2003 I tried to (really retire, I was double dipping) retire twice both times my
phone rings with more "work" at great compensation.
mulp said in reply to pgl
We the People who vote in all elections voted to invade Iraq in 2002.
The declaration of war
if Bush wants it was voted on before the 2002 november election. Almost five hundred members of
Congress were subject to being popular referendum on that vote and on their votes for job killing
tax cuts.
Republicans won on the basis of their wars and job killing tax cuts, and Democrats lost 2 Senate
seats and 8 House seats.
We the People who vote in all elections love the free lunch economics and politics of the neoconservative
Republican party.
It is neoconservative because conservatives decided to merge the hatred of taxes with the "spend"
of liberal "tax and spend". Redefine American Exceptionalism and now you have free lunch tax cuts
that pay for more spending on entitlements and wars that generate a profit.
We the People who vote in all elections seem to be in the "you can fool some of the people
all the time" They are the free lunch economic conservatives who believe that sacrifice is what
happens to other people. If they suffer, its the fault of liberals. But they know that they can
gain disproportionate power by being We the People who vote in every election.
Opponents are those who vote only for dictator every 4 years, without realizing that neoconservatives
call the president dictator to rally their faithful to vote in every damn election.
The verdict on the Iraq mistake was rendered November 2002, not in 2004, and the verdict was
We the People who care about the US voted to support the stupid Iraq war. Those who opposed the
war did not give a damn and did not vote in 2002, believing the power is in the dictator.
DrDick said in reply to mulp
What do you mean, "we", Kimosabe? I have never voted for a Republican and have opposed ever war
or military intervention war since Vietnam. A large number of people did so, but those who did
not and vocally opposed it share none of the blame.
cawley said in reply to DrDick
Ditto.
Plus many of the people who did vote, did so on the basis of lies.
PK is absolutely correct that shrub, et al, knew that it was a lie. Even though many of us
that followed the AUMF and stove piping closely knew that a lot of it was fabricated, for John
Q Public depending on network news it was all "he said, she said", suitcase dirty bombs and crop
dusters spreading anthrax.
When the electorate is being intentionally mislead by the Administration - from the President,
down - and the news media, it's a little disingenuous to drop all the blame on the voters.
Julio said in reply to DrDick
Not the blame, perhaps, but some of the responsibility.
We live in a representative republic. These things are done in our collective name.
pgl said in reply to mulp
Yea - did we vote to train wreck Social Security in 2004? Don't think so. BTW - I did vote in
2002 for people who were opposed to the war.
ilsm said
Jeb was caught speaking in the open things he was supposed to say only in closed sessions with
war profiteer PAC's and other exploiters of the 90%.aff. He's already made a Mitten gaff.
PNAC
is alive and well, undercover in the GOP.
They want to keep Iraq whole, but the Saudi royals do not want Iraq run by Shiites who are
67% of the population. hey need to resurrect Saddam!T
ISIS goes nowhere without Sunni support, Ramadi falling is example.
W and PNAC were invading Iraq for the money, oil was the least corrupt motive, the most corrupt
is the trillions squandered since 2003. Trillions that were taken away from US productivity and
kill social security.
The matter of US casualties is another grave sin .
mulp said in reply to ilsm
We the People who vote in all elections have the power, not PNAC.
ilsm said in reply to mulp
"We the MISLEAD People who vote,"
Faux News, we the mislead, aggravated to hate those people and misbelieve war mongering experts.
JohnH said
Twenty-twenty hindsight is often pretty good. But it's hard to understand what prompted Krugman
to write this piece now. Maybe he's trying the "get" Jeb (a positive.) Or maybe he's trying to
help clear a space for Hillary to "get it," a decade too late, and offer her excuses and mea culpas.
In any case, the last thing we need is another President with such poor judgement.
What's particularly
disturbing about the Iraq experience is that almost no lessons have been learned, other than perhaps
it's better to use drones instead of boots on the ground for fighting pointless and futile foreign
wars. Pelosi won a mandate in 2006 to end the war but never challenged Bush on it. Harry Reid
even held "surge" hearings on 9-11-2007, the best day possible to garner support for yet more
war.
What kept USA from attacking Iran was not Democrats in Congress or public opposition. Rather,
it was a report issued by US intelligence services, a consensus opinion that Iran had no nuclear
program. They had learned lessons from being manipulated on Iraq intelligence and wanted restore
their credibility.
Moreover, the Iraq experience in no way prevented Obama from pursuing the destruction and resulting
chaos in Afghanistan or Libya, or from thwarting self-determination with coups in Haiti, Honduras,
and Paraguay.
What Krugman is missing here is the urgent need for opinion leaders to exercise critical thinking
and judgement before these tragedies occur. By 2007, Bush was known to be a notorious liar. Nonetheless,
few questioned his intention to attack Iran, even with the consensus report of the intelligence
services that destroyed the pretexts for it.
By January, 2003 I had compiled enough evidence of Bush's phony intelligence to come out publicly
against the war, much to the dismay and horror of most people, including my bosses. All it took
was looking for the right information and connecting the dots. My point here is not to be self
congratulatory, but to show that it can be done.
What really needs discussion now is how to get American people to see through the stream
of BS emanating from Washington and their megaphones in the news media and to use their powers
of critical thinking and judgement and to preserve their personal integrity by acting to stop
stupid wars and promote the common good. That could start at Ivy League schools like the Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, where Krugman teaches.
pgl said in reply to JohnH
I guess you are the most ignorant person ever. Krugman was against this stupid war in 2002. And
cover for Hillary who voted to support Bush for whatever reasoning she now gives.
Krugman is
not leading Hillary campaign. But you still have a perfect record - for getting everything wrong.
pgl said in reply to JohnH
I guess the Google Master classes taught for Chicken Hawks like you are designed to filter out
anything that does not support the Chicken Hawk agenda. Krugman was called the Shrill One back
in 2002 for his tirades against Bush Cheney. But maybe you don't know this as you are: (1) stupid;
and (2) trained by the Bush-Cheney Chicken Hawk school of neo-McCarthyism.
Say hello to Scooter Libby for us!
JohnH said in reply to pgl
You insist on my misinterpreting my point: more important than debating Iraq is to make sure that
we don't allow ourselves to be misled again. Pulling out the long knives on Iraq means nothing
if no lessons are learned about the folly of most wars. And so far none have been learned, at
least in the Obama administration. One of the most important places for this to happen is at the
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, which would be more aptly named the
Wilson School for Warmongers.
pgl said in reply to JohnH
"By January, 2003 I had compiled enough evidence of Bush's phony intelligence to come out
publicly against the war, much to the dismay and horror of most people, including my bosses.
All it took was looking for the right information and connecting the dots. My point here is
not to be self congratulatory, but to show that it can be done."
Your bosses? Who gave you a job? A lot of people had tons of evidence to come out against the
war by then. One was General Anthony Zinni whose opposition to the planned invasion was made loud
and clear.
Why don't you share with us a link to the evidence you made public? That's right - I'm calling
you on this as you have lied so many times before. But please prove me wrong on this one.
JohnH said in reply to pgl
One piece that confirmed my thinking was a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Memorandum. It was published on Common Dreams. The link is no longer available but its message
is summarized but not quoted verbatim at many other sources.
Second Piece: "In October 1998,
just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq [actually, they were withdrawn],
the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 [2002] declaration: "There are no indications
that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear
material of any practical significance," IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report
to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. (.http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm.).
pgl said in reply to JohnH
There was tons of the counter information. A lot of it was put up by people like Paul Krugman.
No one paying attention in early 2003 believed a word from Bush or Cheney.
don said
My own take - an important cause of the war was the fact that one of Saddam's minions tried to
kill W's father after he had left office. It was pretty obvious to me that the war was brought
on by pretexts, and especially that any ties to 9-11 were spurious. (I recall especially a snippet
from a broadcast by a British news agency, which I overheard as I was walking around the ellipse
across from the White House. The announcer was saying "
and our polls indicate that the
strategy appears to be working 80% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved
in the events of 9/11 ") Colin Powell, to his credit, was such a poor liar that it was blatantly
obvious. From accounts I read of Saddam's behavior as the invasion became imminent, I am reminded
of a scene in Robocop, where Saddam would be in the position of the hapless employee who is asked
to pick up a gun and threaten a prototype robot cop, which then malfunctions (not that Saddam
has any pity coming). Yet Hillary voted for the war.
The disconnect between truth and news seems to have grown during and since W's time, or perhaps
it is just things I noticed. Bush shirks Vietnam, yet the issue goes against veteran Kerry (who
is attacked by the 'swift boats' propaganda). Repeal of the 'death tax' gets popular support.
Despite almost $4 trillion in official reserves, China is not, and has never been a currency manipulator
JohnH said in reply to don
Kerry left everything he learned in Vietnam on the altar of political opportunism. Now he's
just another member of the committee of warmongers running foreign policy
pgl said in reply to JohnH
You could not carry Kerry's shoes when he in the navy. You can't carry them now. Stick to what
you know - shilling for right wing liars like Cameron.
Robert Hill said
I wonder what the USA and UK arms industry would do if world peace were suddenly to break
out.
After World War II, the United States military gradually came into a position of overwhelming
dominance in the world. Military spending in the United States far outpaces that of other countries,
with their world share of military expenditures at 41% in 2011, followed by Russia and China with
only eight and four percent respectively (SIPRI 2012). This has been the case since the Second World
War and has been justified in different ways over time. The arguments for continued military dominance
have ranged from "long-term economic gains" at the start of the war (Shoup and Murray 1977, cited
in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 45) to Soviet containment during the Cold War, "a broader responsibility of
global militarism" since the 1980s (Ryan 1991, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 73), and most recently
the need to protect citizens against Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist attacks. Nevertheless,
there has been consistent concern that powerful groups in military, political, and corporate positions,
profiteering from conflict and sharing interests in intensifying defense expenditure, have become
the primary actors for making and administering U.S. foreign policy. Today the scope of the defense
industry is now much bigger than legitimate security needs justify (see, for example, Moskos 1974,
Mintz 1985, Waddell 2001 and Hossein-zadeh 2006).
This analysis argues that expansion of the U.S. military establishment from the 1940s onward
was initially a means to an end in the process of stabilizing the world economy and serving national
security interests, but -- over time -- became an end in itself, serving the interests of an elite
group that uses the projection of power as a way to justify the continued expansion of military spending.
This essay is divided into two sections: the first focuses on the origins of America's military-industrial
complex, beginning with a definition of the elite group that the complex comprises. Next, by focusing
on the period in which the foundation for the complex was laid the Second World War it is argued
that the complex arose unintentionally in some ways, although important characteristics of it were
visible from the start. Third, military Keynesianism, often used to defend high military budgets
once the complex was in place, will be discussed and refuted. The second section focuses on the most
important argument in favor of high military budgets today: the need to protect American citizens
from the global threat of terrorism. It is argued that public perceptions of the causes of terrorism
are incorrect, yet have been gladly utilized and fostered by the American military-industrial complex
to justify an ineffective global war.
The Evolving Military-Industrial Complex in the United States
What distinguishes the "power elite" that constitutes the military-industrial complex from
other powerful groups in American society who also seek advancement of their own interests, is that
this is not a ruling class based solely on the ownership of property (Mills 1956, cited in Moskos
1974: 499-500). Rather, it is a coalition of civilian agencies that formally shape military policy
(such as the Senate and the CIA), military institutions, private firms, research institutions and
think tanks all centered on and linked to the Pentagon (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 13). As a result of
power arising from the occupancy in top bureaucratic positions as well as from capital ownership,
the interests of the ruling elite go beyond the mere accumulation of wealth and include desires to
maintain themselves in power and to press for specific forms of public policy. Their most important
common interest is intensifying defense expenditure. War profiteering in itself is not new wars
have always been fought at least in part for economic gains. Today's military-industrial complex
is different in that it treats war as a business: the ruling elite's
goal of having a large military establishment is not to expand the nation's wealth, but "to appropriate
the lion's share of existing wealth for the military establishment" (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 90).
As a consequence, decisions on defense allocation, arms production and military operations are motivated
by desires for profit and personal power, not necessarily by security requirements.
This is not to say that expansion of the military budget has always been an 'end' for a powerful
group of elites, but in fact was initially a means to serve other ends. The first big expansion of
the military establishment took place in the early years of the Second World War, when the U.S. had
legitimate concerns for its own national security due to such events as the attack on Pearl Harbor,
and feared the war would negatively impact foreign trade. Military expansion is a logical result
of the former concern, as it is a means to preserve physical security. However, it is closely linked
to the latter concern, too. The Council on Foreign Relations, one of the nation's most influential
think foreign policy think-tanks, advised the U.S. government that it needed free access to markets
and raw materials in all regions outside of continental Europe for economic self-sufficiency. To
this end, the U.S. advocated globalization and open economic cooperation through multilateralism.
At the time, the crisis of the '30s and the war had made the concept of the free market highly unpopular.
This made "military supremacy for the U.S. within the non-German world" a complementary requirement
to ensure all countries within the "U.S.-led, non-German Grand Area," including Japan, would accept
American conditions (Shoup and Murray 1977, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 45). In short, military
spending was not yet an end in itself, it was the combined result of needing to increase power in
the face of security challenges and wanting to restore trust in and stabilize the global capitalist
system.
Key characteristics of the current military-industrial complex, however, were already present
when the objectives of U.S. foreign policy during World War II were drafted. As Hossein-zadeh points
out, a brief look at the social status and class composition of the Council on Foreign Relations,
which consisted of wealthy, influential people with ties to major industrial corporations and politicians,
shows that a ruling class shaped major government policies "operating through the institutional umbrella
of the Council, and providing intellectual justification for major foreign policy overhauls" (2006:
41). The military-industrial complex in its present form might not have been in place then or have
been created intentionally, but clearly there already was a power elite based on more than capital
ownership, and strong ties between the military, political, and corporate spheres.
After World War II, the Cold War stabilized U.S. foreign policy for over forty years1. With its
demise, a "vacuum in the organizing principles of national government" had emerged (Waddell 2001:
133). Even if unintended, the military-industrial complex was well in place by now, and suggestions
to curtail the military budget were met with fierce opposition. However, cutting back on non-military
public expenditures while an expensive military establishment is preserved proved harder to justify
with the loss of the perceived Soviet threat. An argument in favor of military spending that has
been used consistently is that it boosts economic growth (Dreze 2000: 180). Mintz, for instance,
notes that the military-industrial complex is seen by many to have "considerable influence on levels
of employment, the profitability of arms manufacture and the scope of exports" (1983: 124).
The view that large military spending is an effective means of demand stimulation and job creation,
and hence of economic growth, is called military Keynesianism. Keynes' (non-military) theory holds
that in times of inadequate purchasing power, the (non-military) private sector becomes wary of expansion,
and so the government should spend money in order to boost the stagnant economy by stimulating demand.
Since expansion of the military industry is a government investment, it could have the desired economic
effects in times of recession. However, it is important to keep in mind that Keynes argues for little
government spending in times of high employment and sufficient demand. Military Keynesianists seem
to ignore this fact completely and have argued for high government expenditures even during the Golden
Age after World War II and in no other sector than the military-industrial one. This can only be
explained by the fact that it is a constantly shrinking number of people experiencing the economic
benefits of high military spending (Waddell 2001: 135). The same people tend to switch positions
between the Pentagon, its prime contractors and lobbying think tanks supporting those contractors,
meaning that military spending is no longer an economic stimulus for the entire nation. Instead,
it has become a redistributive mechanism of national resources in favor of the wealthy (Hossein-zadeh
2006: 226).
Cashing In on the War on Terror
What gets lots in the debate over the economic consequences of military spending is the effect
it has on international stability. An old principle asserts that military threats are essential in
preventing wars from occurring (Dreze 2000: 1178), but an overly extended military establishment
means actual military operations are necessary from time to time to 'prove' the necessity of the
army. And indeed, militarists have found that the most effective manner of convincing the American
public of the need of a large military establishment is the constant 'discovery' of external threats.
The threat currently most emphasized by the U.S. is global terrorism. We argue that while some fears
of Islamic fundamentalism are justified, most are not; and that the threat of terrorism is not logically
followed by higher military investment.
The U.S. is not being fair in its assessment of the Arab threat. Public discourse today implies
that Islam is inherently more rigid and anti-modern than other religions. Huntington famously predicted
that most major conflicts would be between Muslims and non-Muslims, as "Islam has bloody borders"
(1993: 12). In 1990, historian Bernard Lewis described a "surge of hatred" rising from the Islamic
world that "becomes a rejection of Western civilisation as such" (cited in Coll 2012). Richard Perle,
American neoconservative militarist and advisor to Israel's Likud Party, proposes a strategy
of "de-contextualization" to explain acts of terrorism and violent resistance to occupation,
arguing that we must stop trying to understand the territorial, geopolitical and historical reasons
that some groups turn to fundamentalism; instead, reasons for the violence of such groups must be
sought in the Islamic way of thinking (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 101).
Religious fundamentalism, however, is universal: it arises in response to modernity and secularism,
both of which tend to weaken or threaten religious traditions. John Voll points out that by the early
1990s, "violent militancy was clearly manifest among Hindu fundamentalists, Buddhists in Sri Lanka,
Jewish fundamentalists in Israel and others elsewhere" (1994, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 110-11).
As one scholar points out, if the Bosnians, the Palestinians and the Kashmiris are asked about their
borders they would say that, respectively, Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are the ones that have
bloody borders (Ahmed 2002: 29). Yet statements like the ones by Huntington, Lewis and Perle cited
above single out Islam as the most dangerous potential enemy of the West. They all interpret the
militancy of Islamic fundamentalism as being somehow directly caused by distinctive Islamic doctrines
and traditions (Voll 1994, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 111) and attribute terrorist attacks to "pathological
problems of the Muslim mind" (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 101). In doing so, they posit a characteristic
supposedly shared by Muslims from Indonesia through Iran to Senegal, that makes conflict with the
West inevitable.
An incorrect assessment of the roots of terrorism does not justify the extent to which the U.S.
expanded its military activity after 2001; nor does it explain why it continues to fight an ineffective
war. As Peρa points out, a larger military would not have prevented the tragedy of 9/11, and it will
not prevent future terrorist actions (2001, cited in Snider 2004). Terrorism, much like the war that
is fought against it, is a means of pursuing objectives, not an actor. It cannot be stopped by military
action as fighting does nothing to address the issues that terrorists feel can only be resolved violently;
if anything, this is more likely to lead to a vicious cycle of constantly growing military budgets
and an ever higher number of terrorist attacks. As one author put it: "the moral crusade to end terrorism
can only begin with a realistic assessment of its cause" (Snider 2004). So far, the global war on
terror has done little to eradicate terrorism.
On the contrary, it seems the threat of an attack is now bigger: the number of terrorist attacks
worldwide has increased from just over 1800 in 2001, to a staggering five-thousand ten years later
(START 2012). The question that arises, then, is why successive U.S. administrations have found it
so difficult to accept that perhaps their assessment of the causes of terrorism is incorrect; that
perhaps, the policies built on their premises are not effective, but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy,
leading to a vicious cycle of constantly expanding military activities and an increasing number of
individuals who believe their grievances cannot be settled non-violently. This has everything to
do with the never-ending need for militarism: 9/11 was approached by the U.S. as an opportunity
for aggression. The attacks, however heinous, were approached by the government not as crimes (which
would require criminal prosecution and law enforcement), but as a personal attack against Americans
(Hossein-zadeh 2006: 91). With the views expressed by Huntington, Lewis and Perle widespread among
the American public already, pre-emptive war and military expansion was easily justifiable to Americans.
After all, how would dialogue help if the Muslim mind is pathologically troubled? An American citizen
might cringe at the idea, but it is true: the 9/11 tragedy "came from heaven to an administration
determined to ramp up military budgets" (Johnson 2004: 64).
Conclusion
This essay has sought to argue that the U.S. military-industrial complex was the unintentional
result of both a desire to stabilize the global capitalist system and to protect national security
interests, but that military spending is now closely linked to the personal interests of a small,
influential group of elites. In the first section, it was illustrated that the context of the
Second World War made increased military expenditures a necessary means to other ends, although the
power elite that would eventually come to benefit from these expenditures was already in place.
Once in place, this power elite has constantly needed to justify the disproportionate allocation
of national resources to the military establishment. Emphasizing the economic benefits of military
investment by drawing on Keynesian theory is a way of doing so, but military Keynesianists seem to
give a one-sided account of the theory, one that suits their interests.
The second section focused on the global war on terror, arguing that the U.S. is capitalizing
on public fears which are based on an incorrect assessment of the causes of terrorism. The war on
terror has done little to eradicate terrorism, but as long as the public continues believing it is
a necessary war, the U.S. military-industrial complex will continue using it as an opportunity to
keep military budgets high.
References
Ahmed, A. (2002) 'Ibn Khaldun's understanding of civilizations and the dilemmas of Islam and
the West today', Middle East Journal, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 20-45
Coll, S. (2012) 'Days of Rage', The New Yorker, 1 October. [Online] Available at
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/01/121001taco_talk_coll (accessed 7 January 2013)
Dreze, J. (2000) 'Militarism, development and democracy', Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 35, No. 14, pp. 1171-1183
Hossein-zadeh, I. (2006). The political economy of U.S. militarism. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan
Huntington, S. P. (1993) 'The Clash of Civilizations?' in The Council on Foreign Relations,
ed. 1996, Samuel P. Huntington's the clash of civilizations: the debate, New York: Council
on Foreign Relations, pp. 1-26
Johnson, C. (2004) The sorrows of empire: militarism, secrecy, and the end of the republic.
New York: Henry Holt and Company
Mintz, A. (1985) 'The military-industrial complex: American concepts and Israeli realities',
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 623-639
Moskos, C. (1974) 'The concept of the military-industrial complex: radical critique or liberal
bogey?', Social Problems, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 498-512
SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) (2012) Military spending and
armament: the 15 major spender countries in 2011 (table). Solna: SIPRI. Available at http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/milex_15
(accessed 4 January 2013)
Snider, B. (2004) 'Manufacturing terrorism', antiwar.com, 14 June. [Online]
Available at http://antiwar.com/blog/2004/06/14/manufacturing-terrorism/ (accessed 6 January 2013)
START (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism). (2012)
Incidents over time. Maryland: Global Terrorism Database. [Data file] Available at http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?region=
(accessed 7 January 2013)
Waddell, B. (2001) 'Limiting national interventionism in the United States: the warfare-welfare
state as a restrictive government paradigm', Capital and class, Vol. 74, pp. 109-140
1.) The U.S. did have to rethink the expenses of their policies during the crisis of the '70s,
when expanding on both warfare and welfare became too expensive. Allocating taxpayers' money to the
military had become harder to justify for several reasons; by this time, however, the military-industrial
complex was well in place. Beneficiaries of militarism succeeded in maintaining high military budgets,
mainly by exaggerating the 'Soviet threat' (such as in the now-discredited Team B report by the Committee
on the Present Danger). This was clearly a way of defining the elite group's interests in terms of
national interests and is relevant to the topic, but it is not within the scope of the essay to discuss
this in detail.
On Friday the House passed a massive National Defense Authorization for 2016 that will guarantee
US involvement in more wars and overseas interventions for years to come. The Republican majority
resorted to trickery to evade the meager spending limitations imposed by the 2011 budget control
act limitations that did not, as often reported, cut military spending but only slowed its growth.
But not even slower growth is enough when you have an empire to maintain worldwide, so the House
majority slipped into the military spending bill an extra $89 billion for an emergency war fund.
Such "emergency" spending is not addressed in the growth caps placed on the military under the 2011
budget control act. It is a loophole filled by Congress with Fed-printed money.
Ironically, a good deal of this "emergency" money will go to President Obama's war on ISIS even
though neither the House nor the Senate has debated let alone authorized that war! Although House
leadership allowed 135 amendments to the defense bill with many on minor issues like regulations
on fire hoses an effort by a small group of Representatives to introduce an amendment to debate
the current US war in Iraq and Syria was rejected.
While squashing debate on ongoing but unauthorized wars, the bill also pushed the administration
toward new conflicts. Despite the president's unwise decision to send hundreds of US military trainers
to Ukraine, a move that threatens the current shaky ceasefire, Congress wants even more US involvement
in Ukraine's internal affairs. The military spending bill included $300 million to directly arm the
Ukrainian government even as Ukrainian leaders threaten to again attack the breakaway regions in
the east. Does Congress really think US-supplied weapons killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine
is a good idea?
The defense authorization bill also seeks to send yet more weapons into Iraq. This time the House
wants to send weapons directly to the Kurds in northern Iraq without the approval of the Iraqi government.
Although these weapons are supposed to be used to fight ISIS, we know from too many prior examples
that they often find their way into the hands of the very people we are fighting. Also, arming an
ethnic group seeking to break away from Baghdad and form a new state is an unwise infringement of
the sovereignty of Iraq. It is one thing to endorse the idea of secession as a way to reduce the
possibility of violence, but it is quite something else to arm one side and implicitly back its demands.
While the neocons keep pushing the lie that the military budget is shrinking under the Obama Administration,
the opposite is true. As the CATO Institute pointed out recently, President George W. Bush's average
defense budget was $601 billion, while during the Obama administration the average has been $687
billion. This bill is just another example of this unhealthy trend.
Next year's military spending plan keeps the US on track toward destruction of its economy at
home while provoking new resentment over US interventionism overseas. It is a recipe for disaster.
Let's hope for either a presidential veto, or that on final passage Congress rejects this bad bill.
For one thing, this sounds an awful lot like an official admission that the USA did something wrong
rather than Snowden.
For another, it is important to remember that the "control of the geopolitical narrative"
he speaks of was based on lying and secret snooping, and there is no reason to believe the USA would
ever have stopped doing it on its own, or taken steps to admit it was doing it, so long as secret
intelligence continued to keep them on top.
Hillary Clinton has always been an old-style Midwestern Republican in the Illinois style;
one severely infected with Methodism, unlike the more populist variants from Indiana, Wisconsin and Iowa.
Her first known political enterprise was in the 1960 presidential election, the squeaker where the state of Illinois notoriously
put Kennedy over the top, courtesy of Mayor Daley, Sam Giancana and Judith Exner. Hillary was a Nixon supporter. She took it on herself
to probe allegations of vote fraud. From the leafy middle-class suburbs of Chicago's west side, she journeyed to the tenements of
the south side, a voter list in her hand. She went to an address recorded as the domicile of hundreds of Democratic voters and duly
found an empty lot. She rushed back to campaign headquarters, agog with her discovery, only to be told that Nixon was throwing in
the towel.
The way Hillary Clinton tells it in her Living History (an autobiography convincingly demolished by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta
in their Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, an interesting and well researched account ) she went straight
from the Nixon camp to the cause of Martin Luther King Jr., and never swerved from that commitment. Not so. Like many Illinois Republicans,
she did have a fascination for the Civil Rights movement and spent some time on the south side, mainly in African Methodist churches
under the guidance of Don Jones, a teacher at her high school. It was Jones who took her to hear King speak at Chicago's Orchestra
Hall and later introduced her to the Civil Rights leader.
Gerth and Van Natta eschew psychological theorizing, but it seems clear that the dominant influence in Hillary life was her father,
a fairly successful, albeit tightwad Welsh draper, supplying Hilton hotels and other chains. From this irritable patriarch Hillary
kept secret a marked penchant throughout her life her outings with Jones and her encounter with King. Her public persona was
that of a Goldwater Girl. She battled for Goldwater through the 1964 debacle and arrived at Wellesley in the fall of 1965 with enough
Goldwaterite ambition to become president of the Young Republicans as a freshman.
The setting of Hillary's political compass came in the late Sixties. The fraught year of 1968 saw the Goldwater girl getting a
high-level internship in the House Republican Conference with Gerald Ford and Melvin Laird, without an ounce of the Goldwater libertarian
pizzazz. Hillary says the assassinations of King and Robert Kennedy, plus the war in Vietnam, hit her hard. The impact was not of
the intensity that prompted many of her generation to become radicals. She left the suburb of Park Ridge and rushed to Miami to the
Republican Convention where she fulfilled a lifelong dream of meeting Frank Sinatra and John Wayne and devoted her energies to saving
the Party from her former icon, Nixon, by working for Nelson Rockefeller.
Nixon triumphed, and Hillary returned to Chicago in time for the Democratic Convention where she paid an afternoon's visit to
Grant Park. By now a proclaimed supporter of Gene McCarthy, she was appalled, not by the spectacle of McCarthy's young supporters
being beaten senseless by Daley's cops, but by the protesters' tactics, which she concluded were not viable. Like her future husband,
Hillary was always concerned with maintaining viability within the system.
After the convention Hillary embarked on her yearlong senior thesis, on the topic of the Chicago community organizer Saul Alinsky.
She has successfully persuaded Wellesley to keep this under lock and key, but Gerth and Van Natta got hold of a copy. So far from
being an exaltation of radical organizing, Hillary's assessment of Alinsky was hostile, charging him with excessive radicalism. Her
preferential option was to seek
minor advances within the terms of the system. She did not share these conclusions with Alinsky who had given her generous access
during the preparation of her thesis and a job offer thereafter, which she declined.
What first set Hillary in the national spotlight was her commencement address at Wellesley, the first time any student had been
given this opportunity. Dean Acheson's granddaughter insisted to the president of Wellesley that youth be given its say, and the
president picked Hillary as youth's tribune. Her somewhat incoherent speech included some flicks at the official commencement speaker,
Senator Edward Brooke, the black Massachusetts senator, for failing to mention the Civil Rights movement or the war. Wellesley's
president, still fuming at this discourtesy, saw Hillary skinny-dipping in Lake Waban that evening and told a security guard to steal
her clothes.
The militant summer of 1969 saw Hillary cleaning fish in Valdez, Alaska, and in the fall she was at Yale being stalked by Bill
Clinton in the library. The first real anti-war protests at Yale came with the shooting of the students at Kent State. Hillary saw
the ensuing national student upheaval as, once again, a culpable failure to work within the system. "I advocated engagement, not
disruption."
She finally consented to go on a date with Bill Clinton, and they agreed to visit a Rothko exhibit at the Yale art gallery. At
the time of their scheduled rendez-vous with art, the gallery was closed because the museum's workers were on strike. The two had
no inhibitions about crossing a picket line. Bill worked as a scab in the museum, doing janitorial work for the morning, getting
as reward a free tour with Hillary in the afternoon.
In the meantime, Hillary was forging long-term alliances with such future stars of the Clinton age as Marian Wright Edelman and
her husband Peter, and also with one of the prime political fixers of the Nineties, Vernon Jordan. It was Hillary who introduced
Bill to these people, as well as to Senator Fritz Mondale and his staffers.
If any one person gave Hillary her start in liberal Democratic politics, it was Marian Wright Edelman who took Hillary with her
when she started the Children's Defense Fund. The two were inseparable for the next twenty-five years. In her autobiography, published
in 2003, Hillary lists the 400 people who have most influenced her. Marion Wright Edelman doesn't make the cut. Neither to forget
nor to forgive. Peter Edelman was one of three Clinton appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services who quit when Clinton
signed the Welfare reform bill, which was about as far from any "defense" of children as one could possibly imagine.
Hillary was on Mondale's staff for the summer of '71, investigating worker abuses in the sugarcane plantations of southern Florida,
as close to slavery as anywhere in the U.S.A. Life's ironies: Hillary raised not a cheep of protest when one of the prime plantation
families, the Fanjuls, called in their chips (laid down in the form of big campaign contributions to Clinton) and insisted that Clinton
tell Vice President Gore to abandon his calls for the Everglades to be restored, thus taking water Fanjul was appropriating for his
operation.
From 1971 on, Bill and Hillary were a political couple. In 1972, they went down to Texas and spent some months working for the
McGovern campaign, swiftly becoming disillusioned with what they regarded as an exercise in futile ultraliberalism. They planned
to rescue the Democratic Party from this fate by the strategy they have followed ever since: the pro-corporate, hawkish neoliberal
recipes that have become institutionalized in the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Bill Clinton and Al Gore were founding
members.
In 1973, Bill and Hillary went off on a European vacation, during which they laid out their 20-year project designed to culminate
with Bill's election as president. Inflamed with this vision, Bill proposed marriage in front of Wordsworth's cottage in the Lake
District. Hillary declined, the first of twelve similar refusals over the next year. Bill went off to Fayetteville, Arkansas, to
seek political office. Hillary, for whom Arkansas remained an unappetizing prospect, eagerly accepted, in December '73, majority
counsel John Doar's invitation to work for the House committee preparing the impeachment of Richard Nixon. She spent the next months
listening to Nixon's tapes. Her main assignment was to prepare an organizational chart of the Nixon White House. It bore an eerie
resemblance to the twilit labyrinth of the Clinton White House 18 years later.
Hillary had an offer to become the in-house counsel of the Children's Defense Fund and seemed set to become a high-flying public
interest Washington lawyer. There was one impediment. She failed the D.C. bar exam. She passed the Arkansas bar exam. In August of
1974, she finally moved to Little Rock and married Bill in 1975 at a ceremony presided over by the Rev. Vic Nixon. They honeymooned
in Acapulco with her entire family, including her two brothers' girlfriends, all staying in the same suite.
After Bill was elected governor of Arkansas in 1976, Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm, the first woman partner in an outfit almost
as old as the Republic. It was all corporate business, and the firm's prime clients were the state's business heavyweights Tyson
Foods, Wal-Mart, Jackson Stevens Investments, Worthen Bank and the timber company Weyerhaeuser, the state's largest landowner.
Two early cases (of a total of five that Hillary actually tried) charted her course. The first concerned the successful effort
of Acorn a public interest group doing community organizing to force the utilities to lower electric rates on residential consumers
and raise on industrial users. Hillary represented the utilities in a challenge to this progressive law, the classic right-wing claim,
arguing that the measure represented an unconstitutional "taking" of property rights. She carried the day for the utilities.
The second case found Hillary representing the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Arkansas in a lawsuit filed by a disabled former
employee who had been denied full retirement benefits by the company. In earlier years, Hillary had worked at the Children's Defense
Fund on behalf of abused employees and disabled children. Only months earlier, while still a member of the Washington, D.C., public
interest community, she had publicly ripped Joseph Califano for becoming the Coca Cola company's public counsel. "You sold us out,
you, you sold us out!" she screamed publicly at Califano. Working now for Coca Cola, Hillary prevailed
The problem that West and first of all the USA and Germany face now is that Ukraine is another Greece.
To keep it afloat financially requires tremendous and continues investment. 40 billions from IMF is
only a start. Economic ties with Russia are destroyed. And without tens of billions of annual aid that
means death sentence. Allowing it to fail with shake Western financial system and we do
not know how many derivatives were written on Ukrainian debt and who holds them. . Looks like MentalToo was on duty for this article with support of usual gang. There was even
some backlash against "Hillary bots", specifically against alphamysh.
By paying a price I clearly meant the very expensive support for Ukraine that EU has to provide,
about 40 billion so far. The Ukraine's economy is down about 14% from just three years ago - this
is going to get very, very expensive.
If you want to compare Russia's and EU's losses due to sanctions, they have been very substantial
for both. EU has so far lost about 10 billion in exports and in the long run it is not clear who
will end up losing more. Russia's GNP will drop by 3% after years of high growth (more than double
in 10 years). EU has been largely stagnant and many countries there are still below where they
were in '09 (Italy, Spain, ...).
Finally, militarily all that matters is who has local superiority. Russia has it in eastern Ukraine.
You can squirm, hallucinate, cry all you want, there is no f...ing way that Nato can defeat Russia
there.
They know it, thus the coming deal.
Dannycraig007 -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 21:34
You would prefer I use the corrupt and obviously biased mainstream Western media as sources
I assume, rather than first person video accounts from the victims themselves? Award winning war
correspondent and Guardian journalist John Pilger has a few words for you.
http://www.discussionist.com/101459708
This is a must watch video about how the Western media operate from a man who was once a part
of the establishment here at the Guardian.
Standupwoman -> Captain_Underpants 11 May 2015 17:08
Yep. I think my own Pollyanna moment is already beginning to seep away.
But the stakes are so high! NATO's revival of the 'hotline' has unilaterally put us back on a
Cold War footing, and at a time when the Doomsday clock is already set at 3 minutes to midnight.
Putin has shown incredible restraint so far, but if the provocations don't stop then I'm genuinely
worried about what might happen.
Bosula -> samanthajsutton 11 May 2015 20:43
Neither side is very open about what support it provides.
Russia says openly it doesn't stop volunteers from Russia, often family, cross the border to fight
with the East Ukrainians. They are also probably supplying weapons, but we don't really know.
And no Russian troops have been captured despite the huge battles. To capture a Russian soldier
in a fighting zone would be worth gold in terms of PR value.
The Eastern Ukrainian are having difficulties training all their volunteers (just too many) with
a million refugees, many based in camps in Russia, providing a fertile source of volunteers. The
West provides no humanitarian help - a short sighted strategic decision, maybe?
The US and their allies are also pretty secret about what support they provide - best estimates
are around 1,500 advisers, trainers - and 'volunteers' fighting alongside privately funded far
right militias and the Ukrainian army.
The US are not really in a position to take the self- righteous moral high ground in a civil
war tens of thousands of kilometres from their home.
nnedjo -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 20:17
What little influence US has on events in Ukraine is irrelevant.
Because of this "little influence" the whole Ukrainian government has become irrelevant. You
know, the fact that you do not see the strings that move their limbs does not mean that they are
not puppets on the strings. And that guys from Washington hold the ends of the strings, that's
probably clear to everyone after the cookies of Victoria Nuland. Or Toria, as poster Dipset called
her.:-)))
Funny guy that Dipset, wonder why he is not here yet.
Standupwoman 11 May 2015 20:09
'Although the 300 US trainers are operating in the west of the country'
Are we really sure of this? Yes, Kiev has predictably denied Russian claims that American troops
have been spotted in the Donbass, but the odd thing is that several pro-Kiev supporters have uploaded
this footage of American training under the following description:
In Severodonetsk, Luhansk region instructors from Georgia, Israel and the US carried out
military exercises with the soldiers of the special units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
of Ukraine
Luhansk is in the ATO region - and Severodonetsk is very, very near to the front line.
geedeesee -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 20:05
Irrelevant ...?
Just the CIA advisers, military trainers, $billions of dollars, political cover, a propaganda
machine.
geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:59
Not proper interviews, are they? Just clips of sentences without knowing the question that
is being answered. They wrap narrative around the comment. Not one of those nine soldiers admits
to fighting in Ukraine, and the claim of written evidence from NGOs is negated towards the end
of the article with the caveat that 'Ukraine' wasn't actually mentioned in the NGO's documentary
evidence.
You're easily duped by propaganda.
Standupwoman -> ID5868758 11 May 2015 19:50
Understood. If governments had to actually fight the wars they started, the world would be
a very different place...
Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:35
If your still doubtful about what the Kiev regime do to people who post unflattering information
online, I present to you them demonstrating firsthand what happens when people step out of line.
Graphic warning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXnNDbJ7r0k&feature=youtu.be
geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:31
"What about the guys in military uniforms with weapons, mortars, mines, grenades, anti-tank
weapons..."
What about them? They're defending themselves - the self-defence activists - after the Kiev regime
sent tanks and aircraft to attack the protesters in what they called an Anti-Terror Operation
as this example shows (see all four videos)..
Your question answers itself, in that the Kiev Regime have been tracking down people who post
videos on the internet and in social media that criticize the regime, hence the lack of video
out of Slavyansk now.
The Residents of Slavyansk have disappeared; the town is being re-populated with migrants from
Western Ukraine.
POSTED BY S. NAYLOR ⋅ AUGUST 14, 2014 ⋅ 27 COMMENTS
In Slavyansk, occupied by Ukrainian troops, the local residents have practically disappeared.
The town is being inundated with migrants speaking in a foreign dialect, who take over the housing
of those who left to escape the Ukrainian bombing campaign.
This is reported by one of very few residents of Slavyansk who, trusting Ukrainian official propaganda,
made the decision to return to his native city. The picture that he saw is terrifying. He realized
that the information about residents of Slavyansk returning home is nothing but a vile lie.
"Please, heed our plea! The people have disappeared from Slavyansk!
"I am a native of Slavyansk, residing here already for twenty-seven years. Or better to say 'I
was residing', having left the town three months ago, when it was becoming dangerous to stay.
During this time I found refuge with relatives in Odessa. I made a decision to return when all
the Ukrainian media started saying that everything in Slavyansk was back to normal, that over
sixty percent of residents have come back.
"In the three months of my absence my apartment remained untouched by shells from the junta's
bombardment or by its marauding thugs. I had already started to unpack when I heard the sound
of my neighbour's doors opening across the hallway. I thought it must have been my neighbour,
Sergey Ivanovich, but then I saw a young man unknown to me. To my question about his identity
he replied that he was Sergey Ivanovich's son.
geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:27
Here's an example:
Slaviansk: 10 self-defense activists and some 30 unarmed civilians killed
Can you tell us how many people have been killed in Slayvansk?
Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:06
Here's another video for you that proves the Kiev regime are Nazis as it shows them marching
through Kiev in uniform holding the Waffen SS Wolfsangel flag and was filmed by Poroshenkos very
own Chanel 5 TV outlet.
The rest of the hour and a half long video is a bloodbath showing them killing hundreds of
innocent civilians. Get back to me after you've cleaned your conscience.
Investors, such as Franklin Templeton and George Soros' Foundation, who planned to make blood
money and placed their bets off of the inside information right before the coup back in November
2013, have a combined $7 billion at stake in Ukraine.
The IMF is trying to convince them to take a haircut on the massive amount and get put on the
back burner for the time being, but Russia put it's $3 billion loan in strict terms back in 2012
and has payback priority.
Those human flesh eating Western sharks want their money. This makes those 1%ers and their
IMF vassals very upset as they didn't actually expect to lose money......they thought they were
gonna double their billions with the rape of Ukraine. Now it's hard earned.
Standupwoman ID5868758 11 May 2015 18:41
I completely understand that. It's a very sensitive subject, and must be far more so for those
with personal experience.
Part of the problem is the difference between what we knew then and what we know now. At the time,
as you say, we all thought My-Lai was a 'one-off' by a few bad apples, but now so much material
has been declassified a very different picture has emerged.
BUT there's still a world of difference between 'a lot' and 'all', and we must never allow
those war crimes to taint the reputation of the good soldiers, or to belittle what they endured.
It is indeed wrong to apply excessively broad brush-strokes, and I want to apologize to you personally,
because I think in my post I was guilty of doing just that.
SoloLoMejor -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 18:40
Yep all good points and there's definitely some push back from Merkel and Hollande. I just
don't think the US can relinquish control of our military or monetary systems as would happen
if Europe developed independently and naturally became close to European Russia. This is a superpower
making sure that it stays a superpower. That said, this is Europe & Russia, not the under developed
middle East so they may not get it all their own way but 6000 lives so far is tolerable collateral
damage for them
Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 18:37
There are 1,000 American, British, Polish and Canadian troops in Ukraine. Officially. Plus
endless civilian advisors, agents, private security companies, etc...
Maybe Russians have more people there, but it is after all on their border.
"given control of Ukraine's border back to Ukraine, in contravention of the Minsk II agreement"
No. The Minsk II specifically says that the border will be returned to Kiev control AFTER the
Donbass area gets autonomy. Where is the "autonomy"? You can't cherry-pick from an agreement.
If Nato steps over the line in Ukraine, as they are about to do, the nuclear option will be on
the table. It is absolutely horrible, but that's where we are heading. Try to get your head out
of your behind to understand what is going on there - it is playing with a huge fire on the border
of a nuclear power that said they will not allow Nato missiles 400 km from Moscow. You want to
test them?
nnedjo -> Tattyana 11 May 2015 18:32
I believe there is no need in any meetings for any further escalation as well.
That's right, Tattyana, that's exactly what I said. My only criticism was related to Miss Marie
Harf, who apparently recited a prepared statement, which aims only to reduce the importance of
the visit of John Kerry to Russia.
By the way, a true pleasure for me is to watch the exchange of opinions between US spokeswoman
Marie Harf and her favorite "reporter", Matt Lee, at the State Department press conferences.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Marie+Harf+Matt+Lee
Standupwoman -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 18:23
Yes, that all makes good sense - but I still think personal integrity can have an (admittedly
tiny) role to play. Carter is a case in point.
I'm even (don't laugh!) inclined to extend that to Obama. Yes, he's technically responsible for
this mess, and he must have supported Nuland and Pyatt in the original coup, but I still think
things would be very much worse if either Biden or HRC had been at the helm.
Obama (like Putin) has hawks screaming at him for being weak, but the fact he's holding out
suggests there's a little shred of integrity still there.
It's not much, but it's all we've got. Sometimes it feels as if the whole world is screaming
for war, and in the centre is this little patch of stillness where two men are holding firm against
the madness. If anything happens to either Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin then I think we really
are sunk.
geedeesee -> SoloLoMejor 11 May 2015 18:22
Yes, there clearly is a strategic plan being played out, though I don't think it has gone to
plan for the Americans. The release of the Nuland/Hyatt phone call obviously came from Russian
intelligence, which was an embarrassment for US. I suspect this is all a prelude to the coming
clash for stakes in Arctic oil. There are a number of competing nations but US probably wants
to minimise Russian access.
However, there is a lot of strain within the EU at the moment, and we know the views of EU
leaders were disregarded by Nuland last year ("Fvck the EU").
It's possible the whole thing has gone far enough for EU leaders (see link below to comments
identifying reasons) and they're pushing back on US behind the scenes to cool it down now.
See the original post by Beckow and replies. Link direct to individual comment number:
Although the 300 US trainers are operating in the west of the country, well away from the conflict
zone, Russia has questioned their purpose.
So I do not see how it could be otherwise. Had the US sent their "trainers" in the conflict
zone in the east of Ukraine, it is possible that in that case Russia would not complain at all.
In that case, Russia would also send their "trainers" who would soon be found "in the west
of the country [Ukraine], well away from the conflict zone".:-)))
normankirk -> MaoChengJi 11 May 2015 18:04
and the German gold still locked up in US vaults
Popeyes 11 May 2015 17:53
Once again on Saturday Putin completely outclassed the West, and the decision by Western leaders
to stay away in the end showed their total irrelevance.
Closer ties between China and Russia is Washington's worst nightmare, and a very different
new World Order is emerging from the rubble of the post-Cold War period. Today Russia proposed
that Greece become the 6th member of a new Development Bank set up by the BRINCS, and with some
European leaders desperate to end sanctions things are not going as planned for the empire.
Dannycraig007 -> Bradtweeters 11 May 2015 17:52
Oh, I'm an 'authentic' Guardian reader alright. i'm on my 20th account after being constantly
banned this past year for posting the truth about Ukraine. And when they bane me again I'll be
right back. True Brits don't give up so easily.
ID5868758 -> Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 17:51
Well, it's printed in English only, given away free in places like the Metro and coffee houses,
so it's not like it's the Russian equivalent of the New York Times, to begin with. My son says
it's read mostly by ex-pats in Russia, tourists, that kind of audience, it's certainly not anything
that Russians read on a regular basis.
ID5868758 -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:45
Good grief, what fiction. Vladimir Putin's only problem is that he is not Boris Yeltsin,
opening the door to the international banks and the multinational corporations to continue their
rape of the assets and resources of the Russian people. He is slowly but surely returning
Russia to Russians. Contrast that to Ukraine, going in the opposite direction, with the privatization
of the assets and resources of the people just beginning, and the predators like Monsanto, Cargill,
Chevron, banging at the gate.
normankirk -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:44
Oh I know! its his nature! He can't help it! And vindictively, at home, he's raised the standard
of living and life expectancy! the bastard, only a lunatic would do so.And when he walks among
the people he's forcing them ... at gunpoint!.... to put on forced smiles you can tell by looking.
he.s a maniac! getting Assad to give up his chemical stores! crazy!
Kaiama -> BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 17:43
There was some indication that the ships could not be sold without the explicit permission
of the Russians - probably because they provided the middle part of the hull and if they were
feeling bad have the right to ask for it to be cut out and given back to them.
nnedjo 11 May 2015 17:42
"This trip is part of our ongoing effort to maintain direct lines of communication with
senior Russian officials and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed," state department spokeswoman
Marie Harf said in a written statement.
I do not see what it was unclear so far in the views of the State Department at the Ukrainian
crisis. I mean, if John Kerry is going to Sochi to repeat the usual accusations against Russia,
which US officials have said so far, then there's really no need for him to go to Russia only
because of this, nor Putin is interested to hear it one more time.
Thus, rather it will be some other reason behind this visit, about which we can now only guess.
And none of us is so naive to believe that the Ukrainian crisis can be resolved without direct
negotiations between the United States and Russia. So, either to make a deal, or to enter a further
escalation of the military conflict.
I am inclined to believe that the latter, less predictable solution, is not in anyone's interest.
Kaiama -> Metronome151 11 May 2015 17:41
Maybe, but if the US did cut Russia off of SWIFT for instance, the Russians have already said
that they would regard it as a declaration of "war". The US might start it but the Russians will
definitely finish it.
MichaPalkin -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:40
It finally happened: A REAL nutjob.
Now why don't you put your money where you mouth is, you pos and go join the fight against Putin
yourself um?.. See? Told ya.
geedeesee -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 17:31
On the glimmer of hope, I think you maybe right, though its early days. History books on 20th
century show that when there's been a stand-off for sometime an intermediary, or unofficial envoy,
is often sent to explore the basis for talks. And the history books also show confidence-building
measures are used, such as making an announcement via the media acknowledging part of the grievance
of the other side which can use for domestic purposes.
This happened with the IRA talks, for example, both in 1970s and 1990s. Last week Jimmy Carter
visited Putin in Moscow, not on its own remarkable, but what suggested this wasn't an initiative
of his own volition was the interview he gave to Voice of America (official US Gov. channel) immediately
after the meeting in Moscow - indicating they'd travelled with him.
The narrative is for the press and the accompanying 45 second video of Carter saying all the
right things for the Russians can be used by Russian TV/media in news reports.
You'll be disappointed if you look for integrity with the players at this level, because it doesn't
exist. They have their plans and self-interests; integrity doesn't come into it.
Dannycraig007 -> dmitryfrommoscow 11 May 2015 17:30
The Moscow Times is actually operated out of Scandinavia and their readership has been dropping
due to the obvious anti-Russian propaganda.
ID5868758 -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 17:27
Well, My-Lai was, of course, just a horrific example of evil behavior on the part of a few
of our troops, but Kerry came home and, without personal knowledge, painted the entire military
with the same broad brush, made up stories, and just so disgraced himself with this nation that
he would never have won a Senate seat if he had not run in Massachusetts.
I still to this day cannot listen to him speak for more than a few minutes at a time, his betrayal
of the men who were fighting and dying in the hellhole that was Vietnam will stay with me forever.
dmitryfrommoscow -> Havingalavrov 11 May 2015 17:26
The Moscow Times is one of those pro-Washington mouthpieces which, according to the claims
by Putin's critics, have been ruthlessly wiped out of the scene.
SoloLoMejor 11 May 2015 17:15
I saw the Merkel Putin press conference in full. Merkel fully acknowledged and apologised for
the horrors inflicted on the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany, and quite rightly.
When asked specifically about what she still blamed Russia for with respect to Minsk she became
a lot less clear and rambling and very non specific. I couldn't make out what her beef was although
I really wanted to know.
She's going to need some very clear reasons to reinstate EU sanctions on Russia and the phrase
Shaun Walker regurgitates in virtually every piece he writes, "mounting evidence" of Russian involvement
(but without producing any) won't be enough this time round.
MichaPalkin -> alpamysh 11 May 2015 17:15
l though I find your comments stupid, and what is absolutely amazing is that guests such as
you have had zero effect on anything.
Some fascist parties did once praise you and still do, ahem, "purely for the funding you was willing
to give". Some grammar problems here eh.
But this has had no effect on nothing, or the policy of the EU in general.
One does not even see you loonies demonstrating in the street, shouting "hail" to Poro & Co."
Poro's only real "western" base of support comes from RFE and probably Guardian. Even Americans
begin having their reservations now.
Period
Indeed, we may well have all your clownish incompetence to thank for your highly unsuccessful
trolling.
OK, klopets?
John Smith -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 17:06
You can forget about Crimea.
Nothing will come out from this talks because the US will not let off their 'great prize'
as the NED head called it. Unfortunately for Ukrainians.
ID5868758 -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 16:31
Standupwoman, I rarely disagree with you, but as an American who lived through Vietnam as the
wife of a Marine Corps officer, and the sister of a brother in country as a cryptologist, may
I just tell you that John Kerry's actions in front of Congress were not seen by most as heroic
at all, not borne of courage and integrity, especially since he had spent only a very short time
in country, and had awarded himself 2 or 3 purple hearts, but strangely enough, has no scars of
those wounds remaining today. He lied, it was a performance that caused much of America to shun
him even today, and that's the truth.
Igor1980 -> GoodOldBoy1967 11 May 2015 16:29
I am in Sochi now, a navy ship is patrolling the area of the Residence and many police cars
can be seen. It is not surprising . I was surprised by the number of cars with Ukrainian license
plates. The hosts say that many Ukrainian citizens moved to the area on the coast with their money.
Standupwoman -> cabaret1993 11 May 2015 16:22
I agree. If this were HRC rather than Kerry I'd think we were doomed. Do you remember her hilariously
rabble-rousing claim that Putin had no soul - 'He's KGB, it's a given!' - and Putin's dry response?
That woman ought never to have been allowed within a hundred miles of foreign affairs, and if
she ever becomes President then it'll be time to start stocking up on the potassium iodide...
Igor1980 -> Beckow 11 May 2015 16:12
Great and sober analysis. The reality is harsh for both parties and very painful for the
USA: the people in the West are not ready to die for the cause of the American dominance.
It is easy to hate Putin, it is difficult to sacrifice your lives in a war to punish Russia
for a little border change in the most unpleasant part of Eastern Europe.
MaoChengJi -> DogsLivesMatter 11 May 2015 16:11
state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a written statement
That's just standard bs. What do you expect them to say.
Standupwoman 11 May 2015 16:06
Maybe I'm having a Pollyanna moment, but I wonder if there isn't just the littlest, tiniest
glimmer of hope in this. The fact the US is prepared to talk to Russia on its own ground is definitely
a step in the right direction, and the fact it's John Kerry is even better.
Because Kerry was once an honest man. Back in 1971 he testified to Congress about American war
crimes in Vietnam, and showed the kind of courage and integrity it's almost impossible to mention
in the same sentence as 'politician'. He talked openly about the everyday reality of rapes, torture,
desecration of the dead, and killing civilians for fun the American toolbox we're all familiar
with in Afghanistan and Iraq, but which in 1971 was genuinely shocking news. Nationalists hated
him, but I think he showed genuine American patriotism when he explained: 'We feel that because
of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it - not the Reds, not redcoats,
but the crimes which we're committing are what threaten it and we have to speak out.'
OK, he's a politician now, and his words have frequently been used against him to show the hypocrisy
of his support for America's current wars, but deep down he's still in some way the same man he
was then. He and Lavrov certainly used to have a good relationship until he made that unbelievably
stupid remark about Russians 'lying to his face'.
That kind of populist rudeness plays well with the 'Murica, F*ck yeah!' mob, but grown-up countries
tend to choose a calmer, more courteous approach when it comes to negotiations which could lead
to the threat of nuclear war. Kerry will need to apologize for that (even if only in private)
if he hopes to get in the same room as President Putin.
But maybe he will. Maybe he'll even confound the words of that Psaki-Manquι Harf and actually
listen as well as talk. If he does, and if there's any integrity left in him, then maybe, just
maybe, there'll really be a chance of peace.
PlatonKuzin -> oleteo 11 May 2015 16:03
The Ukies think that the US and EU do them gifts for granted. And they were very suprised
as they knew that, for example, in Poland, an organization named "Restitution of Kresy" was established
that in the nearest future will expropriate, from Ukraine, the property belonging to the Poles.
And more than 100,000 such Poles are now ready to start proceedings to return their property
from there.
Dannycraig007 -> PlatonKuzin 11 May 2015 15:57
Agreed on the 50,000. I am just citing the US/MSM 'official' number. I have been keeping up
with the real numbers also. Petri Krohn has done a great job establishing a proper count of the
dead form various events and battles. The majority of those 50,000 dead are Ukrainian conscripts
and Kievs Baghdad Bob intentionally played the numbers way down in order to not have to pay dead
soldiers families and hide the truth of the war, which the US and EU media simply parroted with
no investigation whatsoever. Here's a link to the numbers:
The US could have prevented all this by keeping there nose out of Ukraine . In the words of
Obama we brokered the change of government in Ukraine.
Now their are 6000 plus people dead . east of Ukraine destroyed, Crimea gone never
to return.
Only the US could imagine you could get away with this.\
Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 15:54
Hmmm...don't fool yourself, he meant the Maidan crowd in Kiev. The problem Kiev government
has is that as economy gets worse, the large cities like Kharkov, Odessa, etc... will become ungovernable.
Except through brute force.
How do you "join EU" if you have to be suppressing large portion of your population? I am
sure EU would love to look the other way, but the cognitive dissonance might get too much, with
YouTube, refugees, etc...
Captain_Underpants 11 May 2015 15:52
Kerry will offer to swap Ukraine for Assad's head + no S300 missiles to Iran + sanction relief.
Putin and Lavrov will tell Kerry to stick the offer where the sun don't shine and then it's back
to square one.
Obumbler won't be involved, he's too busy on the golf course, watching the NBA playoffs, and making
hollow speeches filled with platitudes about race issues and police violence.
Meanwhile back in the increasingly irrelevant Euroweenie land, the NSA-compromised Frau Merckel
has a desk and a phone and will do as told by her masters
Dannycraig007 -> DIPSET 11 May 2015 15:47
I'd still like to see what those US spy satellites saw the day MH-17 was shot down. They first
said they had proof Russia did it, then they went quiet, then they relied on social media BS,
then they said they had a drunk Ukrainian that made a confession that the rebel put on Ukrainain
uniforms, then they stayed quiet. All the while they had ships in the Black Sea monitoring that
airspace and they had AWACS flying over Europe.
They obviously know what really happened but they have chosen no to show that 'evidence'....there
can only be one reason.......because it implicates the Kiev regime...and thereby....themselves.
geedeesee -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 15:42
"...the army of Ukraine is not at war with "protesters"."
Yes they are, they called it an Anti-Terror Operation and not war against an army. The facts are
against you. Hard luck. ;-)
Dannycraig007 -> MaoChengJi 11 May 2015 15:40
Many people have no idea that Merkels father was in the Hitler youth. Sad but true fact. Hence,
maybe that partly explains her allegiance to Ukraine.
Horst Kasner
Biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Kasner
Kasner was born as Horst Kaźmierczak in 1926, the son of a policeman in the Pankow suburb of Berlin,
where he was brought up. His father Ludwig Kaźmierczak (born 1896 in Posen, German Empire) - died
1959 in Berlin) was born out of wedlock to Anna Kazmierczak and Ludwik Wojciechowski.[1] Ludwig
was mobilised into the German army in 1915 and sent to France, where he was taken prisoner of
war and joined the Polish Haller's Army fighting on the side of Entente.[2] Together with the
army he returned to Poland to fight in Polish-Ukrainian war and Polish-Soviet war.[3] After Posen
had become part of Poland, Ludwig moved with his wife in 1923 to Berlin, where he served as a
policeman, and changed his family name to Kasner in 1930.
Little is known about Horst Kasner's wartime service, and he was held as a prisoner of war at
the age of 19. During his high school years he was a member of the Hitler Youth, with the last
service position of a troop leader.[citation needed] From 1948 he studied theology, first in Heidelberg
then in Hamburg. He married Herlind Jentzsch, an English and Latin teacher, born on 8 July 1928
in Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) as the daughter of Danzig politician Willi Jentzsch, and their
daughter Angela was born in 1954.
PlatonKuzin -> Kaiama 11 May 2015 15:38
There is another side of this medal: Novorussia said that, if Ukraine violates the ceasefire
one more time, the Army of Novorussia will make no stops any longer and will free Kiev.
Beckow -> MichaPalkin 11 May 2015 15:35
Threats are simply a part of making deals. When one threatens, there is an implicit understanding
of what the alternatives are. It is how countries negotiate.
Look at it from Russia's point of view: they prefer to deal with useless twats. Putin has been
smart to keep all his threats, options and deals to himself. He speaks very diplomatically and
applies pressure on the ground. There is a Russian saying: "let the punishment tell" - that's
what Russia is doing and it drives the likes of Kerry crazy.
Unless US escalates into a nuclear confrontation, Russia has the upper hand in the long run.
That was obvious from the beginning. So the question is why did Peace Price Winner do this? Why
did he start? Is he and people around him that stupid or that desperate? I hope, it is just stupidity.
"Poro & Co would be applying for the political asylum in the US" - that's going to happen anyway,
but I think Canada will take the bulk of them...
Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 15:24
Let's be clear: Kerry is flying in with a proposal to review with Lavrov. If Russia accepts,
Kerry will meet Putin. If not, we will know that sh..t is about to escalate - on both sides.
Regarding "military involvement": both sides are heavily militarily involved with arms, training,
"advisors" of all kinds, intelligence, logistics. And both sides downplay it ("lie", if you prefer).
Why is that even an issue? Or "news"?
It is infantile to discuss it. In a war there is always "military involvement". And this is
a war, has been for about a year, this is the way wars are fought now (see Syria, Libya, etc...).
And yes, of course Putin can change weather. Anyone with enough nukes can.
BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 15:15
Looks like India's participation in the Moscow parade is also paralleled by the cutting of
80% of the French fighter order (remembering that the govt. in New Delhi stated several months
ago that its confidence in France as a supplier would be related to its vulnerability to political
pressuring vis a vis the RU ships that will end-up being scrapped or bought by by a third party,
and it might be that said party, if also participating in said parade, might sell in turn to RU
for a 'cut'). IDK if this is related, big new orders from India for SU's:
These cannot be made in Russia, in any event, as Russia is entirely isolated.
Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 15:09
The US has really hurt itself with the WW2 remembrance ceremony snub. Russia won't be soon
forgetting what the US has been doing in Ukraine and Europe either. After all the 7,000 people
killed by the Kiev regime that came to power through the US backed coup were all ethnic Russian
Ukrainian civilians. So many lives could have been saved if only the US would have allowed federalization
of the obviously ethnically diverse regions of the country.
For those that missed it, here's link to the amazing WW2 Red Square commemoration concert. It
truly was a sight to behold.
Turn Ukraine into a federation. Of a rich pro western part that is member of the EU and a poor
pro Russian part that is member of the Eurasian Union.
In ten years time the East Ukrainians will have had enough of their Russian propaganda-ridden
life without a decent standard of living. We will then have another Euromaidan, but this time
in Donbass.
History always discloses propaganda lies. In the end the people of Donbass will understand they
have been used by Russia for its geopolitical games. And chose for a prosperous future in Europe
as well.
Beckow -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 14:14
Yes, there are huge problems.
But if US accepts a de facto defeat in Ukraine, they are done in many other places too.
My guess is that they will try to weasel out of it by offering a deal to Russia:
- US backs down, Kiev goes back in the box (over time), things quiet down, BUT no victory
speeches or remarks by Russia. US has to be able to maintain that they "won".
It is a disease for insecure people. They fear being seen as losers more than anything else.
Thus we might still see the fire-works if Russia refuses to oblige.
vr13vr 11 May 2015 14:09
"Unfairly blaming Russia for the crisis in Ukraine, which was actually in the main provoked
by the US itself, Obama's administration in 2014 went down the road of ruining bilateral links,
announced a policy of 'isolating' our country on the international stage, and demanded support
for its confrontational steps from the countries that traditionally follow Washington."
Why does the press want us feel so amazed about this quote? What part of it isn't true?
1. US did and does blame Russia for crisis in Ukraine.
2. US did provoke the crisis.
3. US did go down the road of ruining bilateral links.
4. It did announced a policy of "isolation."
5. And it did demand support for its steps from other countries in Europe.
Putin actually appears to be a straight talker.
vr13vr -> caliento 11 May 2015 14:05
"The first question asked should be... "
Kerry doesn't get to ask questions as if he were running a deposition. He can talk politely
and be nice. Outside of the US police TV show and court drama, nobody in the world allows anyone
to speak like this, especially in the diplomatic talks with Russia.
vr13vr 11 May 2015 14:03
"Russia believes that the US is meddling in Ukraine..."
No, it's not just Russia believes. It is a fact. And everyone knows it, not just Russia.
geedeesee -> Beckow 11 May 2015 13:46
Add to your list:
EU unity under considerable strain. Divisive issues on it's plate include Greece and Grexit, UK
referendum and possible Brexit, UK Human rights exit, unresolved Eurozone crisis, migrant quotas,
all made worse by further US spying revelations and German betrayal of EU businesses to the benefit
of US companies.
Putin now supporting/funding anti-EU parties in Europe.
MH17 report and voice recorder info, clearly delayed for political reasons, is due this summer.
Obama administration needs cooperation at UNSC on Iran nuclear deal.
Putin supplying arms to Iran is giving Obama more problems from Netanyahu.
If Obama has plans for a last attempt at cracking Israel/palestine then he'll need as much international
support as he can muster.
Russia opening spying and military bases in Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
BunglyPete 11 May 2015 13:46
Russia has engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda
exercise that I've seen since the very height of the cold war,
That suggests that it is equivalent to the RFE/RL campaigns of the Cold War.
The reports they produced in 1984 relating to showing the Ukrainian nationalists in a good light
were described by Richard Pipes as "blatant anti-semitic propaganda". Not my words, the words
of Richard Pipes.
These same reports are reprinted today in the Guardian and if you disagree you are a "Putin propagandist".
Even though Richard Pipes agrees that it is distasteful propaganda.
Other activities involved sending millions of balloons across eastern Europe, campaigns in the
US to ask for "Truth Dollars" to fund said balloon campaigns, leaflets pretending to come from
a fictional resistance organisation intended to militarise citizens against their governments,
and much much more. There are many books and articles on the subject.
Senator Royce said in May 2014, in an instruction to Victoria Nuland at a senate subcommitee hearing,
he wants them "producing the stuff they did years ago". Indeed they granted more money than they
did during the cold war to BBG campaigns.
In comparison to the rather pathetic RT, the US campaigns are far more serious in scope and effects.
madeiranlotuseater 11 May 2015 13:27
and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed," state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said
in a written statement
In other words, do as the USA says or we shall continue to hound you.
"Russia has engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda
exercise that I've seen since the very height of the cold war," Kerry said in February. "And
they have been persisting in their misrepresentations, lies, whatever you want to call them,
about their activities to my face, to the face of others, on many different occasions."
There speaks the nation that admits to being involved in forcing regime changes all over the
world since 1947. To arm twisting and invading Iraq on the basis of a known lie. If Mr Kerry believes
he has been lied to he should present his evidence. We can all relax then. But he doesn't. He
says to trust him to tell the truth. Why should we. The USA is a massive war machine intent on
ruling the world. China and Russia are not interested in being bullied.
Beckow -> deathbydemocracy 11 May 2015 12:53
I see that even indirect criticism of the media coverage is not allowed. Interesting, but somehow
understandable.
DIPSET 11 May 2015 12:31
First when they thought they thought they were "winning" they did not want to talk and
instead, instructed their media to do the talking for them.
Okay.
Then reality happened hahaha
As a consequence, we now have all sorts of chatter coming out of Washington and the urgent need
to talk to Russia. So now it's......
Let's "talk" about East Ukraine
Let's "talk about Iraq
Let's "talk" about Syria
Let's "talk" about Yemen
Let's "talk about Iran
Lets "talk" about Latin America
Funny how seeing China and Russia stand next to each other has sharpened some minds across
the Atlantic.
Pity they could not "talk" before Crimea was 'liberated' right in front of the American satellites
circling in space lol
;-)
Fascinating times
Ilja NB 11 May 2015 12:28
Which mounting evidence ??? I haven't seen a single one provided ?
**The Russian foreign ministry said: "We continue to underline that we are ready for cooperation
with the US on the basis of equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and that Russian interests
are taken into account without attempting to exert pressure on us."**
Of-course USA will never agree with it, since USA wants to put it's nose in everyone's affairs.
BMWAlbert -> BunglyPete 11 May 2015 11:55
Mr. Semenchenko is clearly referring to Greater Ukraine here that extends east into the Kuban,
including some buffer areas around the mount Elbrus region (intruded upon on this 2008 occasion)
to the south, and north to the Middle Don and Upper Donets basins, to include Beograd and steppe
lands east of Voronezh.
Beckow -> miceonparade 11 May 2015 11:40
Kerry is going to make a deal. Probably surrender after one more chest-beating threat. If Putin
doesn't meet him (also possible), we will have a very hot summer in Ukraine. And maybe elsewhere.
Beckow 11 May 2015 11:34
Kerry is going for a reason, and it is not to restate US views. The reality is:
- Ukraine cannot win the war in its east
- Ukraine is going bankrupt
- EU has just basically said no to Ukraine in EU for foreseeable future (decades?)
- EU denied visa-free access for Ukrainians
- the whole f...ing adventure in Kiev is getting really, really expensive
- time is on Russia's side, they can sit and watch Kiev collapse or West spending billions
to prop it up
- EU cannot currently survive without Russia's gas. Russia has deals with China and Turkey,
in 3 years EU will be screwed or pay a lot, lot more
These realities on the ground drive US crazy. They don't like to deal with reality, it
is too hard. They prefer the fantasy play world where US is god-like, others are scared and geography,
resources and other realities are wished away. Infantile. Stupid. Self-defeating. Russia is actually
doing US a favor by bringing them back to the real word.
I feel sorry for the Ukrainians; they will suffer for years enormously. They rebelled against
a miserable life, were used by a few hustlers from Washington, Berlin and a few Polish ultra-nationalists,
now they will pay for it all. Those are the wages of naivete...
emb27516 miceonparade 11 May 2015 11:32
Yes, especially if they wrestle.
BunglyPete 11 May 2015 11:32
"Mr Putin, look at these images provided to our Senator Inhofe, from Mr Semenchenko of Ukraine's
official government designation to Washington.
As you can see, these images from Georgia in 2008 clearly show you invaded Ukraine last year.
We feel these images prove the invasion so strongly, Senator Inhofe wrote a bill authorising arms
to Ukraine, and we passed this quite easily.
What, Mr Putin, will you do about this? If you continue to send tanks to Georgia in 2008 then
we will assume you have no interest in fulfilling the terms of Minsk accord and will enact necessary
measures to ensure the stability of Ukraine."
alsojusticeseeker Jeremn 11 May 2015 11:27
"He may be a son of a b..., but he is our son of a b...". Just another typical example
of US hypocrisy.
BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 11:25
If only his brain were as big as his hair (obviously, not the bald one).
warehouse_guy 11 May 2015 11:25
"Western leaders mainly boycotted the parade in protest at Russia's actions in Ukraine."
Aka people's will in Crimea, and Russian people's will to help Donbass, they are not exactly hiding
it there are donation kiosks all over the country almost in every major city. Not on government
level though. There are no on duty Russian troops in Ukraine.
RudolphS 11 May 2015 11:24
So, Barry is too chickenshit to go to Russia himself?
Jeremn 11 May 2015 11:19
Americans should be asking why their government is supporting a Ukrainian governmnet which
honours veterans of an insurgency which massacred Poles, Jews and Russians across Ukraine in 1943
and 1944.
Here they are, members of the UPA-OUN. Rehabilitated by Poroshenko's governmnet. It was an organisation
which formed the Nachtigall Battalion, in German service, and tasked with clearing the Lvov ghetto,
and which took men from SS auxiliaries (Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201), which cleared Belarus
of partisans and Jews.
Most notoriously, the UPA ran a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Poles in Ukraine, killing
some 100,000 of them (mostly women and children).
So there are the veterans, in Ukraine's parliament.
Here's a history of one of their
massacres.
America, you should know.
Steve Ennever 11 May 2015 11:15
"The US has placed several rounds of sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine"
It has indeed. And badgered Europe into sanctioning Russia further. All of which
has affected the US little but has been an immense pain economically for it's "allies."
Strangely though, in 2014, business between the US & Russia actually increased by 7%.
Honestly, you get taken for a ride as recently as Iraq & Libya & you still don't learn a thing.
StatusFoe11 May 2015 11:08
"This trip is part of our ongoing effort to maintain direct lines of communication with
senior Russian officials and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed,"
i.e. "If you don't do what we say and submit to our will there'll be more costs."
warehouse_guy 11 May 2015 11:00
"While Washington has pointed to mounting evidence of Russian military involvement in
the east of the country."
Yet unable to provide any concrete evidence for over a year...
Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting
Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving
only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which
approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance
has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter.
In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to
40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
Notable quotes:
"... "Personally, I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap. ..."
"... Its economy cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine. ..."
"... Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits. ..."
"... About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the turbines that run its nuclear power stations. ..."
"... So for all the aid coming from the state-backed institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with open arms." ..."
Having survived an assassin's bullet, a revolution and a war, Gennady Kernes now faces a fight
over Ukraine's constitution
One afternoon in late February, Gennady Kernes, the mayor of Kharkov, Ukraine's second largest
city, pushed his wheelchair away from the podium at city hall and, with a wince of discomfort, allowed
his bodyguards to help him off the stage. The day's session of the city council had lasted several
hours, and the mayor's pain medication had begun to wear off. It was clear from the grimace on his
face how much he still hurt from the sniper's bullet that nearly killed him last spring. But he collected
himself, adjusted his tie and rolled down the aisle to the back of the hall, where the press was
waiting to grill him.
"Gennady Adolfovich," one of the local journalists began, politely addressing the mayor by his
name and patronymic. "Do you consider Russia to be an aggressor?" He had seen this loaded question
coming. The previous month, Ukraine's parliament had unanimously voted to declare Russia an "aggressor
state," moving the two nations closer to a formal state of war after nearly a year of armed conflict.
Kernes, long known as a shrewd political survivor, was among the only prominent officials in Ukraine
to oppose this decision, even though he knew he could be branded a traitor for it. "Personally,
I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap.
It was a sign of his allegiance in the new phase of Ukraine's war. Since February, when a fragile
ceasefire began to take hold, the question of the country's survival has turned to a debate over
its reconstitution. Under the conditions of the truce, Russia has demanded that Ukraine embrace "federalization,"
a sweeping set of constitutional reforms that would take power away from the capital and redistribute
it to the regions. Ukraine now has to decide how to meet this demand without letting its eastern
provinces fall deeper into Russia's grasp.
The state council charged with making this decision convened for the first time on April 6, and
President Petro Poroshenko gave it strict instructions. Some autonomy would have to be granted to
the regions, he said, but Russia's idea of federalization was a red line he wouldn't cross. "It is
like an infection, a biological weapon, which is being imposed on Ukraine from abroad," the President
said. "Its bacteria are trying to infect Ukraine and destroy our unity."
Kernes sees it differently. His city of 1.4 million people is a sprawling industrial powerhouse,
a traditional center of trade and culture whose suburbs touch the Russian border. Its economy
cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless
how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine.
"That's how the Soviet Union built things," Kernes explains in his office at the mayoralty, which
is decorated with an odd collection of gifts and trinkets, such as a stuffed lion, a robotic-looking
sculpture of a scorpion, and a statuette of Kernes in the guise of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of
the Soviet Union. "That's how our factories were set up back in the day," he continues. "It's a fact
of life. And what will we do if Russia, our main customer, stops buying?" To answer his own question,
he uses an old provincialism: "It'll be cat soup for all of us then," he said.
Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting
Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving
only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund,
which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that
assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since
last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation
shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
But that pain will be just the beginning, says Kernes, unless Ukraine allows its eastern regions
to develop economic ties with Russia. As proof he points to the fate of Turboatom, his city's biggest
factory, which produces turbines for both Russian and Ukrainian power stations. Its campus takes
up more than five square kilometers near the center of Kharkov, like a city within a city, complete
with dormitories and bathhouses for its 6,000 employees. On a recent evening, its deputy director,
Alexei Cherkassky, was looking over the factory's sales list as though it were a dire medical prognosis.
About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the
turbines that run its nuclear power stations.
"Unfortunately, all of our major industries are intertwined with Russia in this way," Cherkassky
says. "So we shouldn't fool ourselves in thinking we can be independent from Russia. We are totally
interdependent." Over the past year, Russia has started cutting back on orders from Turboatom as
part of its broader effort to starve Ukraine's economy, and the factory has been forced as a result
to cut shifts, scrap overtime and push hundreds of workers into retirement.
At least in the foreseeable future, it does not have the option of shifting sales to Europe. "Turbines
aren't iPhones," says Cherkassky. "You don't switch them out every few months." And the ones produced
at Turboatom, like nearly all of Ukraine's heavy industry, still use Soviet means of production that
don't meet the needs of most Western countries. So for all the aid coming from the state-backed
institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with
open arms."
Russia knows this. For decades it has used the Soviet legacy of interdependence as leverage in
eastern Ukraine. The idea of its "federalization" derives in part from this reality. For two decades,
one of the leading proponents of this vision has been the Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin,
who heads the Kremlin-connected institute in charge of integrating the former Soviet space. Since
at least 2004, he has been trying to turn southeastern Ukraine into a zone of Russian influence
an effort that got him banned from entering the country between 2006 and 2010.
His political plan for controlling Ukraine was put on hold last year, as Russia began using military
means to achieve the same ends. But the current ceasefire has brought his vision back to the fore.
"If Ukraine accepts federalization, we would have no need to tear Ukraine apart," Zatulin says in
his office in Moscow, which is cluttered with antique weapons and other military bric-a-brac. Russia
could simply build ties with the regions of eastern Ukraine that "share the Russian point of view
on all the big issues," he says. "Russia would have its own soloists in the great Ukrainian choir,
and they would sing for us. This would be our compromise."
It is a compromise that Kernes seems prepared to accept, despite everything he has suffered in
the past year of political turmoil. Early on in the conflict with Russia, he admits that he flirted
with ideas of separatism himself, and he fiercely resisted the revolution that brought Poroshenko's
government to power last winter. In one of its first decisions, that government even
brought charges
against Kernes for allegedly abducting, threatening and torturing supporters of the revolution in
Kharkov. After that, recalls Zatulin, the mayor "simply chickened out." Facing a long term in prison,
Kernes accepted Ukraine's new leaders and turned his back on the separatist cause, refusing to allow
his city to hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine.
"And you know what I got for that," Kernes says. "I got a bullet." On April 28, while he was exercising
near a city park, an unidentified sniper shot Kernes in the back with a high-caliber rifle. The bullet
pierced his lung and shredded part of his liver, but it also seemed to shore up his bona fides as
a supporter of Ukrainian unity. The state dropped its charges against him soon after, and he was
able to return to his post.
It wasn't the first time he made such an incredible comeback. In 2007, while he was serving as
adviser to his friend and predecessor, Mikhail Dobkin, a
video of them trying to film
a campaign ad was leaked to the press. It contained such a hilarious mix of bumbling incompetence
and backalley obscenity that both of their careers seemed sure to be over. Kernes not only survived
that scandal but was elected mayor a few years later.
Now the fight over Ukraine's federalization is shaping up to be his last. In late March, as he
continued demanding more autonomy for Ukraine's eastern regions, the state re-opened its case against
him for alleged kidnapping and torture, which he has always denied. The charges, he says, are part
of a campaign against all politicians in Ukraine who support the restoration of civil ties with Russia.
"They don't want to listen to reason," he says.
But one way or another, the country will still have to let its eastern regions to do business
with the enemy next door, "because that's where the money is," Kernes says. No matter how much aid
Ukraine gets from the IMF and other Western backers, it will not be enough to keep the factories
of Kharkov alive. "They'll just be left to rot without our steady clients in Russia." Never mind
that those clients may have other plans for Ukraine in mind.
CIA leaker Jeffrey Sterling sentenced to 3.5 years in prison for Espionage Act violations
Convicted CIA leaker Jeffrey Sterling was sentenced to 42 months in prison under the Espionage
Act. He was found guilty of nine counts of unauthorized disclosure of national defense
information about a covert operation and other related charges.
Sterling was given an additional two years of supervised release after he finishes his time in
jail. The government had sought a prison term of more than 20 years for Sterling, but the judge
told prosecutors at the sentencing that was too harsh a punishment, according to the New York
Times' Matt Apuzzo.
... ... ...
The former CIA officer, who was fired in the early 2000s, was charged under the Espionage Act
for disclosing classified information about a mission meant to slow Iran's nuclear program to New
York Times reporter James Risen, who then wrote about the CIA's Iranian plot "Operation Merlin"
in his 2006 book, 'State of War'. The plan was designed to project a negative image of Iran's
nuclear program, learn more about it program and impair its progress. Flawed nuclear weapon
schematics were reportedly funneled to the Iranians via a Russian scientist with the codename
"Merlin."
Risen was also critical of Operation Merlin in his book, saying it could have inadvertently
helped Iran if they were able to identify what was wrong with the blueprints.
... ... ...
In remarks of his own, US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema mentioned the punishments meted
out against other government whistleblowers, including Gen. David Petraeus, who was sentenced to
two years probation for leaking documents to his biographer, a woman who was also his mistress,
as well as that of John Kiriakou, Rapalo said.
"... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'ιtat in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin like the economic sanctions against Russia is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
"... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
"... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'ιtat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
"... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
"... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
"... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
"... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary
of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent
anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.
Though designed to isolate Russia because it
had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'ιtat in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir
Putin like the economic sanctions against Russia is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening
ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.
Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing
a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated
largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.
Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian
alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous
insult to the Russian people.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's
historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.
But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World
War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad
in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would
have been much more difficult if not impossible.
Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a
New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled
sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.
For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian
tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled
away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).
This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule.
From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to
demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.
That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all
the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make
the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."
Distorting the History
So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed,
about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed
coup in declaring there was no coup.
The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted
phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February
2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who after the coup quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late
2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'ιtat organized by the United States. And it
truly was the most blatant coup in history."
Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup and the
threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding
conflict.
For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea."
Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin
said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.'
He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing
the region."
So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred
on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO
would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.
Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored
by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the
putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval
base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014,
they know little about Russian strategic concerns or simply didn't care.
Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had
been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why
the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."
You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it.
Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.
The Sole Indispensable Country
Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's
dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad American exceptionalism. This arrogant
concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked
by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.
That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept.
11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical
weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship
with President Obama is marked by growing trust."
Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous
to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich
and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when
we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing
a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before
it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."
The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence
will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt
and breaking the back of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need
anyone's help to win World War II.
President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s,
which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message,
a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR Putin recently was interviewed for a fawning Russian television documentary
on his decade and a half in power. Putin expressed the view that the West would like Russia to be
down at the heels. He said, "I sometimes I get the impression that they love us when they need to
send us humanitarian aid. . . . [T]he so-called ruling circles, elites - political and economic -
of those countries, they love us when we are impoverished, poor and when we come hat in hand. As
soon as we start declaring some interests of our own, they feel that there is some element of
geopolitical rivalry."
Earlier, in March,
speaking to leaders of the Federal Security Service, which he once led, Mr. Putin warned that
"Western special services continue their attempts at using public, nongovernmental and
politicized organizations to pursue their own objectives, primarily to discredit the authorities
and destabilize the internal situation in Russia."
Mr. Putin's remarks reflect a deep-seated paranoia. It would be easy to dismiss this kind of
rhetoric as intended for domestic consumption, an attempt to whip up support for his war
adventure in Ukraine. In part, it is that. But Mr. Putin's assertion that the West has been
acting out of a desire to sunder Russia's power and influence is a willful untruth.
The fact is that thousands of Americans went to Russia hoping to help its people attain a better
life. The American and Western effort over the last 25 years - to which the United States and
Europe devoted billions of dollars - was aimed at helping Russia overcome the horrid legacy of
Soviet communism, which left the country on its knees in 1991. It was not about conquering Russia
but rather about saving it, offering the proven tools of market capitalism and democracy, which
were not imposed but welcomed. The United States also spent hundreds of millions of dollars to
make Russia safer from loose nukes and joined a fruitful collaboration in outer space. Avid
volunteers came to Russia and donated endless hours to imparting the lessons of how to hold jury
trials, build a free press, design equity markets, carry out political campaigning and a host of
other components of an open, prosperous society. The Americans came for the best of reasons.
Certainly, the Western effort was flawed. Markets were distorted by crony and oligarchic
capitalism; democratic practice often faltered; many Russians genuinely felt a sense of defeat,
humiliation and exhaustion. There's much to regret but not the central fact that a generous hand
was extended to post-Soviet Russia, offering the best of Western values and know-how. The Russian
people benefit from this benevolence even now, and, above Mr. Putin's self-serving hysterics,
they ought to hear the truth: The United States did not come to bury you.
Vatnik, 5/7/2015 2:33 PM EDT [Edited]
I think, that everyoune in US must to know. As i wrote below
"we think that Navalny & Co paid by the west. they ususally call themselves "opposiotion",
and one of them (Nemtsov) was frieinds with McCain (as i realized after reading McCain
twitter, after Nemtsov was killed)."
"we think that our real opposition are these political parties: CPRF, LDPR. We believe
them."
i write it, because i think, that when we talk that our(russian) opposition is bad and paid
from the west, you think that we talk about our politic parties. but it is wrong, we talk
about Navalny & Co.
MeriJ, 5/7/2015 3:08 PM EDT [Edited]
Thanks. That is a useful clarification. But I still find it odd that you would consider a
member of your nation's opposition a traitor or "tool" simply because they have friends in the
West.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main difference between people like Navalny versus the CPRF/LDPR
is that Navalny thinks the current system is corrupt. Whereas individuals and political
parties currently benefiting from the current system think it's fine.
Those are not the thoughts of a traitor. To get to that conclusion you would need to define
the current system and those who currently benefit as being "Russia." Oppose them and you
oppose the Motherland.
But Putin and his new-generation oligarchs and his deputies at the Kremlin are not Russia.
They are a bunch of guys who currently run things there.
Vatnik, 5/7/2015 3:47 PM EDT [Edited]
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main difference between people like Navalny versus the
CPRF/LDPR is that Navalny thinks the current system is corrupt."
CPRF and LPDR know about corruption, and even they think that our non-systemic opposition (Navlny
& Co) are traitors. And they (CPRF , LDPR) talk about corruption and another bad things of our
gov even in Duma. for example, this is what said the leader of LDPR on one tv show
"коррупцию создала советская власть, кпсс, единая россия плавно подобрала у нее все
инструменты коррупции и сегодня эта страстная болезнь поразила все органы и всю структуру"
google translated it:
"Corruption established Soviet power, the Communist Party, United Russia gently picked her
all the tools of corruption and now this passionate disease struck all the organs and the
whole structure"
and
"у вас фракция половина бизнесмены, воры, жулики, грабители, вся остальная половина агенты
спецслужб"
google translated:
"you have a fraction of a half businessmen, thieves, swindlers, robbers, the rest of the
half secret service agents"
he adressed it to our main politic party in Duma, "United Russia"
I can find more than one video where he talk about falsifications of elections, right in
Duma.
but these are just examples.
P.S. oh, and here i found video, specially for you(americans) where our non-systemic
opposition visited US Embassy in Moscow in July 4th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE-54U6V-Bc
Baranovsly71, 5/7/2015 12:11 PM EDT [Edited]
BTW, this is not true that "Americans were not in charge". I red memoirs of Eltsyn's
ministers (Korzhakov, Burbulis, you can read memoirs of deputy secretary of state of that time
Strobe Talbott in English, the same is there), and it's clear that in 90s Russia de facto
was American colony.
For example, ministers in Russian government could not be assigned without US State
Department approval. Even Russian TV anchors were instructed by US representatives.
Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:05 PM EDT
MeriJ
6:42 PM GMT+0300 [Edited]
Putin has convinced you...
USA had popularity in Russia in 1990 more than Putin now, but to 1999 when Putin became
prime-minister USA had less than 20% approve. It was not Putin who destroyed USA's
popularity, reverse your policy created Putin.
You very often replay this your phrase, but it is lie. Did Putin created NATO, did Putin used
Russia's weakness and increased NATO, did Putin bomb Kosovo, did Putin violated agreements
that was done after WWII and separated Kosovo from Serbia, did Putin destroyed Russia's
democracy in 1996 and in 1993, did Putin paid Chechnya terrorists to kill Russians, did Putin
pressure Chechens create Islamic State (prototype of ISIL) in Chechnya, did Putin in any
article said that it will be great if terrorists will created their own state (and after that
will be do permanent wars against Russia)? NO, you did it before there appeared Putin.
Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:14 PM EDT
MeriJ
5:48 PM GMT+0300
Much of the aid they are referring to was not lending but grants to help build civil
society -- independent media, health organizations and the like. No strings attached.
You did not created Russia's civil society, you destroyed it when you created did all what
was possible to lure high educated Russians in West countries. You falsified Russia's election
in 1996 (and all international observers under pressure of USA supported it). You in 1993
supported Yeltsin's military operation in Moscow. You paid Chechnya terrorists to kill
Russians and destabilize Russia's society. Is it civil society???
"independent media"??? Not, they was created by our oligarchs, not by you, and you payed only
for those media who represented USA's point of view as your propaganda did in time Cold War.
It was the continuing Cold War, not help.
" health organizations" ??????????????
USSR's health organizations was significantly better than USA, and infinity better than
current Russia's organizations.
There was not "and like" we ceased Cold War, we by free will dismantled all "USSR's Empire",
we by free will destroyed ideology, we ceased war, but you continued it, you continued the war
all last 25 years, and NATO is the best example of it.
MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:24 PM EDT
We lured well-educated Russians to the West? Seriously?
This is the nature of free markets and open borders. Your response should be to compete to
lure them back. Give them something to come home for. Most people long to go home.
Instead you talk about anyone who doesn't hate the West as if they were traitors. Why would
any well-educated Russian ex-pat want to come home now?
Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:48 PM EDT
Seriously. Your government created very comfortable ways for engineers (and for some
another categories of USSR's people), to take them on West. You are economist, so I suppose
you know the reception: lure good manager from another company, it will increase your power,
and it decrease power of your competitor.
MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:51 PM EDT [Edited]
By "seriously?" I didn't mean I disagreed with your facts. I disagree that this was
surprising or hostile. That is the nature of open markets -- if you see excellence, you try to
recruit it.
There are only two responses I know of: Close your borders and your markets; or compete more
effectively.
MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:20 PM EDT
You are truly incorrect, my friend, and it saddens me that you see it this way.
The antagonistic relationship you describe is more true at the moment, due to the events of
the last year, but not true back in the decades before that. During the Cold War, we were
indeed enemies, so such motivations then were a given.
Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:24 PM EDT
Ok, then try to explain, why USA had more 80% [popularity in polls] in Russia in 1990 and
less than 20% in 1999. There was not Putin, how can you explain it?
Volkovolk, 5/7/2015 12:27 PM EDT [Edited]
He is correct. One can say that Cold War never ended - it just took place for some decades
on our land in form of guerilla war. After Gorbachev and Yeltsin abandoned all interests
of USSR and Russia you decided to press the advantage and to take Russia of the board
[permanently]. Is it so big surprise that we are angry about it?
Joseph Volgin, 5/7/2015 11:01 AM EDT
Alert! Attention, danger! Putin trolls get into American journalism:
"...Or, as a Fred Hiatt of the 1870s might have commented about Native Americans who resisted
the well-intentioned Bureau of Indian Affairs and didn't appreciate the gentleness of the U.S.
Army or the benevolence of life on the reservations: "Above Sitting Bull's self-serving
hysterics, Indians ought to hear the truth: The white man did not come to exterminate you."
Baranovsly71, 5/7/2015 8:22 AM EDT
Thank you, but I lived in Russia in 90s and remember very well Americans who started to
come at that time - arrogant money-grabbers the only thing they were interested in is how to
make money - on everything, from oil to export of Russian children to US. They stole billions
from Russians and continue to do so.
Please, Americans, don't help us - go away and take your democracy with you.
Bob Bobo, 5/7/2015 7:51 AM EDT
Russia help? Yes like that Khodorkovsky Yukos submitted on a silver platter Rothschild. It
would Americans like it if they can plunder the Russian mineral resources. But when Putin to
allow such a persona non grata.
Larysa Mahal, 5/7/2015 6:30 AM EDT
The best article for those who do not know history and events in Russia. I think a lot of
people feel a tears of emotion when they read this article. Bravo!
When author quotes Putin's speech "they love us when we are impoverished, poor and when we
come hat in hand." he has forgotten to say that after these words Putin thanked all those who
helped to Russia in its difficult time. Author has forgotten to give example about free help
"devoted billions of dollars". Nothing was free and Russia had to pay if not money then the
disadvantages agreements or concessions. But oh well it. Talk about a paranoia. Author calls
the leader of the biggest country "paranoid". But this man has stood up Russia from knees
during 15 years only. Think about it 15 years only! Author calls "paranoid" the man who are
supported by 75 % population in Russia. The man who was addressed Crimea, insisting on joining
with Russia. Are all of these people paranoid like Putin?
Then you can say about President of Poland who sad that the Victory Parade in Moscow is a
threaten to all Europe. What is it, paranoia in a cube? But author does not see that because
for him to write articles is a work but to know truth is for domestic use only.
I want to ask everybody to see around and say how many prosperous, beautiful countries in
Europe face before a threaten to be section, detached some parts like UK, Italy. But to Russia
with her "paranoid" leader want and join huge territories with huge amount of people. Think
about it. In last year one man standing in a long queue on the sea crossing from Crimea to
Russia sad that they are willing to endure all the inconveniences because the main thing is
they are with Russia. Think about it.
Lucky_Barker, 5/7/2015 5:45 AM EDT [Edited]
The United States supported the destruction and burning of the parliament in Moscow, the
murder of civilians in 1993, the bombing of Grozny in 1994-1995-m, and the killing of
civilians in Chechnya. All crimes Yeltsin was American influence and American advices.
It's very like the oficial America. Manu people call "Yeltsin era" as "Time of Americans"
or "Time of Prostitutes".
Restoration of parliamentary democracy, Mr. Putin did not like top US.
Putin's war in Chechnya without massive bombing did not like owners of US newspapers and US
parties.
The Chechens believe that the Americans supported Yeltsin genocide Chechen civilians in 1nd
Chechen war and strongly resent and hate peace in Chechnya after the 2nd Chechen war.
Tsarnaev was prepared in US as a terrorist for Syria or Chechnya - but was shot too early.
We must always remember that Al Qaeda and الدّولة الإسلاميّة at an early stage was the
US-Saudi projects.
Volkovolk, 5/7/2015 5:24 AM EDT [
What a hipocrisity.
Your "volunters" with their "proven tools" provoked desolation of russian economy and defolt.
The results of their actions were nothing short of economical genocide. The so-called free
press you build are just a puppets of yours, instruments of your influence and of your lies.
Your advises in building of democracy led to anarchy and to the brink of collapse of Russia.
Yes, you tried to bury us. Guess what? You failed. And we will never forgive you.
Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 5:19 AM EDT
But past wrongs do not matter... now Russia and the USA on the brink of war... the war is
already at a distance of 600 kilometers from Moscow, the American puppets killed thousands of
ethnic Russians.
Russia is a nuclear power, such action is suicide. We all have to prevent needless and
stupid war... I ask you to help.
Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 4:56 AM EDT
4) Let the author will call the name of at least one program, which spent a billion
dollars... which would have improved the lives of ordinary Russians. At least one program (I
don't know, although he lived in Russia at that time). All American billion were used to
purchase depreciating assets industry of the USSR ("privatization"), actually looting people.
5) "Thousands of activists and volunteers" were actually thousands of Yeltsin's advisers...
it was on the advice of these advisers was launched economic programme "shock therapy"
(economic Holocaust). When Federal employees and the military is not specifically paid a
salary (although the money was) ... a few years (to reduce the money supply), the economy was
dead, just do not have the money, the base rate of the Central Bank was 2000% (I'm not
kidding)... people were hungry... you know what hunger is? I know... The country was falling
apart, if not for Putin.
6) Free press this is the press... which is verbatim from CNN, BBC, Foxnews? What is its
"freedom" of this media?
7) the Oligarchs, corrupt officials... and who brought them to power, who collaborated with
them, who gave them money to purchase assets? American corporations...
P. S. I don't know why the author is lying, but I would never wish the Americans in the US...
to experience the poverty and hopelessness... you have experienced the Russians in the 90-ies
in Russia, when the US "gave us a hand"...
Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 4:26 AM EDT
I accuse the author of lying... and paid propaganda.
1) Russia is satisfied with the U.S. government only when it is weak. In 1993 Boris Yeltsin
ordered to shoot from tanks to the Parliament (similar to the U.S. Congress) killed many
people-elected deputies, and unarmed people in the square who came to support the deputies,
they were killed at close range with machine guns. Hundreds of corpses.... NO ONE
representative of the United States, has condemned the event. Nobody. Everything is fine,
democracy!!!
The author of the article is lying. Putin is telling the truth.
2) Almost all non-governmental organizations of Russia officially get the money of US
taxpayers. Their leaders defiantly go to the American Embassy. (in other 196 embassies of the
countries of the world don't go)... and declare that their goal is "revolution and overthrow
the President." Opposition leaders Russia (Navalny, Nemtsov, Kasparov, Chirikov, Ponomarev)
was trained in the U.S. and regularly travel to the USA... (for example ... Imagine the
leaders of "Occupy Wall Street" would have officially get money from the Russians, and walked
to the Russian Embassy. Presented? ) The author is lying, Putin is not lying.
3) There is No "military adventure in Ukraine." Lies about "Russian aggression" hides that
Ukraine is a civil war and the destruction and arrests of thousands of unarmed ethnic Russians
(they inhabit the East of Ukraine)... who disagree with an armed overthrow of the President.
Near the border of Russia (31 km) is a major Ukrainian city Kharkiv... it unguarded, why in
Kharkov there are no "hordes of Russian troops or the rebels?... If Putin attacked the Ukraine
and began a military adventure"?
The author lied again.
Owan Skirlan, 5/7/2015 3:20 AM EDT
Okay, dear Americans, thanks for fish and sort of that, but, really - Make Your Own
Buisness! Somethere between US borders, not out
Brekotin, 5/7/2015 1:07 AM EDT
Very funny article. Washington PRAVDA!
to author: please check the graph of GDP in Russia and the United States 1985-2015.
Clearly shows how redistribute wealth of the USSR was reditributed.
P.S.: teach macroeconomics and history.
Andrey Belov, 5/7/2015 12:39 AM EDT
I by the way I wonder what is so wrong left Russia communism? Developed industry and
agriculture, United state, connected in the common economic space, a powerful culture and the
arts, advanced science, the successful solution of social problems. And against that you have
spent billions to destroy all? Lord you Americans really believe that we should be grateful
for assistance in the destruction of our country?
Skeviz, 5/6/2015 11:48 PM EDT
"After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. tried to help Russians"
Really???
- USA in 1990 had popularity 80%, but to 1999 (before Putin) USA had popularity 20% in Russia,
is it because USA had tried help Russia? (De facto USA did all what was possible to create
politician like Putin).
- USSR had dismissed Warsaw pact by free will (and USSR dismissed USSR by free will), USSR
destroyed all what was linked to Cold War, did USA the same? Did USA dismissed NATO?
- USA used Russia's weakness and increased NATO (now hypocrite Americans say that it was done
by will of those countries, interesting enough do they really believe in the BS? USSR could
also said that E. Europe's countries became ally of USSR because they was afraid Germany).
- USA used Russia's weakness and attacked Serbia the Russia's ally (hypocrite Americans said
that there was ethnic cleansing, BUT USA killed more men there than Milosevic did, moreover
after war created by USA there was new ethnic cleansing and Albanians killed Serbians, why
hypocrite Americans closed eyes about it?). In day when USA began war against Kosovo they loss
all support that had between youth.
- USA payed Chechnya terrorists and USA do great media support to Chechnya terrorists (after
11 September 2001 it was ceased but to the time was killed many Russia's humans including
children, now hypocrite Americans prefer do not remember which media support they did for
creation Islamic State on Russia's south border, it was prototype of ISIL).
- USA used Russia's weakness and dismissed all agreements that interfere create anti-missile
system.
- USA destroyed Russia's democracy when supported falsification of election 1996 in Russia,
because USA was afraid communists in Russia, and preferred support Yeltsin. USA violated
election and supported Yeltsin, who had destroying Russia.
- USA paid for many color revolutions on Russia's borders.
Skeviz, 5/6/2015 11:59 PM EDT
- USA instead to help Russia create new economy preferred create more easy way to
emigration high educated Russians in USA and another Europe's countries.
- USA separated Kosovo (and destroyed all system of agreements that existed after WWII, now
hypocrite Americans try show that it was did in Crimea, but really Russia did nothing that USA
had not make in Serbia).
- When Putin began pressure Russia's oligarchs to pay salaries and taxes, USA began media war
against Putin.
I could continue the list very long, but I have not time now.
So all USA's sayings about "trying to help Russia" is hypocrite lie from alpha to omega. All
what wanted USA destroy country that they had afraid half century. USA didn't use Russians
free will and trying end Cold War, USA continued it and I can suppose it will be great problem
for USA in future. Certainly Russia is weak country now, but Russia can give very significant
help to China, especially in military question (if China will be need use power, but do not
show that they use power).
Irene Guy, 5/6/2015 9:34 PM EDT
"For fifty years, our policy was to fence in the Soviet Union while its own internal
contradictions undermined it. For thirty years, our policy has been to draw out the People's
Republic of China. As a result, the China of today is simply not the Soviet Union of the late
1940s"
Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State
Remarks to National Committee on U.S.-China Relations
New York City
September 21, 2005"
Enough said...
"... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'ιtat in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin like the economic sanctions against Russia is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
"... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
"... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'ιtat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
"... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
"... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
"... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
"... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary
of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent
anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.
Though designed to isolate Russia because it
had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'ιtat in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir
Putin like the economic sanctions against Russia is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening
ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.
Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing
a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated
largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.
Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian
alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous
insult to the Russian people.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's
historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.
But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World
War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad
in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would
have been much more difficult if not impossible.
Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a
New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled
sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.
For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian
tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled
away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).
This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule.
From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to
demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.
That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all
the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make
the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."
Distorting the History
So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed,
about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed
coup in declaring there was no coup.
The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted
phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February
2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who after the coup quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late
2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'ιtat organized by the United States. And it
truly was the most blatant coup in history."
Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup and the
threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding
conflict.
For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea."
Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin
said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.'
He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing
the region."
So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred
on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO
would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.
Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored
by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the
putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval
base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014,
they know little about Russian strategic concerns or simply didn't care.
Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had
been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why
the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."
You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it.
Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.
The Sole Indispensable Country
Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's
dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad American exceptionalism. This arrogant
concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked
by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.
That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept.
11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical
weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship
with President Obama is marked by growing trust."
Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous
to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich
and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when
we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing
a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before
it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."
The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence
will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt
and breaking the back of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need
anyone's help to win World War II.
President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s,
which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message,
a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
"... Cooperation and coordination between China and Russia are needed to maintain the international balance of power and preserve the post-war world order. The participation of the leaders of the two countries in mutual events dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the Victory in World War II indicates that Russia and China, as the largest countries in the world and members of the United Nations, intend to maintain international order. ..."
For a long time there was confusion about the "quo" to the Saudi Arabian "quid" over its agreement
to side with the US on the Iranian "nuclear deal" (which incidentally looks like it will
never happen
simply due to the Russian and Chinese UN vetoes).
The details are quite familiar to anyone who has seen the US Military-Industrial Complex in action:
the US pretends to wage an aggressive diplomatic campaign of peace while behind the scenes
it is just as actively selling weapons of war.
Leading Persian Gulf states want major new weapons systems and security guarantees
from the White House in exchange for backing a nuclear agreement with Iran, according to U.S.
and Arab officials.
The leaders of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, including Saudi Arabia, the United
Arab Emirates and Qatar, plan to use a high-stakes meeting with President Barack Obama
next week to request additional fighter jets, missile batteries and surveillance equipment.
They also intend to pressure Mr. Obama for new defense agreements between the U.S.
and the Gulf nations that would outline terms and scenarios under which Washington would intervene
if they are threatened by Iran, according to these officials.
The Persian Gulf countries say they need more drones, surveillance equipment and missile-defense
systems to combat an Iranian regime they see as committed to becoming the region's dominant power.
The Gulf states also want upgraded fighter jets to contain the Iranian challenge, particularly
the advanced F-35, known as the Joint Strike Fighter.
A senior U.S. official played down chances that the administration would agree to sell advanced
systems such as the F-35 fighter to those nations-though the planes will be sold to Israel and
Turkey-because of concerns within the administration about altering the military balance in the
Middle East.v
There is much more but a question already emerges: why does the "Gulf Cooperation Council" need
so many ultramodern weapons to "defend" against an Iran which is supposedly halting its nuclear program
and is in the process of showing its allegiance to the west by endorsing a peace process.
Unless it was all merely a ruse to arm the Middle East from the very beginning?
And now the "end" is near because when it comes to matters of revenue and profitability for the
US Military-Industrial complex, seek and ye shall find.
According
to Reuters, "Obama is expected to make a renewed U.S. push next week to help Gulf allies create
a region-wide defense system to guard against Iranian missiles as he seeks to allay their anxieties
over any nuclear deal with Tehran, according to U.S. sources."
The offer could be accompanied by enhanced security commitments, new arms sales and
more joint military exercises, U.S. officials say, as Obama tries to reassure Gulf Arab
countries that Washington is not abandoning them.
Not only is Obama not abandoning "them", but the entire Iran "negotiations" farce increasingly
appears to have been produced from the very beginning to give the US a diplomatic loophole with which
to arm the biggest oil exporter in the world. Sure enough:
Gulf Arab neighbors, including key U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, worry that Iran will not be deterred
from a nuclear bomb and will be flush with cash from unfrozen assets to fund proxies and expand
its influence in countries such as Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.
U.S. officials with knowledge of the internal discussions concede that Obama is under pressure
to calm Arab fears by offering strengthened commitments. "It's a time to see what things might
be required to be formalized," a senior U.S. official said.
All of this should come as a surprise to precisely nobody as the US takes advantage of its waning
years as a global hegemon, and seeks to sell US weapons far and wide to the benefit of a select few
Raytheon, General Dynamics and Lockheed shareholders.
And yet something peculiar emerges: in the Reuters piece we read that "Obama is all but certain
to stop short of a full security treaty with Saudi Arabia or other Gulf nations as that would require
approval by the Republican-controlled Senate and risk stoking tensions with Washington's
main Middle East ally Israel."
Which brings up another interesting regional player: Israel. Because while we now know the real
reason for Saudi's complicity in the Iran "nuclear deal", a key middle east player is none other
than Israel, which under Netanyahu's control has puffed and huffed against the Iran deal, and yet
has done nothing. Why? Here Bloomberg provides some very critical perspective which introduces yet
another major player in the global military exports arena.
Last month, when President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced plans to sell a powerful anti-missile
system to Iran before the lifting of international sanctions, Israel was quick to join
the U.S. in expressing shock and anger.
But behind the public announcements is a little-known web of arms negotiations and secret diplomacy.
In recent years, Israel and Russia have engaged in a complex dance, with Israel selling
drones to Russia while remaining conspicuously neutral toward Ukraine and hoping to stave off
Iranian military development. The dance may not be over.
...
One of those issues is Israel's neutrality toward Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists
have waged war over the past year. Israel has held back from selling weapons to the government
in Kiev, which is backed by the U.S. and European Union, in the hope of keeping Russia's S-300s
away from Iran.... "Israel has come under a lot of pressure for not joining the all-Western consensus
on the Ukrainian crisis," said Sarah Feinberg, a research fellow at Tel Aviv's Institute for National
Security Studies. "It was a difficult decision for the Israeli government, which was concerned
about possible Russian retaliatory moves in the Mideast - such as selling the S-300 to Iran."
The issue at hand is the delivery of Israeli drones: whether to Ukraine, where such a deal was
recently scuttled following internal dissent by opposition within the Israel government, or to Russia,
which already has received Israel UAVs.
Russia expressed interest in buying Israeli drones after coming up against them during the
2008 war with Georgia. In 2010 Russia concluded a deal to purchase 15 of them from IAI, and to
set up a joint venture to produce drone technology.
An Israeli familiar with the matter said the drone deal with Russia carried an unwritten quid
pro quo: It would proceed only if the Kremlin suspended its announced S-300 sale to Iran.
Now having gotten the Israeli technology, the Israeli said, that promise is no longer a factor
in Russian considerations.
In other words, now that Israel - which is the world's largest exporter of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
- no longer has leverage over Russian military needs as Moscow has long ago reverse-engineered the
Israeli technology, Israel may have no choice but to provoke Russia in the middle east.
"Sending drones or other arms to Ukraine would be an ineffective, even inconsequential Israeli
response to Russia selling the S-300s to Iran," said Feinberg. More effective, she said,
would be for Israel to lift its political neutrality on the Ukrainian conflict, or take actions
in the Middle East against Russian regional allies such as the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.
For now however, Israel's full on engagement in Syria (or Iran) appears to have been prevented:
"On April 23 Russia did appear to backtrack somewhat on its earlier announcement of the S-300 sale
to Iran, with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov telling the Interfax news agency that delivery
won't occur soon, and would only happen after political and legal issues were resolved. In his April
16 call-in show on Russian television, Putin acknowledged that Israeli objections had scuttled a
potential S-300 sale to another Mideast nation, reportedly Syria."
To attempt a summary: under the pretext of Iran negotiations for peace, the US is preparing to
quietly arm virtually all Gulf states with the latest US military technology, even as Israel has
given Russia some of its latest drone technology which means Russia may at any moment proceed to
arm Iran and Syria with modern Surface to Air missiles, while Israel is contemplaring retaliation
not only against Iran but Syria as well: the country which nearly led to a global proxy war in the
mdidle east in the summer of 2013.
In other words, we have, for the past few years, been on the edge of a razor thin Middle Eastern
balance of power equilibrium which prevented any one nation or alliance from garnering an outsized
influence of military power.
All of that is about to change the moment the MIC figurehead known as president Obama greenlights
the dispatch of billions of dollars in fighters, drones, missile batteries, and surveillance equipment
to Saudi Arabia and its peers, in the process dramatically reshaping the balance of power status
quo and almost certainly leading to yet another middle eastern war which will inevitably drag in
not only Israel and Russia at least in a proxy capacity, but ultimately, the US as well.
Just as the US military industrial complex wanted.
Because as every Keynesian fanatic will tell you: in a world saturated by debt, and where organic
growth is no longer possible, there is only one remaining option.
War.
* * *
And just to assure the required outcome, moments ago John Kerry arrived in Riyadh to conclude
the deal.
Why do they need a 'backdoor,' when they've been selling arms to the Saudis through the front
door since time began?...
Skateboarder
Barry insists there be a backdoor, for uh, personal reasons.
Looney
Reggie Love: Did I hear "Backdoor Channel"? ;-)
weburke
the real question is how does Israel view it. Netanyahu has not endorsed any of this. I would
guess Israel has no friend in Obama and his controllers, and will soon take action of their own.
What possible gain is it for Israel to have the fucking tyrant insane neighbors get all armed
up? hello war.
By the way, India is totally thumbing it's nose at the
US led non-coalition of the unwilling in continuing to deal
with Iran for all manner of goods and services. Big barter
deals, gold payments via Turkey for oil...
So there is that going on in Iran's Eastern flank. Iran,
by the way, was rumored to have a "Perfect Plate" from the
US mint via Henry Kissinger (or some spook) and during Shah
of Iran time were the world's largest counterfeiters of the
USD, only thing, they had a perfect Plate. Obviously CIA controlled.
All that money, EuroDollars, Petrodollars....black money,
drug dollars (Iran is a major heroine transit point).
The backdoor, wasn't this the aircraft used to covertly bring all
the Saudi's back home on 911 when all the other aircraft were grounded?
TahoeBilly2012
Anyone with a brain could guess the Iran deal was always a scam of some sort. Why? Well, because
everything is a scam from these people and there is no peace, ever, not the goal. It amazes me
the rest of the world even engages with the Zionist shitshow called the USA.
Anunnaki
President Peace Prize needs MOAR war in the Middle East before he "leaves" office. He is at
proxy war (for now) with Russia. That was quite a feat so:
Why not take on Iran while he is at it. Two birds with one big stone and all that.
Bill of Rights
Hmm is this like the Clinton China for Arms deal...Face it folks all US Politicians are scum
of the earth, sum are just more scummy than the others.
Cooperation between Russia and China
is necessary to maintain the balance of power in the world, China's
Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Cheng Guoping said Monday.
The high-ranking Chinese diplomat said that Russian-Chinese relations
had reached a new level of development and the forthcoming visit of
Xi Jinping to Moscow would facilitate further cooperation between Beijing
and Moscow. The Chinese president will pay a three-day visit to Moscow
on May 8-10, attending the Victory Day Parade on May 9 at the invitation
of Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Cooperation and coordination
between China and Russia are needed to maintain the international balance
of power and preserve the post-war world order. The participation of
the leaders of the two countries in mutual events dedicated to the
70th anniversary of the Victory in World War II indicates that Russia
and China, as the largest countries in the world and members of the
United Nations, intend to maintain international order."
9/11 exposed the unholy alliance between the US and the Saudis (for anyone with enough intellectual
curiosity to seek the truth). This true axis of evil has a symbiotic relationship that knows no
moral bounds.
Nothing new here...
Monty Burns
In 9/11 the Saudis provided the finance and the patsies. The event was organized by Mossad
and Ziocons in the USA.
juicy_bananas
Just in time for next year's SOFEX, bitchez! The war economy has to get paper somehow. Peace
Prizes for EVERYBODY!
They didn't backdoor that sale. Whatever President Jarret is trying to sell, it isn't to the Saudi's.
Jacksons Ghost
Anyone that thinks the House of Saud will go quietly is fooling themselves. We sell them out,
how quickly will they pivot towards China and Russia. We abandon The House of Saud, you can guarentee
that they will abandon the Dollar. Reserve Status of Dollar is most important to our money printers...
falak pema
No amount of US material will save the Sunni Kingdoms from their fate, as the bigger the Military
spending becomes the bigger the millstone of its proliferation to its enemies grow.
Iran will play the same game of attrition, feeding the enemies of their strategic enemy, and guerrilla
warfare that Giap and Ho Chi Minh did.
Remember Vietnam, USA, the cancer of opposition now runs deep in the region on all fronts and
it will feed the instability of an ivory towered kingdom like poison ivy wrapping itself around
the healthy tree.
The spiral is now a sign of runaway MIC malinvestment of huge proportions. Those Sauds will never
have an army to match their rivals, who are as hungry as the hounds of hell and fed by the kingdom's
never-ending and obscurantist fed hubris. Guns didn't save South Vietnam.
How do you avoid the same blowback that Nam has demonstrated?
Same corruption, same endgame now being concocted in a region that goes from Paki to deep Africa?
The kiss of the US MIC is the kiss of death to its allies.
Saud at the cross roads-- cut and run-- or stay US suppot like Nam.
You're leaving out two very important parts of the proxy war situation. Russia forced Syria
to give up her chemical weapon defenses which led to the US & its brothers in the Brotherhood
of Darkness Gulf Cooperation Council to use their proxy, ISIS, to pounce on Syria.
Remember what happened with MINSK? The breakaway republics were pressured to give up their gains
since September.
Not very good for the balance of powers. The Brotherhood of Darkness won't need a real WW3 to
get what they want.
The propaganda against Syria is milking the capture of Idlib city by Jabhat al-Nusra and assorted
other Islamist groups. The general tone is "Assad is losing" illogically combined with a demand that
the U.S. should now bomb the Syrian government troops. Why would that be necessary if the Syrian
government were really losing control?
A prime
example comes via Foreign Policy from Charles Lister, an analyst from Brooking Doha, which is
paid with Qatari money but often cooperating with the Obama administration. That headline declares
that Assad is losing and the assault on Idlib is lauded in the highest tone. Then the piece admits
that this small victory against retreating Syrian troops was only possible because AlQaeda was leading
in the assault.
The piece admits that the U.S. which wants to
balance between AlQaeda and the Syrian government forces prolonging the conflict in the hope
that both sides will lose, was behind that move:
The involvement of FSA groups, in fact, reveals how the factions' backers have changed their tune
regarding coordination with Islamists. Several commanders involved in leading recent Idlib operations
confirmed to this author that the U.S.-led operations room in southern Turkey,
which coordinates the provision of lethal and non-lethal support to vetted opposition groups,
was instrumental in facilitating their involvement in the operation from early April onwards.
That operations room - along with another in Jordan, which covers Syria's south - also appears
to have dramatically increased its level of assistance and provision of intelligence
to vetted groups in recent weeks.
Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military
assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib
appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to
the so-called "vetted groups," but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer
cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.
The U.S. led operations room encouraged cooperation between the Islamists of the so called Fee
Syrian Army and AlQaeda. A U.S. drone,
shot down over Latakia in March, was gathering intelligence for the AlQaeda attack on Idlib.
More that 600 TOW U.S. anti-tank missiles have been used against Syrian troops in north Syria. These
are part of the 14,000 the Saudis
had ordered
from the U.S. producer.
Even if the U.S., as now admitted, would not officially urge its mercenaries to cooperate with
Jabhat al-Nusra such cooperation was always obvious to anyone who dared to look:
In southern Syria [..] factions that vowed to distance themselves from extremists like Jabhat
al-Nusra in mid-April were seen cooperating with the group in Deraa only days later.
The reality is that the directly U.S. supported, equipped and paid "moderate" Fee Syrian Army
Jihadi mercenaries are just as hostile to other sects as the AlQaeda derivative Jabhat al-Nusra and
the Islamic State. They may not behead those who they declare to be unbelievers but they will kill
them just as much.
While the U.S. is nurturing AlQaeda in Syria, Turkey is taking care of the Islamic State. Tons
of Ammonium Sulfate, used to make road side bombs, is
"smuggled" from Turkey to the Islamic State under official eyes. Turkish recruiters incite Muslims
from the Turkman Uighur people in west China and
from Tajikistan to emigrate to the Islamic State. They
give awayTurkish
passports to allow those people to travel to Turkey from where they reach Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile
the Saudis bomb everyone and everything in Yemen except the cities and areas captured by AlQaeda
in the Arab Peninsula.
The U.S. and its allies are now in full support of violent Sunni Jihadists throughout the Middle
East. At the same time they use the "threat of AlQaeda" to fearmonger and suppress opposition within
their countries.
Charles Lister and the other Brooking propagandists want the U.S. to bomb Syria to bring the Assad
government to the table to negotiate. But who is the Syrian government to negotiate with? AlQaeda?
Who would win should the Syrian government really lose the war or capitulate? The U.S. supported
"moderate rebels" Islamist, who could not win against the Syrian government, would then take over
and defeat AlQaeda and the Islamic State?
Who comes up with such phantasies?
Posted by b on May 6, 2015 at 03:37 AM |
Permalink
The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and
large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling
abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the
Assad regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help
improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience
from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results.
In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.
To the US and other western governments in that area ;) it probably does not matter too much,
who rules "Syria", as long as they don't own any serious military hardware.
I'm not an expert ;) but looking at the past three years, my conclusion about the goals of
the "west" would be: support the local militias just as much that they can destroy as many
tanks, helis, air defence and aircraft as possible.
Ideally, have them use up all the anti-tank weapons we give them, so, when they've "won",
they're sitting on rubble with nothing but handguns.
A second goal, maybe more of the regional enemies, would obviously be to drive out of the "former
syrian territory" all non-sunni population. Severe the head of one, have 1000 flee to elsewhere...
Lone Wolf | May 6, 2015 9:43:48 AM | 8
Re: @Anonymous@5
Well, that about does it. The U.S is completely deranged and there's no hope.
There is always hope. Russia, China, and Iran know they come next in the list if they don't
stop Al-Qaeda hydra in Syria/Iraq et al. Russian intelligence has declared ISIS a threat for Russia,
the Chinese have been battling the Uighurs for long time now, and now they are being trained by
the US to become a fifth-column on their return to China. Iran is in the surroundings, and have
been preparing ever since the war with Iraq for a military maelstrom of gigantic proportions.
Idlib was taken by a coalition of taqfiris renamed "Army of Conquest," the same coalition getting
ready to fight Hezbollah in the Qalamoun barrens facing Lebanon, for control of the heights that
open to the Bekaa Valley. Shaykh Hassan Nasrallah declared a couple of days ago the battle for
Qalamoun has reached high noon, and its start won't be announced.
On the taking of Idlib he stated any war is a pendulum with battles lost and won, and dismissed
the propaganda war b has just denounced as part of the psy-op war. The onslaught suffering by
Syria is flabbergasting, with US/Turkey training 15 thousand more taqfiris to throw into the war,
the purpose, Nasrallah denounced, is to keep the Axis of Resistance, and in general the Arab war,
in a 100 year war.
What we are seeing now, the dismembering of Iraq, the war of attrition on Syria, the destruction
of Libya, the bombing of Yemen, the attack on Lebanon, was planned long ago by the neocons as
a strategy for Israel, in a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm." It is all there, the rest, like the dismemberment of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, etc.,
are perks that came as they unfolded the strategy for destruction of the Arab/Muslim world.
The most effective resistance against Israel consisted of broad coalitions consisting of Christian,
secular and Islamic groups. These were the panArab organizations inspired by Nasser and given
substance in the Palestinian resistance by the PLO. Israel knew this was a problem. That is why
they supported Hamas in the late 1970s when it first appeared. They quite explicitly supported
Hamas in order to undermine the PLO. That has proven very effective in splitting Palestinian resistance
into two warring camps centered respectively in Gaza and the West Bank.
The US has discovered this formula. That is why we continue to support the Islamist groups
who are more interested in killing fellow Muslims rather than fighting against Israel. It is quite
amazing that Al qaida, ISIS or whatever handle they carry these days has never attacked an Israeli
target.
As we all know Al nusra today in Southern Syria is being actively supported by the Israeli
military in the form of medical, "humanitarian" aid and the occasional bombing raid against the
Syrian army. US and Israeli support for these terrorist Islamic forces is so transparent that
what is puzzling is why this has not been exposed in the western media.
Editors and reporters must know this stuff and are deliberately avoiding these stories.
okie farmer | May 6, 2015 2:03:18 PM | 17
ToivoS, actually Hamas was created by Shin Bet. And you draw a very accurate picture The US
has discovered this formula. Yep.
Wonder if Harry Truman's comment after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 applies to current US
Mideast policies. To paraphrase if the Germans are winning we should help the Russians, if
the Russians are winning we should help the Germans. That way let them kill as many as possible
Lone Wolf | May 6, 2015 3:16:07 PM | 20 @g_h@18@
Thanks! Those two are key documents to understand the current drive of the aptly baptized "Empire
of Chaos" and its minions.
Zico | May 6, 2015 3:53:36 PM | 21
The word AL-CIADA's lost it's scary factor in the West.. It's almost become acceptable/mainstream
word... These days, Western journos refer to them in different terms, depending on the circumstances
and location. How times change!!!
In Syria they're referred to as "rebels", "militants","Assad's opponent" and the best one
"moderate Islamists".
In Iraq, they're referred to as "Sunni rebels", "oppressed Sunni fighters" etc.
In Yemen AL_CIADA's knowns as "president" Hadi's forces, "Sunni rebels"
It gets to to point where you just wonder if these people scripting the "news" must really
think the rest of us simpletons are so stupid not to notice the contradictions...
We now have Western journos doing free propaganda for AL-CIADA :)
GoraDiva | May 6, 2015 4:02:56 PM | 22
More NYT propaganda on Syria? Well, it's A. Barnard...
Who would win should the Syrian government really lose the war or capitulate? The U.S. supported
"moderate rebels" Islamist, who could not win against the Syrian government, would then take over
and defeat AlQaeda and the Islamic State?
Who comes up with such phantasies?
the guys from General Electric, Honeywell, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumann, etc...
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Luca K | May 6, 2015 4:22:13 PM | 24
Good article by B. The following is nothing new, but adds more to what we already know, i.e, israeli
cooperation with al-ciada terrorists.
Price of oil has been rising. FT: Dollar under pressure as oil keeps rising (subscription required).
Christoph (German) | May 6, 2015 4:56:51 PM | 26
Lone Wolf said: "What we are seeing now ... was planned long ago by the neocons as a strategy
for Israel, in a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It is all
there, the rest, like the dismemberment of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, etc., are perks that came
as they unfolded the strategy for destruction of the Arab/Muslim world."
It was also contemplated
140 years ago by Pike: "The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences
caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of
Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and
political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other".
I doubt that this old scheme to eliminate independent cultures will succeed - there is more
awareness and heavenly input today than could be envisioned in the 19th century.
In the US and Great-Britain top officers of large corporations formed in the 1970s a semi-autonomous
network which Michael Useem calls the 'Inner Circle'. It is a sort of institutionalized capitalism
with a classwide alongside a corporate logic and permits a centralized mobilization of corporate
resources.
This select group of business leaders assume a leading role in the support of political candidates,
in consultations with the highest levels of the national administrations, in public defense of
the free enterprise system and in the governance of foundations and universities.
One of its main goals is the promotion of a better political climate for big business through
philanthropy (image building via generous support of cultural programs), issue (not product) advertising
and political financing.
The reasons behind the constitution of this 'Inner Circle' were the declining power of the
individual companies and declining profitability together with, more specifically in GB, the threat
of labor socialism (nationalizations and worker participation in corporate governance) and in
the US, government intervention.
A main issue was also the desire to control the power of the media, which in the US were considered
far too liberal.
The interventions of this 'Inner Circle' were (and are) extremely successful. President
R. Reagan and Prime Minister M. Thatcher were partly products of business mobilizations.
They lowered taxation, reduced government (except military) spending, lifted controls on business
and installed cutbacks on unemployment benefits and welfare.
On the media front, the influence of corporate America is highly enhanced, directly through
media mergers, and indirectly through the high corporate advertising budgets.
This is an eminent study based on excellent research.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the CIA made multiple attempts to assassinate Cuba's ruler, Fidel
Castro. Let's assume that the CIA had succeeded and that Castro had been shot dead on the streets
of Havana.
It's not difficult to imagine what US national-security state
officials would be saying today: "If we hadn't assassinated Castro, the United States would have
fallen to the communists and, today, Fidel and his brother would be running the IRS, Social Security,
Medicare, public schooling, and other socialist programs owned and operated by the US government."
Soon after Castro took power on January 1, 1959, when President
Eisenhower was still in office, and continually through the Kennedy administration, the CIA steadfastly
maintained that a communist-ruled Cuba was a grave threat to US "national security" - a communist
dagger situated 90 miles away from American shores and pointed directly at the United States.
It was all a Cold War farce, one that served as one of the biggest protection rackets in history
- one by which the national-security establishment was able to keep the American people in a constant,
never-ending state of anxiety, fear, and depression, which assured ever-increasing budgets and power
for what Ike called the "military-industrial complex" and what has ultimately become known as the
"national-security establishment."
How do we know it was all a farce? Because they didn't succeed in assassinating Castro and yet
the United States is still standing! Sure, we've got the same types of socialist and interventionist
programs that Castro has in Cuba - income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, economic
regulations, a Federal Reserve, etc. - but that's not because Castro conquered the United States
but rather because Americans love socialism and interventionism as much as Castro does.
What difference did it make to the American people that Cuba was ruled by a self-avowed communist?
It didn't make any difference at all. The plain truth is that under Castro, Cuba never initiated
any acts of aggression toward the United States. Castro's own national-security establishment never
invaded the United States. It never tried to assassinate US officials. It never initiated acts of
terrorism inside the United States.
The only reason that US officials ultimately decided to list Cuba as an official "sponsor of terrorism"
was because of Castro's support of insurgencies in other Latin American countries in which people
were trying to oust US-supported right-wing dictatorships, much like the brutal US-supported Fulgencio
Batista dictatorship that Castro succeeded in ousting from power in Cuba.
Throughout the Cold War and beyond, the CIA issued severe warnings about the danger that other
Latin American countries would end up with communist regimes. It was all a farce too. It wouldn't
have made any difference to the United States if every other Latin American country went communist.
That's because there was never any possibility that Latin American countries were ever going to mount
up their military forces and invade, conquer, and occupy the United States.
Consider all the Latin American countries that have gone leftist - including many of the ones
that the CIA was so concerned with during the Cold War. Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile,
and more. Do you see them mobilizing their armies to invade the United States? It's a ridiculous
notion. And it was a ridiculous notion throughout the Cold War.
That's not to say, of course, that it's beneficial for people to live under a socialist or communist
regime. That's where libertarians part company with leftists. Living in Cuba, Venezuela, or other
socialist regime is pure misery from an economic standpoint and a civil-liberties standpoint. But
the fact is that such regimes never had any interest (or financial means - they were too broke) to
even think of invading, conquering, and occupying the United States.
What all too many Americans have still not confronted is what the adoption of the national-security
apparatus did to our country - in the name of the anti-communist crusade.
In the post-9/11 era, Americans are now fully accustomed to
assassination. Most everyone accepts the fact that the CIA assassinates people with regularity and
with impunity and immunity. It's become a normal part of America's governmental structure, justified
as part of the "war on terrorism," a war, we are told, is certain to last longer than the Cold War.
It's just another great big protection racket, one designed to maintain the Pentagon, the CIA, the
NSA, and the entire national-security apparatus in high cotton for the indefinite future.
The CIA has been an assassination machine practically since its inception. In its 1954
regime-change operation in Guatemala, for example, the CIA had a kill list of Guatemalan officials
who were to be assassinated. There were the multiple assassination attempts against Castro. There
were the plans to assassinate Rafael Trujillo, the ruler in the Dominican Republic. There was Operation
Phoenix in Vietnam. There was the kidnapping-assassination of Gen. Rene Schneider of Chile. There
were the assassinations of Americans Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi. There was the CIA's partnership
in Operation Condor, one of the biggest assassination rings in history, one that assassinated former
Chilean official Orlando Letelier and his young assistant Ronni Moffitt on the streets of Washington,
D.C. And as the mounting circumstantial evidence has inexorably disclosed, there was the assassination
of President Kennedy, on grounds of "national security," as I detail in my bookRegime
Change: The JFK Assassination.
At one time, CIA assassinations were kept secret or "covert." That's because most people recognized
assassination for what it was - murder. Even President Lyndon Johnson, who wasn't exactly the paragon
of political virtue, called the CIA's assassination program a "Murder Inc."
And that's precisely what assassination is murder. What right, either moral or legal, did the
US government have to assassinate Fidel Castro or any other leftist ruler? From where did that authority
come? It certainly didn't come with the Constitution, which doesn't authorize either a CIA, assassination,
or regime-change operations. Under what moral, religious, legal, or constitutional authority did
the US national-security state murder people because of their political or economic philosophy?
Throughout the Cold War, Americans weren't supposed to ask those types of questions. They were
expected to defer to the national-security establishment. Conscience, reason, and independent thinking
were submerged to the judgment of the national-security state. The citizen's creed became: Assassination
is normal and necessary. Our national-security state officials know what's best. Trust them. Don't
ask questions. Secrecy must be maintained. "National security" is at stake.
The grafting of a national-security apparatus onto America's founding governmental system was
the worst mistake in the history of the United States, for in the name of protecting "national security"
from Fidel Castro and communism, it moved America in the direction of the socialist and totalitarian
regimes it was opposing.
How ironic that we now live in a society that has adopted the same socialist and interventionist
programs found in Cuba and that why we now live in a society in which the government wields the omnipotent
power to torture and assassinate its own people and others. How ironic that modern-day Americans
celebrate their socialism, interventionism, assassinations, torture, coups, invasions, regime-changes,
and their entire welfare-warfare state as "freedom."
In an interview with the sympathetic Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Harper,
the publisher of Clinton Cash) it was put to Schweizer that he hadn't "nailed" his thesis. "It's
hard for any author to nail it one of the strategies of the Clinton camp is to set a bar for me
as an author that is impossible to meet," he replied.
... ... ...
Certainly, pundits were warning about the problem of the large sums of money flowing into the
Clinton Foundation's coffers even before Hillary Clinton took up her position as Obama's global emissary-in-chief.
A month before she became secretary of state,
the Washington Post warned in an editorial that her husband's fundraising activities were problematic.
"Even if Ms Clinton is not influenced by gifts to her husband's charity, the appearance of conflict
is unavoidable."
Since the foundation was formed in 2001, some $2bn has been donated, mainly in big lump sums.
Fully a third of the donors giving more than $1m, and more than a half of those handing over more
than $5m, have been foreign governments, corporations or tycoons. (The foundation stresses that such
largesse has been put to very good use fighting obesity around the globe, combating climate change,
helping millions of people with HIV/Aids obtain antiretroviral drugs at affordable prices.)
Schweizer may have made mistakes about aspects of Bill Clinton's fees on the speaker circuit,
but one of his main contentions that the former president's rates skyrocketed after his wife became
secretary of state is correct.
Politifact confirmed that since leaving the White House in 2001 and 2013, Bill Clinton made
13 speeches for which he commanded more than $500,000; all but two of those mega-money earners occurred
in the period when Hillary was at the State Department.
Though Schweizer has failed to prove actual corruption in the arrangement at no point in the
book does he produce evidence showing that Bill's exorbitant speaker fees were directly tied
to policy concessions from Hillary he does point to several glaring conflicts of interest.
Bill Clinton did accept large speaker fees accumulating to more than $1m from TD Bank, a major shareholder
in the Keystone XL pipeline, at precisely the time that the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton
within it, was wrestling with the vexed issue of whether to approve it.
It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer,
at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary
of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary
of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.
Such awkward collisions between Bill's fundraising activities and Hillary's public service have
raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast rightwing conspiracy.
Take Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham university who has written extensively on political
corruption in the US.
Teachout, who last year stood against Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic party nomination for New
York governor, points out that you don't have to be able to prove quid pro quo for alarm bells
to ring. "Our whole system of rules is built upon the concept that you must prevent conflicts
of interests if you are to resist corruption in its many forms. Conflicts like that can infect us
in ways we don't even see."
Teachout said that the Clintons presented the US political world with a totally new challenge.
"We have never had somebody running for president whose spouse himself a former president is
running around the world raising money in these vast sums."
... ... ...
Though
Bill Clinton insisted this week that his charity has done nothing "knowingly inappropriate",
that is unlikely to satisfy the skeptics from left or right. They say that a family
in which one member is vying for the most powerful office on Earth must avoid straying
into even the unintentionally inappropriate.
In the wake of Clinton Cash, the foundation has admitted that it
made mistakes in disclosing some of its contributions. It has also implemented
new rules that will see its financial reporting increase from once annually to four times a year,
while large donations from foreign governments will be limited in future to six countries including
the UK and Germany.
But with Bill refusing doggedly to give up his speaker engagements "I gotta pay our bills"
and foreign corporations and super-rich individuals still able to donate to the family charity, it
looks like this controversy may run and run. Politically, too, Hillary Clinton is confronted
with a potential credibility gap between her appeal to ordinary Americans on the presidential campaign
trail and the millions that continue to flow to the foundation.
"Is she going to be in touch with the needs and dreams of poor America when her spouse and daughter
are working with the world's global elite?" said Dave Levinthal of the anti-corruption investigative
organization, the Center for Public Integrity. "That's a question she will have to answer, every
step of the way."
mkenney63 5 May 2015 20:39
It would be nice to know how much Saudi and Chinese money her "Foundation" has taken-in. I can
tell you how much Bernie has taken - $0. Bernie, the only truly progressive in the race, raised
$1.5 million in one day from ordinary working people like you and me who have the smarts to know
who's really in their corner. When I look at Hillary I ask myself, do we really want parasitic
people like this running our country? Is there anything she has ever touched that isn't tainted
by a lust for money?
foggy2 gixxerman006 5 May 2015 20:38
I am in the process of reading the actual book. He does have actual sources for many things but
what is missing is the information controlled by that now cleaned off server and the details of
just who contributed to them, their foundation, and who hired them for those gold plated speeches.
Those names never were made public and now the related tax forms are being "redone." Wonder how
long that will take.
The author was able to get pertinent data from the Canadian tax base information and that is
important because some of the heavier hitters are Canadians who needed help in the US and other
places to make piles of money on their investments. And many statements made by people are documented
as are some cables sent TO the state department.
AlfredHerring raffine 5 May 2015 20:33
It's funny that free-market Tea Party Republicans criticize the Clintons
There's a broad populist streak in the Tea Party. They may be social conservatives and opposed
to government telling them they MUST buy health insurance from a private company (that's where
it started) but on many issues they're part of the Teddy Roosevelt trust busting and Franklin
Roosevelt New Deal traditions.
US and UK deploy troops to Ukraine, but they're just "advisors"
American
combat troops deployed in Ukraine will soon number in the hundreds, at least, but US officials claim
they're there only as "advisors" or "trainers," not as an in-place threat to Russia. Whatever advising
or training they may do, they are also an in-place threat to Russia. US officials are also lobbying
to arm Ukraine with "defensive" anti-tank rockets and other lethal weapons in hopes of escalating
the fighting, maybe even killing some Russians. In other words, American brinksmanship continues
to escalate slowly but recklessly on all fronts.
To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating
class of chickenhawk hardliners,
the warring sides in
Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has almost arrived (March 7 was the first day
with no casualties). The
government in Kievand the
would-be governments of the
People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk have been acting as if they're not hell-bent on mutually
assured destruction after all. They've exchanged prisoners. They've agreed to double the number of
ceasefire monitors to 1,000. They've pulled back their heavy weapons. Both sides have stopped the
random shelling that has caused "heavy civilian tolls of dead and wounded," according to theMarch
2 report from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.
The calmer heads of Europe,
in Germany and France particularly, are presently prevailing over the
fear-mongered
countries closer to Russia who seem bewitched by US enthusiasm to subject Europe to yet another
devastating war in which those
near-Russia
countries would be the first to feel the pain. But for now, most of Europe seems willing to accept
the notion that the Russians have a rational view of their reasonable security needs, that the cost
of further Russian advances
outweighs any
rational gain, and that all the mad babbling of bellicose Americans is just unprocessed cold
war hysteria amplified by the need to deny decades of imperial defeats.
What is it with exceptional American irrationalists' love of war?
Ashton Carter, President Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense, assured senators during his
confirmation hearing in February that he would push for more aggressive military action for the
rest of Obama's term, that he favors lethal arms for Ukraine, and that he would not be pressured
into faster release of innocent prisoners held in Guantanamo.
John Kerry, Secretary of State, advocated in early February in favor of sending arms to the
Ukraine government.
Since April 2014, Kerry has been demonizing Russia, blaming Russia for growing violence in
eastern Ukraine even as Kiev militias were attacking the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists, calling
them "terrorists." Kerry, the highest ranking American diplomat, recently and publicly accused
the Russians of
lying to his face.
James Clapper, director of national intelligence, has told the Council on Foreign Relations
that he wants to give "lethal- defensive weapons" to the Kiev government to "bolster their resolve"
and persuade them "that we're with them." Clapper was calling Russia one of the
greatest threats to the US as early as 2011.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, jumped on the arm-Ukraine bandwagon
March 3, saying "I think we should absolutely consider lethal aid." (He didn't add that the big
danger of non-lethal aid is that it might help people settle differences without killing each
other.)
Victoria Nuland, formerly security advisor to Dick Cheney, now an assistant secretary of state
for European affairs, has long engaged in working for regime change in Russia. Nuland is famous
for her "f-k the EU" attitude
during the Maidan protests in 2014. On March 4 she became the first US official to call Russian
actions in eastern Ukraine "an
invasion." She claimed there were hundreds of
Russian
Tanks in eastern Ukraine, though no credible evidence supports the claim.
"NATO now exists to manage the risks created by its existence."
From the Russian perspective, NATO aggression has continued for the past 20 years. Secretary of
State James Baker, under the first President Bush, explicitly promised the Russians that NATO would
not expand eastward toward Russia. For the next two decades, at the behest of the US, NATO has expanded
eastward to Russia's borders and put Ukrainian NATO membership in play. The unceasing madness of
"US and NATO aggression in Ukraine" is argued forcefully by attorney
Robert Roth in Counterpunch, who notes that US-sponsored sanctions on Russia are already, arguably,
acts of war.
NATO continues to maintain nuclear weapons bases around Russia's periphery while adding more anti-missile
missile installations. Anti-missile missiles to intercept Russian missiles are generally understood
to be part of the West's nuclear first strike capability.
Then there's the months-old, expanding Operation Atlantic Resolve, an elaborate US-sponsored NATO
show of force deploying thousands of troops to NATO countries that are also Russia's near-neighbors.
Beginning in April 2014, Operation Atlantic Resolve started sending troops to Baltic countries (Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) that border Russia. Those troops remain, and
Defense News reported that more
US saber-rattling is coming:
The US military's plans to send troops into Romania and Bulgaria as a deterrence to Russian aggression
could expand to include Hungary, the Czech Republic and Russia's southern neighbor, Georgia .
by the end of the summer, you could very well see an operation that stretches from the Baltics
all the way down to the Black Sea .
In the Black Sea itself, NATO forces continue to project force through "training
exercises" involving the Navies of at least seven nations: US, Canada, Turkey, Germany, Italy,
Romania, and Bulgaria. NATO commander Gen. Philip Breedlove complained in late February that Russia
had deployed "air defense systems that reach nearly half of the Black Sea" as if it were surprising
that Russia would respond to hostile military activity close to one of its oldest and
largest naval bases, Sevastopol,
in Crimea.
Breedlove admits that NATO naval forces have approached Crimea, provoking Russian naval responses.
Breedlove's warmongering reportedly
upsets German officials, but they don't object publicly to American lies.
This pattern of provocation and response is familiar to those who know the Viet-Nam War, when
similar US tactics provoked the so-called "Tonkin Gulf incident." That manipulated set of events,
deceitfully described by the White House and dishonestly amplified by most American media, was used
to gull a credulous and lazy Congress into passing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving the president
authority to wage that disastrous, pointless war. Watch for the sequel coming to a Black Sea theatre
of war near you.
Congress is as eager for Ukraine War as it was for Iraq and Viet-Nam
War mongering has a large, noisy cheering section in Congress.
Eleven American lawmakers
including House Speaker John Boehner have signeda
bi-partisan letter to President Obama demanding in the shrillest tones ("defend against further
aggression") that the US ship lethal arms to the Kiev government now. The eleven Congress members
(8 predictable Republicans and three veteran, dimwit Democrats) write about Ukraine what they had
never had the wit or courage to say about US aggression in Iraq. They assert with grotesque oversimplification
and false premises about "the crisis in Ukraine" that:
It is a grotesque violation of International law, a challenge to the west, and an assault on the
international order established at such great cost in the wake of World War II.
Fatuous warmongering. At the end of World War II, Crimea was indisputably part of Russia (within
the USSR) and the anti-Russian military alliance of NATO did not exist, much less had it pushed its
existential security threat to the Russian border. You want an all-out, unambiguous assault on international
law, look to Iraq and all the "little Iraqs" that the American hegemon executes with impunity and
nearly endless destructiveness to peace, order, and culture.
The weak-kneed Democrats mindlessly signing on to this reflexive Republican rage to kill someone
are: Eliot Engel of New York (Westchester County), lawyer first elected in 1988,
he's been a strong supporter of violence in Palestine, Kosovo, and Iraq (voting for the war in 2002);
Adam Smith of Washington (Seattle), lawyer first elected 1997, he's supported
violence in Afghanistan and Iraq (voting for the war in 2001) and he sponsored a bill to allow the
US government to lie to the people; and Adam Schiff of California (Burbank),
lawyer he's supported violence in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria (voting for the
Iraq war in 2002). "Bi-partisanship" is pretty meaningless when the imperial warmaking ideology is
monolithic, as in this basic lie also in the Boehner letter:
We should not wait until Russian troops and their separatist proxies take Mariupol or Kharkiv
before we act to bolster the Ukrainian government's ability to deter and defend against further
aggression.
The core of this lie is those "separatist proxies." That's an Orwellian phrase used to turn the
roughly 5 million residents of the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk into un-persons. These 5 million
people are predominantly Russian-speaking and ethnic-Russian. They have legitimate, longstanding
grievances with Ukrainian-dominated governments in Kiev, especially with the current illegitimate
one which is neo-Nazi-tinged and Russo-phobic.
It is important for these 5 million people seeking self-determination to disappear from the American
argument for war sooner rather than later. The American war justifiers require "Russian aggression"
as a crediblecasus belli, but the would-be war makers offer no credible evidence to support
that propaganda claim ("Remember the Maine!").
The American news bubble distorts and excludes the world's realities
The blandly mindless media repetition of the phrase "Russian aggression" is a reliable measure
of how much the news reports the government propaganda, at the expense of something like real world
complexity. Dissenting voices are few in America's media world, and seldom heard, especially those
who ask: "What aggression?"
Somehow, in the well-washed American collective brain, it's aggression when an oppressed minority
declares its independence from its oppressors, the coup-installed Kiev government (and some of its
predecessors). But that same scrubbed brain believes it's not aggression when another minority, aligned
with foreign interests, carries out a violent overthrow of Ukraine's legitimately elected government.
Newsweek has demonized
Russian president Vladimir Putin for months now, including on a cover with the headline "The Pariah"
over a picture showing
Putin in dark glasses that seem to reflect two nuclear explosions. (This imagery worked with
deceitful perfection in 2002 when President Bush and Condoleezza Rice terrified audiences with the
possibility that the "smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud.") Newsweek has even called for
regime change
in Russia. Newsweek is hardly alone in demonizing Putin without considering the realities of his
situation. Others, like CNN, simply resort to
calling him "completely mad," even though Russian actions have been largely measured and limited,
especially when considered in the context of two decades of western provocation.
At pivotal moments in the crisis, such as the Feb. 20, 2014 sniper fire that killed both police
and protesters and the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 killing 298 passengers
and crew, the U.S. political/media establishment has immediately pinned the blame on Yanukovych,
the ethnic Russian rebels who are resisting his ouster, or Putin. Then, when evidence emerged
going in the opposite direction toward "our side" a studied silence followed, allowing the
earlier propaganda to stay in place as part of the preferred storyline.
When reality intrudes upon propaganda, reality must be discredited
In a somewhat mocking story about Russia's denunciation of US troops arriving in Ukraine as a
threat to Russia security, the
Los Angeles Timesgive roughly equal time to a NATO commander denouncing the Russian denunciation.
The casual reader who stops halfway through the story is easily left with the impression that the
Russians are behaving badly again and maybe sending lethal weapons is a good idea. Only in the last
two paragraphs does the Times, quite unusually, report some real things that matter about Ukraine:
Ukraine, which proclaimed independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 as the communist-ruled
federation was collapsing, had pledged to remain nonaligned, and in any case would need years
to carry out reforms and assimilation of its armed forces with those of NATO before it could be
inducted into the Western defense alliance.
But since the Russian-backed insurgency began ripping Ukraine apart, Kiev authorities have
renounced the nonalignment pledge and set their course for eventual NATO membership.
The first of these two paragraphs is a partly reasonable explanation of why Russia would feel
betrayed by the US and NATO. A nonaligned Ukraine remains an obvious possible alternative to the
present conflict ignited by decades of NATO aggression.
The second paragraph serves as a warning, packaged as a justification based on a lie. The
lie is that it's a Russian-backed insurgency that's ripping Ukraine apart, when Ukraine has been
ripping itself apart for years, a reality that led to the coup-government in Kiev. The explanation
which is false is that the insurgency has forced the Kiev government's hand, even though the
government took power with EU and NATO links obviously in mind. The warning is that Ukraine may just
join NATO as soon as it can.
Until Americans and especially American policy makers face fundamental realities in and about
Ukraine, the risk that they will take the rest of us into an unjustified, stupid, and potentially
catastrophic war will remain unacceptably high. One of the realities Americans need to face is that
the Ukraine government is corrupt, as corrupt an some of the most corrupt governments in the world,
and nothing the US has done is likely to change that any time soon. What any war would ultimately
be about is: who gets to benefit from that corruption?
Ukrainians know this and despair as, for example, Lilia Bigeyeva, 55, a violinist and composer
did when she told
her family's
storyfrom Dnipropetrovsk in central Ukraine:
I was born in Melitopol, raised in Zaporizhzhya, and have spent all of my adult life in Dnipropetrovsk.
It hasn't been easy, this past year in Ukraine. The loss of Crimea is a tragedy, the war is a
tragedy. And it's far from clear that our government and our people are really prepared to institute
rule of law .
The war is very close to us, here in Dnipropetrovsk. Every day there's bad news. But we continue
to play music, my pupils and I. Culture and art, these are the things that have always helped
us through frightening times.
This was published in The Moscow Times on March 6, but it was originally recorded and distributed
by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In other words, there's no excuse, for anyone on any side, to
say they didn't know what was happening to the Ukrainian people for the sake of geopolitical greed.
END NOTE: HOW YOU CAN HELP THE WEST'S WAR EFFORT
[Craigslist posting, edited, from Orange County, California, March 3, 2015.]
GTS (Glacier Technology Solutions LLC) We are military contractors working directly with
the US Marine Corps assisting them with their immersive simulation training program.
Currently, we are looking for role players of Ukrainian and/or Russian ethnicity and language
skills. Need MEN ranging 18-65 years of age.
This is temporary, part time, on-call work based on need and availability.
At the moment, we are staffing for an upcoming training to take place on: March 29-31, 2015.
The scheduled hours will vary from 8-12 hours per working day.
Compensation is $15.17/hr. plus another $4.02/hr. Health and Welfare benefit for up to 40
hours of work in a workweek. (Overtime rates will be paid if necessary). Register for work
at: www.Shiftboard.com/wforce
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print
journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors
from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely
granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
Activista 2015-03-10 13:22
rt.com/op-edge/239205-baltic-states-us-military-troops/ NATO uses 'Russia threat' as excuse to halt defense cuts ... these are make up threats to keep profit/militari sm/NATO going ...
EU does not want to pay 2% GDP to NATO ... and US military expenditure and debt is growing .. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#mediaviewer/File:Top_ten_military_expenditures_in_$_in_2013.jpg.jpeg
jdd 2015-03-10 18:52
You have it backwards. While it may be less disturbing to believe that NATO exists merely to justify
military spending, you have missed the point. NATO's was originally created as a military alliance
against the Soviet Union, even though the Warsaw Pact was later dissolved, NATO was maintained and
expanded to threaten and encircle Russia. Nuland, Carter and other believe that they can cause "regime
change" in Russia, or alternatively win a "first strike" victory in a "limited nuclear war." Now,
in response to the successful cease-fire, made possible by Putin's cooperation, we have EU Commissioner
Juncker calling for an EU army to confront Russia. The response from a prominent Russian parliamentarian
:
"In a nuclear age, extra armies do not provide any additional security. But they surely can play
a provocative role...One should presume that a European army is seen as an addendum to NATO...never,
even in the darkest days of the Cold War, had anyone dared to make such a proposal." If only it were
merely about military spending.
and continue to provoke the Russians
lorenbliss 2015-03-11 02:13
If I did not know better, I would assume there is someone in the State Department channeling Hitler,
someone in the Defense Department channeling Goering, someone at Homeland Security channeling Himmler
and someone at the head of the media monopoly channeling Goebbels.
And in their resurrected madness -- exactly as in 1941 -- they are forgetting the lessons the Scythians
taught the Persians and the Scythians' Russian descendants taught the Teutonic Knights, the Mongols
and Bonaparte, not to mention the lessons Hitler, Goering, Himmler and Goebbels were themselves taught
by the Russian "untermenschen."
Such are the darkest times in our species' history...
REDPILLED 2015-03-10 17:13
The 11th COMMANDMENT:
No nation shall DARE defy the United States and its Puppets by attempting to be truly independent!
That right is reserved only for the God-chosen United States.
wantrealdemocracy 2015-03-10 20:06
Too bad the "God chosen United States" is not independent. Our nation is under the control of Israel.
Israel wants this war against Russia, and all those wars in the Middle East, so that the Christians
and Muslims will kill each other leaving Israel the winner. The state of Israel and the Zionists
will then control the whole world. That is the 'New World Order' you have heard about.
arquebus 2015-03-10 17:20
NATO aggression? When you see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia,
then come talk to me about aggression. Has not happened and is unlikely to happen.
What we really have here is Putin and the Russians paranoia and inability to get over the German
invasion of 1940...something that happened 75 years ago.
skeeter 2015-03-10 19:07
Quoting arquebus:
NATO aggression? When you see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against
Russia, then come talk to me about aggression. Has not happened and is unlikely to happen.
What we really have here is Putin and the Russians paranoia and inability to get over the German
invasion of 1940...something that happened 75 years ago.
Let's get real...the Europeans are threatening to bring Ukraine into NATO, a military alliance established
and maintained to challenge the Soviet Union. No Russian leader in his right mind could stand by
and let this happen. Imagine if the Soviets had approached Mexico or Canada a few years ago and tried
to convince them to join the Warsaw Pact. The Russians paranoid...can you blame them?
Agricanto 2015-03-10 19:23
First I read the (very excellent) piece of journalism from people like William Boardman.
Then I "scroll to the troll" and give the predictable right wing doublethink a thumbs down.
Then I go to PayPal and give RSN 10bux all the while complaining that trolls don't pay to clog up
important discussions on RSN. Penny a word from the troll factory is all I ask.
Merlin 2015-03-10 21:05
Agricanto 2015-03-10 19:23
Spot on and well said!
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:15
If Russian troops began to maneuver on the US border, like US troops (NATO) are now doing on the
Russian border, the US would go "ballistic." That's called "hypocrisy," by the way.
MJnevetS 2015-03-13 14:52
"Russia already did that and invaded killed people and are feeding a false insurgency that is being
dubbed freedom fighters .. they even shot down a domestic airliner in the summer flying over that
territory over the UKraine from Amsterdam. don't you know the news even on this subject"
There is a sad lack of facts in these statements. NY Times had to retract the allegations of a 'Russian
Invasion', as the evidence proved to be fabricated. The only 'false insurgency' was the coup initiated
by the US and with regard to the shooting down of the commercial liner, show me one SINGLE piece
of evidence that Russian backed rebels were involved. It was a false flag operation and when people
demanded evidence over propaganda, the news story magically disappeared, as the evidence would show
that it was a terrorist attack by the Nazis currently in control of Ukraine.
jdd 2015-03-11 08:15
When you "see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia" it will not
be the time to converse with you, but rather then you may kiss your loved ones a final goodbye as
that will be the beginning of a war of human extinction, all over within an hour.
Thank goodness
for Putin and s few sane voices in the West who are trying to avoid ever getting to that point while
others in the West, such as the Newland gang, seem hell-bent on making it happen.
Activista 2015-03-11 20:36
... see NATO bombers in Libya, Yugoslavia .. US troops in Kosovo US Sending 3,000 Troops To Latvia,
Estonia ... www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-crisis-us-sending-... International Business Times 2 days ago - An Abrams main battle tank, for U.S. troops deployed in the Baltics as part of NATO's
Operation Atlantic Resolve, left the port in Riga, Latvia ....
Trish42 2015-03-10 18:03
When will Americans ever get their collective head out of their ass and start looking at the world
from others' points of view? We have gotten sucked into the propaganda about Ukraine, never checking
other sources or verifying what we "know" to see if there was any evidence that would support our
intervention. Sound familiar? We've got to get the war-mongers out of DC!!
Kev C 2015-03-10 21:19
Allow me to explain why they won't. Education. The entire system is based on US centric thinking
and behaviour. There is limited information available about the rest of the world and what there
is is painting the US as the God Given Saviour of humanity. Hell they won the war after all. Single
handed. They saved the UKs ass by coming to our rescue didn't they? Not!
Until the vast majority of Really decent but hypnotized Americans get the real info they will continue
to believe what they are told because there isn't really an alternative to the Faux news/MSN bullshit
and the pre programmed education system. Its not the peoples fault. The system was rigged long before
they were born.
dsepeczi 2015-03-11 09:38
Quoting Trish42:
When will Americans ever get their collective head out of their ass and start looking at the world
from others' points of view? We have gotten sucked into the propaganda about Ukraine, never checking
other sources or verifying what we "know" to see if there was any evidence that would support
our intervention. Sound familiar? We've got to get the war-mongers out of DC!!
Sadly, I'm starting to believe the answer to your question is ... "Never". If Iraq wasn't a big enough,
loud enough, and obvious enough mistake to wake up ALL Americans to the fact that our government
lies to us and we should take everything they say with a grain of salt and request that they provide
solid proof of their allegations against another nation ... I can't think of any event that will.
:(
pbbrodie 2015-03-11 09:45
"get warmongers out of Washington." Yes, especially the complete idiots who are making insane comments about "limited nuclear war." There
is no such thing as limited nuclear war. Once one is exploded, it is all over.
Johnny 2015-03-10 18:15
How soon we forget. The U.S. must punish Russia, and, more importantly, divert the attention of Russia
from the Middle
East, because Russia has supported Syria, which is an obstacle to open war against Iran, because
Iran arms Hezbollah, and the last time the Zionists invaded Lebanon, Hezbollah chased them out. Hezbollah
is an obstacle to annexation of the whole area by Israel. And now that the Zionists smell the opportunity
to induce the U.S. to attack Iran, they are creating another front on which Russia must try to defend
itself and its allies. The U.S. Congress is not the only part of the U.S. government that Jewish
supremacist banksters have bought, lock, stock, and barrel. (Before some asshole starts to howl about
anti-Semitism, let him explain why we should not criticize other proponents of racism, such as white
supremacists; Zionism, after all, is merely warmed over Nazism, with a different "chosen" people
and different victims.)
dquandle 2015-03-10 20:05
In fact, the neo-nazis now in control in the US/NATO supported Ukraine have been blatantly anti-semitic
for decades, having supported the Nazis at that time and are even more egregious now.
"For the first time since 1945, a neo-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic party controls key areas of state
power in a European capital. No Western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism in
the borderland through which Hitler's invading Nazis took millions of Russian lives. They were supported
by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), responsible for the massacre of Jews and Russians they called
"vermin". The UPA is the historical inspiration of the present-day Svoboda Party and its fellow-travelli
ng Right Sector. Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia"
and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left."
In addition to Ms. Nuland and her PNAC founding husband, Robert Kagan, two of the three Democrats
cited by Mr. Boardman as signees on the "arm Ukraine" letter are Jewish. In fact, Congressman Engel
is of Ukrainian Jewish ancestry.
As the "protests" in Ukraine grew in late 2013/early 2014, Ukrainian Jewish groups reported skyrocketing
cases of anti-Semitic rhetoric and attacks. But those reports were buried by Zionist organizations
who insisted that Russia was the real threat to Ukrainian Jews, not the frigging Nazis in Ukraine!
At first, this sort of thing confused me, before I realized it wasn't a Jew against Jew thing. This
is Zionist fascists supporting Nazi fascists.
Vardoz 2015-03-10 22:23
Sorry it just boils down to profits and power and any excuse to wage endless war for profits period
end of story.
L.S. 2015-03-10 20:06
I do not agree with these conclusions. I don't believe that the U.S. and U.K. are invested in military
action. Those troops are advisors and instructors. This interpretation is very cynical and pessimistic
and I don't buy it.
My background is International Relations and I am watching the chess pieces on the board and I challenge
this interpretation and find it very unhelpful and in itself can be contributing towards War rather
than supporting the diplomatic actions towards Peace.
Merlin 2015-03-10 21:02
L.S. 2015-03-10 20:06
So talk to me about the advisors that Eisenhower put in Viet Nam. Then talk to me about Kennedy expanding
on their number. Then talk to me about the Viet Nam War.
You state:
"My background is International Relations and I am watching the chess pieces on the board and I challenge
this interpretation"
I challenge YOU because either you a not what you claim or you sure did not learn very much.
Kev C 2015-03-10 21:24
If you don't see what is happening now then your a lousy chess player. Don't give up though. Practice
makes perfect. However beware there are not many nations left that haven't been smeared then bombed
by the US and we are running out nations and out of time before the US blow all our asses off the
face of the planet for that self serving act of pathetic vanity which will be countersigned in hell
with 'Property of The US Military.'
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:17
"Advisors and intructors" - Don't be naive. And what happens when some of them get killed? What is
the likelihood or statistical probability of escalation after that? This is clearly provocative and
dangerous and does absolutely nothing for "peace" or "security" of anyone.
Radscal 2015-03-11 00:27
L.S. "...I am watching the chess pieces on the board..."
Does your use of that analogy imply that you read Ziggy Brzezenski's 1998 book, "The Grand Chessboard,"
in which he explains why the U.S. must take control of Ukraine as key to controlling Eurasian resources,
and ultimately to conquer Russia and China?
RODNOX 2015-03-11 05:14
history has shown the USA always has some underhanded agenda--some self serving plan---and often
plays BOTH sides of the problem--just to escalate it----WHEN WILL WE STOP THEM ????? THIS IS TRULY
THE 1 % IN ACTION--WE--THE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM
wrknight 2015-03-12 20:47
Quoting L.S.:
I do not agree with these conclusions. I don't believe that the U.S. and U.K. are invested in
military action. Those troops are advisors and instructors.
Like the advisors the U.S. sent to South Vietnam in the 1950's.
Archie1954 2015-03-10 20:16
Exceptional, indispensable? More like irrational, despicable! What we need is for Putin to call up
Obama and tell him point blank that if the US doesn't get the hell out of Ukraine, Russia will make
it! If you don't think it can, think again!
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:20
I appreciate your emotion here, but that would be really really scary because I imagine the US would
respond with even greater belligerance and "justify" it by saying "Putin is threatening us" - even
though, ironically, it is the US that is doing all the threatening.
Vardoz 2015-03-10 21:17
It's more like war madmen then warmongers and it's all very frightening. Putin is crazy too and we
have no right getting involved so that the Fuking military can make profits!!!! Enough!!!!! Our military
is out of control with a suicidal war agenda and they don't care about the consequences or the collateral
damage. It's just war all around, kick out the jams no matter how many die- they don't give a damn.
Seemed like Germany was making some constructive headway and Merkel should tell the US where to go.
This is all so dirty and obscene and wrong.
Radscal 2015-03-11 00:33
You do know that the U.S. was not even invited to the peace talks, right?
Similarly, it was EU members, Russia and then-president Yanukovych who signed the agreement with
the Maidan Protest leaders on 2/21/14 in which Yanukovych acquiesced to every one of their demands.
That was when Vickie Nuland's "Fuck the EU" plan went into action and the neo-nazis stormed the government
buildings, including the Parliament and drove about 2 dozen Members of Parliament and the President
to flee for their lives.
And that, is why those who followed the events call it a "coup."
jdd 2015-03-11 07:28
The ceaae-fire came about because the "Normandy Four" excluded the US and UK, whose participation
would have guaranteed failure. Now the efforts of all, but especially that of Putin have led to a
fragile peace. The response from a disappointed Victoria Nuland crowd continues to speak of sending
arms and "advisors" to Ukraine in order to throw gasoline on the embers.
dsepeczi 2015-03-11 08:21
Quoting ericlane:
Another moronic article. Who do you think was behind the peace deal?
Ummm. I believe the organizers of that peace deal were Europe, Ukraine and Russia. The US, wisely,
was not invited to the table.
jsluka 2015-03-11 00:13
Is "US Goes Ballistic" a scary pun here? I.e., as in "nuclear armed ballistic missiles". Also,
isn't that how it all started in the Vietnam War - with "advisors"? This is batcrap crazy, but
then many people have now begun to realise that US politicians have become homocidally psychotic.
It's "back to the future" and return of Dr. Strangelove.
We have no business in Ukraine, we have no business antagonizing the Russians. We Slavs have been
demonized, mocked and denigrated as imbeciles and barbarians by the West for centuries. Stay the
hell away from us, already. We don't need to be like you.
Buddha 2015-03-11 17:10
"To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating
class of chickenhawk hardliners, the warring sides in Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has
almost arrived (March 7 was the first day with no casualties)."
John McCain's dick just got limp again. Oh well, there is always ISIS and Iran to try to stoke up
WWIII, right Uncle Fester?
Kootenay Coyote 2015-03-16 10:12
"Until Americans, and especially American policy maker, face fundamental realities in and about Ukraine .".
Or any fundamental realities, for that matter: cf. Global Warming. The nearest thing to reality that's
considered is that of the weapon makers & warmongers, & that's pretty meagre.
As the National Journal reported in 2014, even the pathetically weak anti-war left is not
ready to reconcile with Hillary given her warmongering as Secretary of State. And with good reason.
Scratching just lightly beneath the surface of Hillary Clinton's career reveals the empirical evidence
of her historic support for aggressive interventions around the globe.
Beginning with Africa, Hillary defended the 1998 cruise missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical
plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, destroying the largest producer of cheap medications for
treating malaria and tuberculosis and provided over 60% of available medicine in Sudan. In 2006 she
supported sending United Nations troops to Darfur with logistical and technical support provided
by NATO forces. Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was outspoken in his condemnation of this intervention,
claiming it was not committed out of concern for Sudanese people but " for oil and for the return
of colonialism to the African continent."
This is the same leader who was murdered in the aftermath of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya; an
attack promoted and facilitated with the eager support of Mrs. Clinton. In an infamous CBS news interview,
said regarding this international crime: "We came, we saw, he died." As Time magazine pointed out
in 2011, the administration understood removing Qaddafi from power would allow the terrorist cells
active in Libya to run rampant in the vacuum left behind. Just last month the New York Times reported
that Libya has indeed become a terrorist safe haven and failed state- conducive for exporting radicals
through "ratlines" to the conflict against Assad in Syria.
Hillary made prompt use of the ratlines for conflicts in the Middle East. In the summer of 2012,
Clinton privately worked with then CIA director and subversive bonapartist David Petraeus on a proposal
for providing arms and training to death squads to be used to topple Syria just as in Libya. This
proposal was ultimately struck down by Obama, reported the New York Times in 2013, but constituted
one of the earliest attempts at open military support for the Syrian death squads.
Her voting record on intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq is well known and she also has consistently
called for attacking Iran. She even told Fareed Zakaria the State Department was involved "behind
the scenes" in Iran's failed 2009 Green Revolution. More recently in Foreign Policy magazine David
Rothkopf wrote on the subject of the Lausanne nuclear accord, predicting a "snap-back" in policy
by the winner of the 2016 election to the foreign policy in place since the 1980s. The title of this
article? "Hillary Clinton is the Real Iran Snap-Back." This makes Hillary the prime suspect for a
return to the madcap Iranian policies that routinely threaten the world with a World War 3 scenario.
Hillary Clinton is not only actively aggressing against Africa and the Middle East. She was one
of the loudest proponents against her husband's hesitancy over the bombing of Kosovo, telling Lucina
Frank: "I urged him to bomb," even if it was a unilateral action.
While no Clinton spokesperson responded to a request by the Washington Free Beacon regarding her
stance on Ukraine, in paid speeches she mentioned "putting more financial support into the Ukrainian
government". When Crimea decided to choose the Russian Federation over Poroshenko's proto-fascist
rump state, Hillary anachronistically called President Putin's actions like "what Hitler did in the
'30s." As a leader of the bumbled "reset" policy towards Russia, Hillary undoubtedly harbors some
animus against Putin and will continue the destabilization project ongoing in Ukraine.
Not content with engaging in debacles in Eastern Europe, she has vocally argued for a more aggressive
response to what she called the "rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts
of Latin America." This indicates her willingness to allow the continuation of CIA sponsored efforts
at South American destabilization in the countries of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and
Brazil.
It is one of the proud prerogatives of the Tax Wall Street Party to push out into the light the
Wall Street and foundation-funded Democrats. The final blow to Hillary's clumsy faηade comes directly
from arch-neocon Robert Kagan. Kagan worked as a foreign policy advisor to Hillary along with his
wife, Ukraine madwoman Victoria Nuland, during Hillary's term as Secretary of State. He claimed in
the New York Times that his view of American foreign policy is best represented in the "mainstream"
by the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton; a foreign policy he obviously manipulated or outright crafted.
Kagan stated: "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have
been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call
it something else." What further reason could any sane person need to refute Hillary? A vote for
Hillary is a vote for the irrational return to war.
The "Giant Sucking Sound": Clinton Gave US NAFTA and Other Free Trade Sellouts
"There is no success story for workers to be found in North America 20 years after NAFTA," states
AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. Unlike other failures of his Presidency, Bill Clinton can not run
from NAFTA. It was Vice President Al Gore, not a veto-proof Republican congress, who lobbied to remove
trade barriers with low-wage Mexico.
The record of free trade is clear. Multinational corporations and Wall Street speculators realize
incredible profits, wages remain stagnant in the US, poverty persists in the developing world, and
the remaining industrial corporations in America and Canada are increasingly owned by Chinese, Indian
and other foreign interests.
America's free trade policy is upside down. Besides Canada, Australia and Korea, most of our "free"
trade partners are low-wage sweatshop paradises like Mexico, Chile, Panama, Guatemala, Bahrain and
Oman. The US does in fact apply tariffs on most goods and on most nations of origin rates are set
by the US International Trade Commission (USTIC), a quasi-public federal agency.
Since a German- or Japanese-made automobile would under USITC's schedule be taxed 10% upon importation,
Volkswagen and Toyota can circumvent taxation by simply building their auto assembly plants for the
US market in Mexico. In Detroit, an auto assembly worker is paid between $14 and $28/hour, ($29,120-$58,240/yr);
hard work for modest pay. In Mexico, the rate varies from $2-5/hour.
In China, all automobile imports regardless of origin are tariffed as high as 25%. This allows
the Chinese to attract joint ventures with Volkswagen and Toyota, and to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln,
"keep the jobs, the cars and the money."
NAFTA-related job loss is not a question of productivity, currency manipulation, "fair trade,"
environmental standards, etc. While these issues are not trivial, free trade as Lincoln's advisor
Henry C. Carey proved is a matter of simple accounting. Can an American family survive on $4,160/year
($2/hr)? If not, cars and their components will be built in Mexico. If we want cars built in the
United States, the only solution is a general tariff (import tax) reflecting the difference between
those wage standards, like the very tariffs repealed by Bill Clinton.
In the United States the "runaway shop" under NAFTA and CAFTA has sent trade deficits and unemployment
soaring while wages drop relative to the cost of living. Yet Mexico and other "partners" receive
no benefit either. Many manufacturing sectors in Mexico pay wages lower than the equivalent sector
in China. Mexico is now the world leader in illegal narcotics exportation and weapons importation.
The poverty level between 1994 and 2009 remained virtually identical. (52.4% 52.3%). The shipping
of raw materials to Mexico comprise the majority of so called American "exports". The finished products
from these exports are assembled and sold back to the United States at slave labor prices.
Don't expect Hillary to behave differently with the coming "Trans-Pacific Partnership," which
seeks to replace an ascendant China with less-developed Vietnam and Malaysia. Vietnam would overtake
India-allied Bangladesh in the global apparel trade, and Malaysia has a high-tech manufacturing sector
poised to rival China's. With America's manufacturing economy in shambles, the Clinton machine can
now be redirected to geopolitical maneuvers.
The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided
the source is cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license
CC BY-NC-ND).
Such an elaborate dance around facts. From comments: "It is so depressing when there is far more
information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue
the traditions of her predecessor." This is one event about which there is quite a lot of information
to see how Guardian presstitutes try to bent the truth. See
Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014
Notable quotes:
"... In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain) that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys. However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership" the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with. ..."
"... Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war. ..."
"... There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad, but true. ..."
"... Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. ..."
"... Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city' liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass". ..."
"... I remember the British army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. ..."
The emergency calls became increasingly desperate. "When are you coming? It's already burning
and there are people inside," a woman told the fire brigade dispatcher. Minutes later, callers started
describing how people were jumping from the upper floors. "Have you lost your minds?" one man asked,
his voice breaking. "There are women and children in the building!" another man yelled.
In one of
the most deadly episodes in Ukraine's turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and
hundreds injured on 2 May last year in the Black Sea port of Odessa.
Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia
activists were barricaded in.
VengefulRevenant -> AlfredHerring 1 May 2015 17:24
The victims are the ones who were raped, shot or burned to death in the massacre.
The perpetrators are those protected by the NATO-backed regime which has failed to investigate
the massacre.
The apologists are the NATO-aligned media who blame the victims or assign blame equally to
the killers and the dead along the lines of, 'There was heroism and cruelty on both sides.'
normankirk -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 16:52
Well isn't it wonderful to hear a diversity of views expressed on Russian TV. When all we hear
is how all media is controlled by the Kremlin
Kaiama Danram 1 May 2015 16:48
So the dead Ukrainian children and women are Kremlin goons too?
How simple your life must be to allow you to make such simplistic conclusions.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 16:46
Some nice whitewashing. Now it's fault of the victims and the heroism of the perpetrators,
there hasn't been and there will be no investigation and the word massacre is no longer used.
For those of you who still argue it was not a massacre but some mysterious suicide by 48 people
who set themselves afire, here is footage again.
Take a look at some of the pretty revealing moments:
23 min mark - Ukrainians are entering the building, there was no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
While in the building, Ukrainians were slaughtering people. And it wasn't a fight. Half of
the victims were middle-aged. At least 10 of them - women.
31min - 33min - the victims who got out have their faces and hands disfigured while the rest
of their bodies don't have the same injuries. That's what happens if someone splashes fuel over
someone's face and light it up. There are pictures of victims with only their heads and hands
burned.
33min - 35min - there were women among those trying to find safety in the building. Some of
them are middle-aged. They were not fighters, as the article would imply.
36min- 37min - Ukrainians were inside the building, setting it on fire and killing those whom
they could find, a young woman in this specific frame.
46min - a person was bludgeoned to death. The room doesn't have marks of fire but the blood
is splattered all over the room.
48min-50min - the same story, Ukrainians were slaughtering their victims.
1h:00min - Ukrainians are entering the building again, this time from the make shift scaffolding.
Any attempt to pretend there was a fight rather than a massacre is crazy. Any suggestion that
somehow people inside were setting themselves on fire is ludicrous in light of evidence that the
Ukis were inside the building. And the fact that Kiev doesn't even see it as murder makes me just
angry.
AbsolutelyFapulous -> PlatonKuzin 1 May 2015 16:43
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil.
Donno why you are commenting here. You even don't seem to be able to read a map.
BorninUkraine -> RonBuckley 1 May 2015 16:25
In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain)
that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys.
However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership"
the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with.
Current Ukrainian "leaders" keep stealing everything they can, including financial and material
aid from the West. What else is new?
MaoChengJi -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 16:03
Yeah. I'm convinced that they should've sent paratroopers and take Kiev right the next day
after the coup d'etat; stop this whole unholy mess right then and there. That really would've
saved tens of thousands of lives - if not millions, seeing how this thing seems to escalate, leading
us to a nuclear war.
Putin is a pussy, Medvedev got it right in Georgia in 2008. Well, frankly Medvedev is a pussy
too. He should've taken Tbilisi, and put Saakashvili on trial.
To teach the bastards a lesson.
Instead, now we hear every day 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', 'Russia will not fight Ukraine',
and the murdering Nazi bastards get bolder and bolder. What's the point of having all that military
hardware if you're afraid to use it. They Yanks would've taken control of the place months ago,
look at Grenada.
RonBuckley -> BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 15:52
Well said, man. Yes, Ukrainian politics have always been divisive, stupid, thievery and corrupt.
That said they had neither brains nor money for a coup. So Ukraine should thank certain external
powers for the deep shit it is in now.
PlatonKuzin -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:31
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil. That's the point. And the state of Ukraine
is a temporary occupier of the Russian soil. So people living in Odessa don't have to go to Russian.
They are right at their home. This is the state of Ukraine that has stayed on our Russian land
for 23 years now. It's time for the quasi-state of Ukraine to leave.
BorninUkraine -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:16
I was born in Lvov in Western Ukraine, I grew up in Lugansk in the East, I have friends and
relatives all over, and I know exactly what is going on in Ukraine.
Ukraine in 1991 was extremely heterogenous. In the area West of Carpatian mountains people
speak Hungarian, Romanian, and Rusine (a form of old Russian, spoken in Kievan Rus).
Galichina and Volynia in the West speak several dialects of Ukrainian. Many in Central Ukraine
speak what is considered literary Ukrainian. In the South and East (historic Novorossia) and in
Kharkov region (historic Slobozhanschina) the majority speaks "surgik", a mix of pidgin-Ukrainian
and pidgin-Russian. Finally, in Crimea people speak Russian, Tatar, and very few speak Ukrainian.
Crimea voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum and got a chance to run away in 2014, when Ukraine
committed suicide.
If the leaders of Ukraine had any brains and loved their country, they would have followed
the example of Switzerland and Singapore, having many official languages. However, all Ukrainian
rulers from day one were thieves and idiots. They made Ukrainian the only official language and
pushed it everywhere, so that while you could get school education in several languages, all colleges
operated only in Ukrainian, putting people who spoke other languages at a disadvantage.
That idiotic policy started this whole mess, which with a bit of US money, prodding, and now
arms became a civil war. Not to mention that Galichina is the place that fought against Russia
in WWI (as part of Austro-Hungarian empire, siding with Kaiser) and WWII (siding with Hitler).
They supplied the troops that under Hitler's command murdered thousands of civilians in Ukraine,
Poland, Belarus, and Slovakia. Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina,
who are considered heroes by current puppets in Kiev, voluntarily served Hitler.
80% of Ukrainian population hates these Bandera worshippers, so when external forces push them
to power, it creates trouble. Personally I hate them for giving a bad name to everything Ukrainian.
BorninUkraine -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:10
Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians
there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.
Or is saying things explicitly beyond your pay grade?
RonBuckley -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:06
To Odessa Kiev sent a few hundred pro-Nazi thugs - 42 died.
To Donetsk and Luhansk Kiev sent a few thousand pro-Nazi thugs plus the entire Ukrainian army
- 6000 died.
Get it now?
Goodthanx -> Anette Mor 1 May 2015 15:04
For me it was the silence... You are right! Seeing what i was seeing, with no commentry to
convince me either way.. How could the worlds media be so silent?
Then with MH, it was the complete opposite!! Immediately and with no investigation, MSM could
not shut up about who they thought was responsible!!
Both fail the logic test miserably. But try explaining common sense to those that haven't any.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:48
Those protesters were Ukrainian Pro Federalists! Not one Russian amongst them!
Anette Mor -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 14:46
Good for you. It is impossible to hide truth with current state of technology. Only not showning.
Any life reporting give the footage adding facts one by one and crwating a true picture eventually.
Even this rather bias article contributes to true story because the lie in it sticks out of logic
for anybody we is able to think for themselves.
PlatonKuzin -> ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:42
Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting
the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war.
Anette Mor -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 14:41
It is poinless to try to install fear in these people. Need to look at the history of people's
wars in Russia. Since 17 century they were able to resist occupation and unwanted rulers by people
war. There wpuld not be a win against Napoleon and Hitler without people rising and forming resistance.
Same in Odessa now. Just a matter of time.
BunglyPete -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:35
The explanation is very simple. Right Sector had free reign to terrorise pro Russians, so he
took action. Kiev choose not to punish Right Sector both then and now. He said this in the same
interview you constantly reference.
Now can you explain why you think it is acceptable for Right Sector to terrorise the Donbass?
If Strelkov wasnt allowed to defend them, who was?
Anette Mor -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 14:34
Not sure why you call them pro-Russians. Odessa is multi-national city. These who were massacred
are simply local people who disagreed with the violent coup which put to power by the west. Does
it make them "pro-russian" and justify thier killing? Surely these who want own country to be
coverned by own elected officials could not be pro- another country. If they trust Russian government
care for them more then thier own coup, that only says how bad the coup rule is.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:24
Forget about the Russian government. The idea is justice for the victims and punishment for
the perpetrators. Is it the ambition of the UN to be percieved as bias as so called Russuan investigators
would be?
Kaiama -> truk10 1 May 2015 14:22
FFS there are enough links and analysis to demonstrate that pro-Kiev forces inflicted a massacre
of civilians here. I don't see any pro-Ukraine links to additional information but an overwhelming
deluge of links supporting the unvoiced version of events.
ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:18
Our western media have really become mirror images of the fascist governments they support.
By publishing such whitewashing attempts as this, they only enable more such behavior in the future,
behavior that leads to the deaths of more innocents, more civilians whose only desire is to live
in freedom and peace.
Kaiama 1 May 2015 14:13
It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the
article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:09
What kind of a teenage girl carries in their backpack petrol, empty bottles, rags and whatever
else is required to make Molotov cocktails? What a coincidence... there is a group of them!!
As for Right Sector? Chartered buses transported Right Sector militia which arrived early in the
day. These were the people communicating with police from the start.
MaoChengJi -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 13:51
Speaking of the media... I've been reading this Odessa news website: http://timer-odessa.net/
, and it has been relatively informative (as much as Ukro-sites can be, these days). And today
suddenly it's gone dark: "there is no Web site at this address".
Does anyone know if it's gone for good? I really hope those who were running it are safe...
Jean-Franηois Guilbo -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:51
So you didn't watch the video link in my comment did you?
If you just take this article for granted to know on which side the Odessa police was, you won't
learn much on what happened...
Seems like the officier on the picture would have been recognised as a colonel from Odessa police,
watch this link:
And from these two links, these armed guys not afraid to shoot from the crowd, could have been
agents provocateur...
BorninUkraine -> IrishFred 1 May 2015 13:47
Are you saying that Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina never
existed? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above did not serve Hitler voluntarily? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above are not guilty of mass murder and other crimes against humanity?
If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying that people who are murdering their opponents, politicians and journalists,
are not Nazis? If so, please state it explicitly.
As to Crimea, if you knew any history, you'd know that it was illegally annexed by Ukraine
in 1991. Here is history 101, not necessarily for you, but for those who actually want to know
the truth.
Russia deployed its troops in Crimea, and nobody was killed there. Russia failed to send its
troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children,
elderly, and disabled veterans.
As many Ukrainians joke now, "Crimeans are traitors: they ran away without us".
Your next argument?
Jeff1000 -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 13:45
Don't display callous and willful ignorance and call it even-handedness. The Guardian's "credible"
account offers no sources, agrees with none of the available pictorial or video evidence and is
rampant apologism.
I posted videos - including raw CCTV footage of the starting of the fire, further up the page.
BunglyPete -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:40
I saw that guy's post it was fantastic, very well sourced and thorough. The comments on here
were a different kettle of fish entirely back then.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:39
The attempt to re-package this event as some awful conglomeration of circumstances spurred
on by the cruelty of fate is sickening. We reduce the death of at least 50 people down so that
calling it a "massacre" becomes needlessly emotive. We casually refer to the pro-Ukrainians as
"football fans" to make it seem innocent - when Ukrainian football fans known as "Ultras" are
famours for 2 things: Being neo-Nazis, and being violent thugs.
Look at this video especially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAEcceedzCU
It's really very simple - candid videos at the time made it clear.
1. Pro-Russian groups were attacked by Ukrainian "ultras". They sought shelter in the Trade
Union building.
2. The building was set on fire when the Ultras threw molotovs through the windows. The doors
were barred.
3. People attempting to climb out of the windows were shot at, if they jumped they were beaten
as they lay on the ground.
4. Ukrainian nationalists deliberately blockaded the streets to inhibit the progress of ambulances
and fire engines.
Only a week after The Odessa Massacre an american CiFer, ex-marine, has gathered links, sieved
through hours and hours of video - he, practically, has done what the journos were supposed to
do, - to prove the Guardian, BBC and the rest were trying hard to whitewash the atrocity. Check
his posts: Additional proof that the BBC and the mainstream Western press lied when they said
both sides threw the molotov's.
I looked for 5 hours searching for one video that showed anyone in the building throwing a
molotov cocktail as the BBC first reported and the rest of the MSM went along with. I could not
find a single one. They claimed a person named Sergei (what are the odds of that) told them a
person threw the molotov inside the building and didn't realize the window was closed. This is
absolutely ludicrous and an example of the pathetic reporting that passes for "news" these days.
I did find the video of the third floor fire starting. It is at the following link and runs
consecutively. You'll notice at exactly the 2 minute mark the camera zooms in on the window where
the fire begins. You'll also notice that at the 2:02 mark you see an additional molotov cocktail
just miss the window. This is strong evidence that the window was being targeted by individuals
on the ground. Prior to this fire starting there is no other fire on the third floor, therefore
this is most likely the cause of the third floor fire and lends credence to the fact that the
violent youth below burned those people alive.
And not just "Russian state-owned media" - also most of the Russian privately owned media,
and most of the world media (and even some of the western media).
I believe I saw a chinadaily calling it Kristallnacht.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:16
Russian state-owned media characterised the day's events as a "massacre" planned by "fascists"
in Kiev, a narrative that has gained widespread traction.
Mostly because it's a pretty fitting description of what happened.
Its not hard truk. Those red armbands that the so called pro Russian provocatores wore? Are
actually the same red armbands Right sector militia was wearing during the most violent Maidan
clashes. You can identify some of the same protagonists wearing the same armband in both Odesaa
and Maidan!
vr13vr -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:07
Idiot. Nobody is laughing. Especially when 50 people died. Look at this video and see how Ukrainians
entered the supposedly "heavily defended" building. You will see them operating inside, you will
see them existing the building after it started burning from inside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg
Look at 23 min mark - they are entering the building with no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
Yes, Ukrainians overrun the building, including the roof. The photographs suggest that people
in the building where set afire while still alive.
You must be an idiot to say someone is laughing at this.
castorsia -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:02
No. They burned them. Check the photographic evidence.
PlatonKuzin -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:58
Armored vehicles and special riot forces were brought today in Odessa to prevent possible unrest
there.
WHYNOPASSWORD12 -> Havingalavrov 1 May 2015 12:56
Plenty of witnesses point out that these were pro-ukraine provacateurs sent up to stir up trouble.
They are wearing the same red armbands worn by a group who started the skirmishes earlier in the
town centre. They were part of the group bussed-in under the guise of football supporters.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 12:55
Hi turk10,
I understand your confusion. Luckily, Mr. Christof Lehmann investigated it all for you. Seek and
ye shall find. Use google.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:50
Sure, Kiev views burning alive almost 50 people as a "victory." They even allowed to install
fear in the city. Since then the city is totally subdued, people would be afraid to even discuss
the events or think of any peaceful opposition as they are aware of the potential response from
Kiev's supporters.
Nice job Guardian trying to whitewash the events and justify the cold blooded murder by some
street fights elsewhere in the city, events that were taking place all over the country those
days.
Jeremn -> oleteo 1 May 2015 12:40
No greater cynics than western politicians, who certainly don't mourn this heavenly half-hundred,
or come to lay flowers at the scene of their death.
No greater cynic than the Czech envoy, Bartuska, who said:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men.
If they [independence supporters] are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were
simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side
of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
ID5868758 1 May 2015 12:18
Another despicable attempt to paint a false equivalency, to assign blame for this massacre,
for their own deaths, on those who perished. Take the Molotov cocktail throwing, for instance.
I watched the videos of those Molotov cocktails being made, pretty little pro-Ukrainian girls
sitting on the ground with their assembly line all set up, smiling as they made those instruments
of death and handed them out, now just where did those supplies come from, who thought to bring
bottles and rags and fuel to an event if it was innocent in nature?
And where would those innocent victims chased inside the building get Molotov cocktails to
throw from inside the building, when they were interested only in escaping the smoke and flames,
saving their own lives? The narrative doesn't match the evidence, but neither does it pass the
smell test, pretty SOP for western media reporting on Ukraine.
StillHaveLinkYouHate -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:56
The difference is that Nazis want to murder people for the accident of how they were born.
Extreme natinalists will want to murder anybody who does not behave in the perverted way they
feel a patriot should.
That is the difference. Praviy sektor are nazis, incidentally.
It makes the point already made below in this comment thread:
I invite people to imagine how the British media would have reported this massacre if roles
had been reversed and if it had been Maidan supporters who were burnt alive in the Trade Union
building with an anti Maidan crowd filmed throwing Molotov cocktails into the building whilst
baying for blood outside.
Indeed.
GreatCthulhu -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 11:45
Many of them not locals.
I thought the article was pretty clear that everyone on both sides were local. I speak, of
course s an Irish man who doesn't regard hating Russians/ people who identify with Russia who
aren't Russians but live nearby as a default position before beginning any debate.
There are a small minority of Irish people, living in the Republic (I am not referring to the
northern Unionist Community here), who identify with Britain often to the point that they express
regret that Ireland ever left the UK. I don't agree with them, but I would not set them on fire
in a building. For that matter, it is ARGUABLE (I am not saying whether that argument is right
or wrong- just that you could put forward the thesis) that the N.I state-let is something of an
Irish Donbass. No justification for Ireland shelling the crap out of it though... at all... that
sort of stuff is kind of regarded as savagery here these days.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:43
Hi turk10,
what's wrong with calling them 'nazis'? The guardian piece identifies them as "extreme nationalists",
and isn't it the same thing as 'neo-nazis' or 'nazis'?
Is there some nuance I'm missing here? What would you call them?
BorninUkraine -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:38
So you object to calling a spade a spade? Typical pro-US position in Ukrainian crisis. What
do you call the insignia of, for example, Azov battalion (see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion ). If that's not Nazi insignia, I don't know what
is.
I am simply saying that those who organized Odessa massacre, then Mariupol massacre, then fueled
the war in Donbass, including Poroshenko, Turchinov, Yats, etc, are Nazis.
The simple reason for that conclusion is, as the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, if
it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck". If you prefer Christian version
of the same thing, see Mathew 7:16 "you will know them by their fruits".
To sum it up, if someone behaves like a Nazi, s/he is a Nazi. Is this clear enough?
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 11:28
A pro-Russia activist aims a pistol at supporters of the Kiev government during clashes
in the streets of Odessa, 2 May 2014.
How do we know that the guy is pro-Russian? Does the picture show what he is aiming at? Does
he have a sign on his forehead burned in saying "I am pro-Russian and I am going to shoot that
pro-Ukrainian bastard"? No, he does not. We are expected to assume that because the caption says
so - but captions to pictures aren't evidence. Anybody can put any caption to any picture, and
it's been done many a time.
The head of the local pro-Ukraine Maidan self-defence group, Dmitry Gumenyuk, recalled the
effect of the homemade grenades. . . they threw a grenade and it exploded under his bullet-proof
vest and four nails entered his lungs," he said.
Such peaceful people - going for a nice in the park walk in bullet-proof vests. They were going
to destroy that camp and not on the agreement with the activists in that camp, as Guardian states
(complete BS) but violently, which they did. Even if they were attacked, what did women in the
camp have to do with it?
Come on, people, even in the face of such a tragedy, is it so absolutely necessary to hush up
the truth all the time?
BorninUkraine -> caliento 1 May 2015 11:24
There is a Ukrainian joke. Russians ask:
- If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
- We aren't that stupid, there are Russian troops there.
- But you say there are Russian troops in Donbass?
- That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
castorsia 1 May 2015 11:21
The Guardian continues to misrepresent the Odesa massacre by reporting claims by the official
Ukrainian investigation and the Odesa governor created May 2 group that the deadly fire started
when both sided were throwing Molotov cocktails. The videos and other evidence showing that the
fire started after the Molotov cocktails and tires were thrown by the attackers are deliberately
omitted.
Open question to you all: What would be in the headlines if scores of "Pro-Ukrainian activists
" were being burned, hacked, mauled, shot and raperd to death by Donetsk rebels or their supporters?
BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 11:20
There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad,
but true.
In this article Howard Amos pretends that he believes that both sides were to blame for the
mass murder of anti-fascists by pro-Maidan thugs in Odessa on May 2, 2014. That's like saying
that both the Nazis and the inmates of concentration camps were equally guilty.
This lie is so outrageous, and so far from reality, that it does not even deserve an argument.
The readers who want to know the truth can do Google search using "Odessa massacre 2014" and read
for themselves.
The lie that the Guardian repeats after Kyiv "government" looks even less plausible now, as
Odessa massacre was followed by the massacre of civilians by Nazi thugs in Mariupol a few days
later (change Odessa to Mariupol in your Google search), and the murder of thousands of civilians
in Donbass, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans, by the Ukrainian army and
Nazi battalions.
I grew up in the USSR, but I have never read a lie so obvious and outrageous in the Soviet
media. Congratulations on a new low!
coffeegirl aussiereader4 1 May 2015 11:11
Sounds like you know little about what happened in Odessa.
The best compilation of any available material was done on May 8, 2014 by our fellow CiFer
US ex-marine griffin alabama:
You like to cite Strelkov, don't you, when it suits your purpose? If he is such an authority
for you, why don't you cite everything he says? Among other things, he said that Maidan was not
a popular uprising but a pure decoration for the coup organized by the right wing groups and funded
by oligarchs together with the foreign agents? You can watch this here
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/must-watch-strelkov-vs-starikov-debate.html
greatwhitehunter caliento 1 May 2015 11:08
you would no if you followed events the idea of peace keepers was supported by Russia, the
separatists and a good many other countries right from the start of the conflict . It was not
however supported by the kiev government or the US. Peace keepers were offered to Ukraine right
up until 4 days before the Minsk agreement.
Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. There belated cries for
peace keepers only came after getting an a*& kicking.
kiev signed the minsk agreement which requires them to deal with the issues peace keepers would
be a way out for them. Usa by their actions does not support the Minsk agreement.
Poroshenko,s idea of peace keepers was a few kiev friendly states to send weapons and troups
to bolster their ranks.
An offer was made via the UN security council for a peace keeping force that included china
and new zealand and poroshenko stated that ukraine didn't needed china and new Zealand's help,
as it turned out they did.
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 10:54
Oh Guardian, Guardian. Both are to blame, heroism on both sides - in short, they burned themselves.
We've heard that before. But then the article goes on and tells you that the movement they for
some reason call "pro-Russian", although its not pro-Russia as much as it's anti-fascist, is essentially
eliminated, with all leaders in jail or in exile. In contrast,
None of the pro-Ukraine activists have been put on trial
Kind of tells you what actually happened, doesn't it?
Activists from both sides admit that the port city remains divided into two approximately
matched camps
No, they aren't matched. The Odessa residents are mostly anti-Maidan. The city is flooded with
newcomers from the western Ukraine, and they the main supporters of Kiev. Otherwise, why would
Kiev deploy half of the army to Odessa before the May holidays?
Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city'
liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass".
So much for "matched camps". Of course, if you put everybody of the opposing view in jail of
kill them, you can sort of achieve a "match".
Elena Hodgson 1 May 2015 10:50
This was a massacre. Period.
Hanwell123 1 May 2015 10:48
Ukraine is a gangster state where if activists aren't arrested then they are shot; 6 prominent
figures shot this year alone. No arrests. It's supported to the hilt by the EU who shell out enormous
sums to keep it from bankruptcy.
nnedjo 1 May 2015 08:42
This is the news from the Ukraine crisis Media Center:
Odesa, April 27, 2015 Vitaly Kozhukhar, coordinator of the Self-Defense of Odesa, Varvara
Chernoivanenko, a spokesman for the Right Sector of Odesa held a briefing on the topic: "May
2 this year in Odesa. How a single headquarters of the patriotic forces preparing to hold a
day of mourning for those killed in the city"...
Varvara Chernoivanenko said that for all patriots of Ukraine is important that May 2 was peaceful
day. Patriotic forces create patrols that will keep order in the area of Cathedral Square,
which will host a memorial meeting for all those, who died on 2 May. They will make every effort
to ensure peace and order. Already, the city has operational headquarters of the patriotic
forces. Their representatives will stop all provocations. At the same time, according to Varvara
Chernoivanenko, on their part will not be any aggression.
Thus, the "patriotic forces", which I suppose are responsible for burning people alive in the
building of Trade Unions in Odessa, will now protect those who survived and who should hold the
memorial service for their relatives and friends, victims of Odessa massacre. The only question
is, from whom they should protect them?
I mean, this lady from the Right Sector boasts that they organized patrols of its members all
over the city. Well, you can bet that in these patrols will be at least some, if not all of those
who threw Molotov cocktails at the building of trade unions, and beaten with clubs or even shot
at those who tried to escape from the fire. Because, as this article shows, none of them has even
been charged, let alone be convicted of that crime.
So, can we then conclude that the executioners of the victims of the Odessa massacre will now
provide protection to those who mourn the victims, which is a paradox of its kind.
And how these patrols of "patriotic forces" operating in reality, you can watch in this video,
which was filmed during the visit of Poroshenko in Odessa, on the day of the celebration of liberation
of the city in WWII, 10 April. At the beginning of the film, the guys from "Patriotic patrol"
argue with a group of anti-fascists, demanding that they reject one of their flag. And then at
one point (0:31 of the video), one of these guys from patrol says:
"Didn't burn enough of you, eh?"
MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 07:45
Ah, of course: both sides are to blame, because before the massacre an extreme nationalist
militant died, under circumstanced unknown (shot in self-defense, perhaps? who knows).
Nice.
a pro-Ukraine member of the extreme nationalist organisation
Even nicer: 'pro-Ukraine extreme nationalist'. Pro-Ukraine? Which kind of Ukraine?
I find that one of the most misleading elements in these west-interpreted stories is "pro-Russian"
and "pro-Ukrainian" labels.
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav
Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men.
If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death,
or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything
will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to
be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.
6i9vern 1 May 2015 07:43
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav
Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed
men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to
death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road,
everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to
be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.
Vladimir Makarenko Celtiberico 1 May 2015 06:20
They took it from Odessa being a symbol of Black Sea and a while ago a Russian poet said: Chernoe
More - Vor na Vore.
Black Sea - a thief by thief.
normankirk 1 May 2015 06:14
This is a shameless attempt to whitewash a massacre.There is plenty of evidence on you tube
Every one has cell phones which can record events as they unfold. This is why the American police
can no longer get away with murder. The European parliament held a hearing in Brussels to hear
the Odessa survivors. there was a concerted effort from Maidan activists from Kiev to shut down
the survivors testimony. A Europarliament deputy from the Czech republic Miroslav said "This is
simply shocking. this is an evidence of fascism not being disappeared from European countries.He
blamed Parubiy, co founder of far right Svoboda party and Kolomoisky, paymaster of neo nazi militia
for the massacre at Odessa. All this is recorded. Ignorance can no longer be a defence
ID075732 1 May 2015 05:53
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following, famous text by Pastor Martin Niemoller
about the cowardice of intellectuals following the Nazis':
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
It's time for the MSM to realise that the same is happening Ukraine - for which the Odessa
massacre is a warning. It's time they stopped playing intellectual games to prop up what is a
fascist regime in Kiev.
BunglyPete 1 May 2015 05:48
Just in case those involved in the production of this article do read or hear of these comments..
Do you not realise we have Google and Youtube now? You can verify anything within a few keystrokes.
You do not need to rely on the evil Russian media, you can watch the eyewitness videos yourself.
I mean this seriously, if you are going to attempt to prove something then at least realise
that you will need to go to more lengths to do so. In the context of the greater 'propaganda war',
articles like this are nonsensical, as you merely serve to discredit yourself, and encourage people
to move to alternative media sources.
If you want to discredit the Russian narrative then discredit it, don't write things that discredit
your own narrative.
You don't need to bill me for this advice it comes for free.
SHappens 1 May 2015 04:30
Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to
cover up high-level complicity.
At the beginning of the unrest, the most virulent reaction came from supporters of Ukrainian
football clubs. But they were soon joined by a well-organized gang of self-defense that came in
a column of about 100 people dressed in military fatigues and relatively well equipped.
Members of the Ukrainian security forces withdrew from the scene allowing the rightwing radicals
to block the exits and firebomb the building forcing many to jump from open windows to the pavement
below where they died on impact. The few who survived the fall were savagely beaten with clubs
and chains by the nearly 300 extremist thugs who had gathered on the street.
Street fighting thugs don't typically waste their time barricading exits unless it is part
of a plan, a plan to create a big-enough incident to change the narrative of what is going on
in the country. None of the victims of the tragedy were armed.
This isn't the first time the US has tried to pull something like this off. In 2006, the Bush
administration used a similar tactic in Iraq. That's when Samarra's Golden Dome Mosque was blown
up in an effort to change the public's perception of the conflict from an armed struggle against
foreign occupation into a civil war.
So who authorized the attack on Odessa's Trade Unions House? Could it be that the Ukrainian
Security Services were supervised by some external mercenaries just like the Oluja blitzkrieg
in Croatia back in 1995 when the Croatian National Guard was then supervised and managed by MPRI,
an US SMP based in Virginia? Because in Kiev, dozens of specialists from the US CIA and FBI were
advising the Ukrainian government helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set
up a functioning security structure. (report, AFP).
Whatever and if ever an inquiry succeeds, fact is that the government in Kiev bears direct
responsibility, and is complicit in these criminal activities for they allowed extremists and
radicals to burn unarmed people alive.
warehouse_guy 1 May 2015 04:30
Tatyana Gerasimova also says the case is getting killed off in court, put that on your headline.
alpykog 1 May 2015 04:30
Nothing unusual about police, army and terrorists working together. I remember the British
army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through
Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. Try not to feel "holier than thou" when
you read this stuff.
ID075732 1 May 2015 04:23
Rumours swirl of a higher death toll, the use of poisonous gas and the body of a pregnant
woman garrotted by pro-Ukraine fanatics.
Clearly the author has not watched the footage filmed inside the building after the massacre
- this was no "swirling rumour". Clearly the footage wasn't faked either. It showed may murdered
victims with burns to their heads and arms with bodies and clothes unscorched, not caused by the
actual fire.
Also those that have studied the many videos available of the unfolding events saw a much more
an orchestrated attack on the Trade Union building with fires breaking out in rooms further away
from the seat of the original fire. Also two masked figures on the roof before the fire started
in the building.
Reports that the exits were blocked and a number of masked pro-Ukrainians were inside the building
not just on the roof, don't figure in this report.
ploughmanlunch 1 May 2015 03:41
'While many pro-Ukraine activists helped the rescue effort, others punched, kicked and beat
those who fled the burning building. "There was blood and water all over the courtyard," said
Elena, who escaped via a fireman's ladder. "They were shouting 'on your knees, on your knees'."
This sums up, in my opinion, the whole sordid mess that is present Ukraine.
The majority of ordinary Ukrainians living under the authority of Kiev will broadly agree with
their Government, but are civilised and are probably horrified by the violence perpetrated by
both sides in the war.
Unfortunately, however, there is a significant minority of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists
that readily resort to violence and intimidation and revile Russian speaking 'separatists' in
the Donbas ( and elsewhere ).
Even more unfortunately, the fanatical far right have a disproportionate influence in the Kiev
Parliament and even the Government; a fact conveniently overlooked by the incredibly indulgent
Western powers. The present Kiev regime is blatantly anti-democratic and lacks any humanitarian
concern for the desperate plight of citizens still living in Donbas, ( unpaid pensions, economic
and humanitarian blockade ).
This crisis still has a long way to go, and I believe has not yet reached it's nadir. A brighter
future for all the people of Ukraine will require unbiased and honest involvement of the great
powers, East and West.
Geo kosmopolitenko 1 May 2015 03:22
Some spin doctors in Washington would sarcastically smile if they ever read this sadly tragic
article.
Kiselev 1 May 2015 03:20
Symbol of separated Ukrainian society...
Whatever western Ukrainians told us.
Exclusive: The "f-word" for "fascist" keeps cropping up in discussing aggressive
U.S. and Israeli "exceptionalism," but there's a distinction from the "n-word" for "Nazi." This new
form of ignoring international law fits more with an older form of German authoritarianism favored
by neocon icon Leo Strauss, says retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.
With the Likud Party electoral victory in Israel, the Republican Party is on a roll, having won
two major elections in a row. The first was winning control of the U.S. Congress last fall. The second
is the victory by the Republicans' de facto party leader Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel's recent election.
As the Israeli Prime Minister puts together a coalition with other parties "in the national camp,"
as he describes them, meaning the ultra-nationalist parties of Israel, it will be a coalition that
today's Republicans would feel right at home in.
The common thread linking Republicans and Netanyahu's "national camp" is a belief of each in their
own country's "exceptionalism," with a consequent right of military intervention wherever and whenever
their "Commander in Chief" orders it, as well as the need for oppressive laws to suppress dissent.
Leo Strauss, an intellectual bridge between Germany's inter-war Conservative
Revolutionaries and today's American neoconservatives.
William Kristol, neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard, would agree. Celebrating Netanyahu's
victory, Kristol
told the New York Times, "It will strengthen the hawkish types in the Republican Party." Kristol
added that Netanyahu would win the GOP's nomination, if he could run, because "Republican primary
voters are at least as hawkish as the Israeli public."
The loser in both the Israeli and U.S. elections was the rule of law and real democracy, not the
sham democracy presented for public relations purposes in both counties. In both countries today,
money controls elections, and as Michael Glennon has written in National Security and Double
Government, real power is in the hands of the national security apparatus.
Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership role in the U.S. Congress was on full display to the world when
he accepted House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to address Congress. Showing their eagerness
to be part of any political coalition being formed under Netanyahu's leadership, many Congressional
Democrats also showed their support by attending the speech.
It was left to Israeli Uri Avnery to best capture the spirit of Netanyahu's enthusiastic ideological
supporters in Congress. Avnery wrote that he was reminded of something when seeing "Row upon row
of men in suits (and the occasional woman), jumping up and down, up and down, applauding wildly,
shouting approval."
Where had he heard that type of shouting before? Then it came to him: "It was another parliament
in the mid-1930s. The Leader was speaking. Rows upon rows of Reichstag members were listening raptly.
Every few minutes they jumped up and shouted their approval."
He added, "the Congress of the United States of America is no Reichstag. Members wear dark suits,
not brown shirts. They do not shout 'Heil' but something unintelligible." Nevertheless, "the sound
of the shouting had the same effect. Rather shocking."
Right-wing Politics in Pre-Nazi Germany
While Avnery's analogy of how Congress responded to its de facto leader was apt, it isn't necessary
to go to the extreme example that he uses to analogize today's right-wing U.S. and Israeli parties
and policy to an earlier German precedent. Instead, it is sufficient to note how
similar the right-wing parties of Israel and the U.S. of today are to what was known in 1920s Weimar
Germany as the Conservative Revolutionary Movement.
This "movement" did not include the Nazis but instead the Nazis were political competitors with
the party which largely represented Conservative Revolutionary ideas: the German National People's
Party (DNVP).
The institution to which the Conservative Revolutionaries saw as best representing German "values,"
the Reichswehr, the German Army, was also opposed by the Nazis as "competitors" to Ernst Rohm's Brownshirts.
But the Conservative Revolutionary Movement, the DNVP, and the German Army could all be characterized
as "proto-fascist," if not Fascist. In fact, when the Nazis took over Germany, it was with the support
of many of the proto-fascists making up the Conservative Revolutionary Movement, as well as those
with the DNVP and the Reichswehr.
Consequently, many of the Reichstag members that Uri Avnery refers to above as listening raptly
and jumping up and shouting their approval of "The Leader" were not Nazis. The Nazis had failed to
obtain an absolute majority on their own and needed the votes of the "national camp," primarily the
German National People's Party (DNVP), for a Reichstag majority.
The DNVP members would have been cheering The Leader right alongside Nazi members of the Reichstag.
DNVP members also voted along with Nazi members in passing the Enabling Act of 1933, which abolished
constitutional liberties and dissolved the Reichstag.
Not enough has been written on the German Conservative Revolutionary Movement , the DNVP and the
Reichswehr because they have too often been seen as victims of the Nazis themselves or, at worst,
mere precursors.
The DNVP was the political party which best represented the viewpoint of the German Conservative
Revolutionary Movement. The Reichswehr itself, as described in The Nemesis of Power by John
W. Wheeler-Bennett, has been called a "state within a state," much like the intelligence and security
services of the U.S. and Israel are today, wielding extraordinary powers.
The Reichswehr was militaristic and anti-democratic in its purest form and indeed was "fascist"
in the term's classic definition of "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government
and social organization." Mussolini merely modeled much of his hyper-militaristic political movement
on the martial values of the Reichswehr.
German Army officers even had authority to punish civilians for failing to show "proper respect."
In its essence, the viewpoint of the DNVP and the Conservative Revolutionaries was virtually identical
to today's Republican Party along with those Democrats who align with them on national security issues.
These groups have in common a worshipful attitude toward the military as best embodying those
martial virtues that are central to fascism. Sister parties, though they may all prefer to be seen
as "brothers in arms," would be Netanyahu's "national camp" parties.
German Conservative Revolutionary Movement
The Conservative Revolutionary Movement began within the German Right after World War I with a
number of writers advocating a nationalist ideology but one in keeping with modern times and not
restricted by traditional Prussian conservatism.
It must be noted that Prussian conservatism, standing for militaristic ideas traditional to Prussia,
was the antithesis of traditional American conservatism, which professed to stand for upholding the
classical liberal ideas of government embedded in the U.S. Constitution.
Inherent to those U.S. constitutional ideas was antipathy toward militarism and militaristic rule
of any sort, though Native Americans have good cause to disagree. (In fact, stories of the American
conquest of Native Americans with its solution of placing them on reservations were particularly
popular in Germany early in the Twentieth Century including with Adolf Hitler).
Historians have noted that when the German Army went to war in World War I, the soldiers and officers
carried with them "a shared sense of German superiority and the imagined bestiality of the enemy."
This was manifested particularly harshly upon the citizens of Belgium in 1914 with the German occupation.
Later, after their experience in the trenches, the Reichswehr was nearly as harsh in suppressing
domestic dissent in Germany after the war.
According to Richard Wolin, in The Seduction of Unreason, Ernst Troeltsch, a German Protestant
theologian, "realized that in the course of World War I the ethos of Germanocentrism, as embodied
in the 'ideas of 1914,' had assumed a heightened stridency." Under the peace of the Versailles Treaty,
"instead of muting the idiom of German exceptionalism that Troeltsch viewed with such mistrust, it
seemed only to fan its flames."
This belief in German "exceptionalism" was the common belief of German Conservative Revolutionaries,
the DNVP and the Reichswehr. For Republicans of today and those who share their ideological belief,
substitute "American" for "German" Exceptionalism and you have the identical ideology.
"Exceptionalism" in the sense of a nation can be understood in two ways. One is a belief in the
nation's superiority to others. The other way is the belief that the "exceptional" nation stands
above the law, similar to the claim made by dictators in declaring martial law or a state of emergency.
The U.S. and Israel exhibit both forms of this belief.
German Exceptionalism
The belief in German Exceptionalism was the starting point, not the ending point, for the Conservative
Revolutionaries just as it is with today's Republicans such as Sen. Tom Cotton or Sen. Lindsey Graham.
This Exceptionalist ideology gives the nation the right to interfere in other country's internal
affairs for whatever reason the "exceptional" country deems necessary, such as desiring more living
space for their population, fearing the potential of some future security threat, or even just by
denying the "exceptional" country access within its borders - or a "denial of access threat" as the
U.S. government terms it.
The fundamental ideas of the Conservative Revolutionaries have been described as vehement opposition
to the Weimar Republic (identifying it with the lost war and the Versailles Treaty) and political
"liberalism" (as opposed to Prussia's traditional authoritarianism).
This "liberalism," which offended the Conservative Revolutionaries, was democracy and individual
rights against state power. Instead, the Conservative Revolutionaries envisaged a new reich of enormous
strength and unity. They rejected the view that political action should be guided by rational criteria.
They idealized violence for its own sake.
That idealization of violence would have meant "state" violence in the form of military expansionism
and suppression of "enemies," domestic and foreign, by right-thinking Germans.
The Conservative Revolutionaries called for a "primacy of politics" which was to be "a reassertion
of an expansion in foreign policy and repression against the trade unions at home." This "primacy
of politics" for the Conservative Revolutionaries meant the erasure of a distinction between war
and politics.
Citing Hannah Arendt, Jeffrey Herf, a professor of modern European history, wrote: "The explicit
implications of the primacy of politics in the conservative revolution were totalitarian. From now
on there were to be no limits to ideological politics. The utilitarian and humanistic considerations
of nineteenth-century liberalism were to be abandoned in order to establish a state of constant dynamism
and movement." That sounds a lot like the "creative destruction" that neoconservative theorist Michael
Ledeen is so fond of.
Herf wrote in 1984 that Conservative Revolutionaries were characterized as "the intellectual advance
guard of the rightist revolution that was to be effected in 1933," which, although contemptuous of
Hitler, "did much to pave his road to power."
Unlike the Nazis, their belief in German superiority was based in historical traditions and ideas,
not biological racism. Nevertheless, some saw German Jews as the "enemy" of Germany for being "incompatible
with a united nation."
It is one of the bitterest of ironies that Israel as a "Jewish nation" has adopted similar attitudes
toward its Arab citizens. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman recently proclaimed: "Those
who are with us deserve everything, but those who are against us deserve to have their heads chopped
off with an axe."
Within Israel, these "Conservative Revolutionary" ideas were manifested in one of their founding
political parties, Herut, whose founders came out of the same central European political milieu of
interwar Europe and from which Netanyahu's Likud party is descended.
Ernst Junger
Author Ernst Junger was the most important contributor to the celebration of war by the Conservative
Revolutionaries and was an influence and an enabler of the Nazis coming to power. He serialized his
celebration of war and his belief in its "redeeming" qualities in a number of popular books with
"war porn" titles such as, in English, The Storm of Steel, The Battle as an Inner Experience,
and Fire and Blood.
The title of a collection of Junger essays in 1930, Krieg und Krieger (War and the Warriors)
captures the spirit of America in the Twenty-first Century as much as it did the German spirit in
1930. While members of the U.S. military once went by terms such as soldier, sailor and marine, now
they are routinely generically called "Warriors," especially by the highest ranks, a term never before
used to describe what were once "citizen soldiers."
Putting a book with a "Warrior" title out on the shelf in a Barnes and Noble would almost guarantee
a best-seller, even when competing with all the U.S. SEALS' reminiscences and American sniper stories.
But German philosopher Walter Benjamin understood the meaning of Junger's Krieg und Krieger,
explaining it in the appropriately titled Theories of German Fascism.
Fundamental to Junger's celebration of war was a metaphysical belief in "totale Mobilmachung"
or total mobilization to describe the functioning of a society that fully grasps the meaning of war.
With World War I, Junger saw the battlefield as the scene of struggle "for life and death," pushing
all historical and political considerations aside. But he saw in the war the fact that "in it the
genius of war permeated the spirit of progress."
According to Jeffrey Herf in Reactionary Modernism, Junger saw total mobilization as
"a worldwide trend toward state-directed mobilization in which individual freedom would be sacrificed
to the demands of authoritarian planning." Welcoming this, Junger believed "that different currents
of energy were coalescing into one powerful torrent. The era of total mobilization would bring about
an 'unleashing' (Entfesselung) of a nevertheless disciplined life."
In practical terms, Junger's metaphysical view of war meant that Germany had lost World War I
because its economic and technological mobilization had only been partial and not total. He lamented
that Germany had been unable to place the "spirit of the age" in the service of nationalism. Consequently,
he believed that "bourgeois legality," which placed restrictions on the powers of the authoritarian
state, "must be abolished in order to liberate technological advance."
Today, total mobilization for the U.S. begins with the Republicans' budgeting efforts to strip
away funding for domestic civilian uses and shifting it to military and intelligence spending. Army
veteran, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, exemplifies this belief in "total mobilization" of society
with his calls for dramatically increased military spending and his belief that "We must again show
the U.S. is willing and prepared to [get into] a war in the first place" by making clear that potential
"aggressors will pay an unspeakable price if they challenge the United States."
That is the true purpose of Twenty-first Century Republican economics: total mobilization of the
economy for war. Just as defeated German generals and the Conservative Revolutionaries believed that
Germany lost World War I because their economy and nation was only "partially mobilized," so too
did many American Vietnam War-era generals and right-wing politicians believe the same of the Vietnam
War. Retired Gen. David Petraeus and today's neoconservatives have made similar arguments about President
Barack Obama's failure to sustain the Iraq War. [See, for instance, this fawning Washington Post
interview with Petraeus.]
What all these militarists failed to understand is that, according to Clausewitz, when a war's
costs exceed its benefits, the sound strategy is to end the costly war. The Germans failed to understand
this in World War II and the Soviet Union in their Afghan War.
Paradoxically in the Vietnam War, it was the anti-war movement that enhanced U.S. strength by
bringing that wasteful war to an end, not the American militarists who would have continued it to
a bitter end of economic collapse. We are now seeing a similar debate about whether to continue and
expand U.S. military operations across the Middle East.
Carl Schmitt
While Ernst Junger was the celebrant and the publicist for total mobilization of society for endless
war, including the need for authoritarian government, Carl Schmitt was the ideological theoretician,
both legally and politically, who helped bring about the totalitarian and militaristic society. Except
when it happened, it came under different ownership than what they had hoped and planned for.
Contrary to Schmitt's latter-day apologists and/or advocates, who include prominent law professors
teaching at Harvard and the University of Chicago, his legal writings weren't about preserving the
Weimar Republic against its totalitarian enemies, the Communists and Nazis. Rather, he worked on
behalf of a rival fascist faction, members of the German Army General Staff. He acted as a legal
adviser to General Kurt von Schleicher, who in turn advised President Paul von Hindenburg, former
Chief of the German General Staff during World War I.
German historian Eberhard Kolb observed,
"from the mid-1920s onwards the Army leaders had developed and propagated new social conceptions
of a militarist kind, tending towards a fusion of the military and civilian sectors and ultimately
a totalitarian military state (Wehrstaat)."
When General Schleicher helped bring about the political fall of Reichswehr Commander in Chief,
General von Seekt, it was a "triumph of the 'modern' faction within the Reichswehr who favored a
total war ideology and wanted Germany to become a dictatorship that would wage total war upon the
other nations of Europe," according to Kolb.
When Hitler and the Nazis outmaneuvered the Army politically, Schmitt, as well as most other Conservative
Revolutionaries, went over to the Nazis.
Reading Schmitt gives one a greater understanding of the Conservative Revolutionary's call for
a "primacy of politics," explained previously as "a reassertion of an expansion in foreign policy."
Schmitt said: "A world in which the possibility of war is utterly eliminated, a completely pacified
globe, would be a world without the distinction of friend and enemy and hence a world without politics.
It is conceivable that such a world might contain many very interesting antitheses and contrasts,
competitions and intrigues of every kind, but there would not be a meaningful antithesis whereby
men could be required to sacrifice life, authorized to shed blood, and kill other human beings. For
the definition of the political, it is here even irrelevant whether such a world without politics
is desirable as an ideal situation."
As evident in this statement, to Schmitt, the norm isn't peace, nor is peace even desirable, but
rather perpetual war is the natural and preferable condition.
This dream of a Martial State is not isolated to German history. A Republican aligned neoconservative,
Thomas Sowell, expressed the same longing in 2007 in a National Review article, "Don't Get Weak."
Sowell wrote; "When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our
educators,
and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can
save this country is a military coup."
Leo Strauss, Conservative Revolutionaries and Republicans
Political philosopher Leo Strauss had yearned for the glorious German Conservative Revolution
but was despondent when it took the form of the Nazi Third Reich, from which he was excluded because
he was Jewish regardless of his fascist ideology.
He wrote to a German Jewish friend, Karl Loewith: "the fact that the new right-wing Germany does
not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the
principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible
with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles
de l'homme [inalienable rights of man] to protest against the shabby abomination."
Strauss was in agreement politically with Schmitt, and they were close friends.
Professor Alan Gilbert of Denver University has written: "As a Jew, Strauss was forbidden from
following Schmitt and [German philosopher Martin] Heidegger into the Nazi party. 'But he was a man
of the Right. Like some other Zionists, those who admired Mussolini for instance, Strauss' principles,
as the 1933 letter relates, were 'fascist, authoritarian, imperial.'"
Strauss was intelligent enough when he arrived in the U.S. to disguise and channel his fascist
thought by going back to like-minded "ancient" philosophers and thereby presenting fascism as part
of our "western heritage," just as the current neocon classicist Victor Davis Hanson does.
Needless to say, fascism is built on the belief in a dictator, as was Sparta and the Roman Empire
and as propounded by Socrates and Plato, so turning to the thought of ancient philosophers and historians
makes a good "cover" for fascist thought.
Leo Strauss must be seen as the Godfather of the modern Republican Party's political ideology.
His legacy continues now through the innumerable "Neoconservative Revolutionary" front groups with
cover names frequently invoking "democracy" or "security," such as Sen. Lindsey Graham's "Security
Through Strength."
Typifying the Straussian neoconservative revolutionary whose hunger for military aggression can
never be satiated would be former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame
and practitioner of the "big lie," who returned to government under President George W. Bush to push
the Iraq War and is currently promoting a U.S. war against Iran.
In a classic example of "projection," Abrams writes that "Ideology is the raison d'etre of Iran's
regime, legitimating its rule and inspiring its leaders and their supporters. In this sense, it is
akin to communist, fascist and Nazi regimes that set out to transform the world." That can as truthfully
be said of his own Neoconservative Revolutionary ideology and its adherents.
That ideology explains Bill Kristol's crowing over Netanyahu's victory and claiming Netanyahu
as the Republicans' de facto leader. For years, the U.S. and Israel under Netanyahu have had nearly
identical foreign policy approaches though they are at the moment in some disagreement because President
Obama has resisted war with Iran while Netanyahu is essentially demanding it.
But at a deeper level the two countries share a common outlook, calling for continuous military
interventionism outside each country's borders with increased exercise of authority by the military
and other security services within their borders. This is no accident. It can be traced back to joint
right-wing extremist efforts in both countries with American neoconservatives playing key roles.
The best example of this joint effort was when U.S. neocons joined with the right-wing, Likud-connected
Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in 1996 to publish their joint plan for continuous
military interventionism in the Mideast in "A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which envisioned "regime change" instead of negotiations.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "How
Israel Outfoxed U.S. Presidents."]
While ostensibly written for Netanyahu's political campaign, "A Clean Break" became the blueprint
for subsequent war policies advocated by the Project for the New American Century, founded by neocons
William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The chief contribution of the American neocons in this strategy
was to marshal U.S. military resources to do the heavy lifting in attacking Israel's neighbors beginning
with Iraq.
With these policy preferences goes a belief inside each country's political parties, across the
spectrum but particularly on the Right, that Israel and the United States each stand apart from all
other nations as "Exceptional." This is continuously repeated to ensure imprinting it in the population's
consciousness in the tradition of fascist states through history.
It is believed today in both the U.S. and Israel, just as the German Conservative Revolutionaries
believed it in the 1920s and 1930s of their homeland, Germany, and then carried on by the Nazis until
1945.
Israeli Herut Party
The Knesset website describes the original Herut party (1948-1988) as the main opposition party
(against the early domination by the Labor Party). Herut was the most right-wing party in the years
before the Likud party came into being and absorbed Herut into a coalition. Its expansionist slogan
was "To the banks to the Jordan River" and it refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Kingdom
of Jordan. Economically, Herut supported private enterprise and a reduction of government intervention.
In "A Clean Break," the authors were advising Netanyahu to reclaim the belligerent and expansionist
principles of the Herut party.
Herut was founded in 1948 by Menachem Begin, the leader of the right-wing militant group Irgun,
which was widely regarded as a terrorist organization responsible for killing Palestinians and cleansing
them from land claimed by Israel, including the infamous Deir Yassin massacre.
Herut's nature as a party and movement was best explained in a critical letter to the
New York Times on Dec. 4, 1948, signed
by over two dozen prominent Jewish intellectuals including
Albert Einstein and
Hannah Arendt.
The letter read: "Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence
in the newly created state of Israel of the 'Freedom Party' (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely
akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist
parties.
"It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist,
right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine. ( ) It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism
throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives,
could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
"Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly
preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays
its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future."
According to author Joseph Heller, Herut
was a one-issue party intent on expanding Israel's borders. That Netanyahu has never set aside Herut's
ideology can be gleaned from his book last revised in 2000, A Durable Peace. There, Netanyahu
praises Herut's predecessors the Irgun paramilitary and Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, a self-declared
"terrorist" group. He also marginalizes their Israeli adversary of the time, the Hagana under Israel's
primary founder and first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.
Regardless of methods used, the Stern Gang was indisputably "fascist," even receiving military
training from Fascist Italy. One does not need to speculate as to its ideological influences.
According to Colin Shindler, writing in
Triumph of Military Zionism:
Nationalism and the Origins of the Israeli Right, "Stern devotedly believed that 'the enemy
of my enemy is my friend' so he approached Nazi Germany. With German armies at the gates of Palestine,
he offered co-operation and an alliance with a new totalitarian Hebrew republic."
Netanyahu in his recent election campaign would seem to have re-embraced his fascist origins,
both with its racism and his declaration that as long as he was prime minister he would block a Palestinian
state and would continue building Jewish settlements on what international law recognizes as Palestinian
land.
In other words, maintaining a state of war on the Palestinian people with a military occupation
and governing by military rule, while continuing to make further territorial gains with the IDF acting
as shock troops for the settlers.
Why Does This Matter?
Sun-Tzu famously wrote "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result
of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also
suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
When we allow our "Conservative Revolutionaries" (or neoconservative militarists or proto-fascists
or whatever term best describes them) to make foreign policy, the United States loses legitimacy
in the world as a "rule of law" state. Instead, we present a "fascist" justification for our wars
which is blatantly illicit.
As the American political establishment has become so enamored with war and the "warriors" who
fight them, it has become child's play for our militarists to manipulate the U.S. into wars or foreign
aggression through promiscuous economic sanctions or inciting and arming foreign groups to destabilize
the countries that we target.
No better example for this can be shown than the role that America's First Family of Militarism,
the Kagans, plays in pushing total war mobilization of the U.S. economy and inciting war, at the
expense of civilian and domestic needs, as Robert Parry
wrote.
This can be seen with Robert Kagan invoking the martial virtue of "courage" in demanding greater
military spending by our elected officials and a greater wealth transfer to the Military Industrial
Complex which funds the various war advocacy projects that he and his family are involved with.
Kagan recently wrote: "Those who propose to lead the United States in the coming years, Republicans
and Democrats, need to show what kind of political courage they have, right now, when the crucial
budget decisions are being made."
But as Parry pointed out, showing "courage," "in Kagan's view is to ladle ever more billions
into the Military-Industrial Complex, thus putting money where the Republican mouths are regarding
the need to 'defend Ukraine' and resist 'a bad nuclear deal with Iran.'" But Parry noted that if
it weren't for Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, Kagan's spouse,
the Ukraine crisis might not exist.
What must certainly be seen as neo-fascist under any system of government but especially under
a nominal "constitutional republic" as the U.S. claims to be, is Sen. Lindsey Graham's threat that
the first thing he would do if elected President of the United States would be to use the military
to detain members of Congress, keeping them in session in Washington, until all so-called "defense
cuts" are restored to the budget.
In Graham's words, "I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use
the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts."
And he would have that power according to former Vice President Dick Cheney's "unitary
executive theory" of Presidential power, originally formulated by Carl Schmitt and adopted
by Republican attorneys and incorporated into government under the Bush-Cheney administration. Sen.
Tom Cotton and other Republicans would no doubt support such an abuse of power if it meant increasing
military spending.
But even more dangerous for the U.S. as well as other nations in the world is that one day, our
militarists' constant incitement and provocation to war is going to "payoff," and the U.S. will be
in a real war with an enemy with nuclear weapons, like the one Victoria Nuland is creating on Russia's
border.
Today's American "Conservative Revolutionary" lust for war was summed up by prominent neoconservative
Richard Perle, a co-author of "A Clean Break." Echoing the views on war from Ernst Junger and Carl
Schmitt, Perle once explained U.S. strategy in the neoconservative view, according to John Pilger:
"There will be no stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies.
There are lots of them out there . . . If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace
it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children
will sing great songs about us years from now."
That goal was the same fantasy professed by German Conservative Revolutionaries and it led directly
to a wartime defeat never imagined by Germany before, with all the "collateral damage" along the
way that always results from "total war."
Rather than continuing with this "strategy," driven by our own modern Conservative Revolutionaries
and entailing the eventual bankrupting or destruction of the nation, it might be more prudent for
Americans to demand that we go back to the original national security strategy of the United States,
as expressed by early presidents as avoiding "foreign entanglements" and start abiding by the republican
goals expressed by the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide
for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America."
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps
in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel,
Office of Military Commissions. In the course of that assignment, he researched and reviewed the
complete records of military commissions held during the Civil War and stored at the National Archives
in Washington, D.C.
45 comments for "Neocons: the Echo of German Fascism"
tateishi
March 27, 2015 at 12:38 pm
Good article. Often people forget that Germany is a very aggressive
war mongers, sending soldiers to many areas, and actually it started Yugoslavian war together
with the US. It also has many people who believe that they are Aryans, Hitler's imaginary race,
though there are real Aryans peaceful one in the mountains of Iran, etc.
Lutz Barz
March 28, 2015 at 5:23 am
The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the
late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally.
Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her
own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not
done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy
of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading
Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody
suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal
conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling
its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written
by those who dominate militarily.
Lutz Barz
March 28, 2015 at 5:24 am
The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the
late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally.
Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her
own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not
done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy
of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading
Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody
suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal
conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling
its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written
by those who dominate militarily.
Lutz Barz
March 28, 2015 at 5:24 am
The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the
late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally.
Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her
own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not
done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy
of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading
Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody
suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal
conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling
its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written
by those who dominate militarily.
Lutz Barz
March 28, 2015 at 5:25 am
The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the
late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally.
Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her
own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not
done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy
of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading
Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody
suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal
conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling
its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written
by those who dominate militarily.
Lutz Barz
March 28, 2015 at 5:25 am
The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the
late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally.
Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her
own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not
done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy
of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading
Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody
suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal
conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling
its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written
by those who dominate militarily.
Steve
March 29, 2015 at 11:07 am
A very strange comment from a presumed Iranian especially. Germany
is not aggressive at all since WW2, which was a result of much aggression by several nations
starting with Japan and Italy. German soldiers have gone almost nowhere since then, a limited
deployment in Afghanistan being the main case. Germany did not start the "Yugoslavian war"
at all, which was begun by Serbia attacking Slovenia and Croatia after they voted and declared
independence. Aryanism is very rare in Germany today, and far more belligerent language comes
out of Iran than Germany, Iran having swapped Aryanism for Islamism to little if any benefit.
As for the article itself, it makes the common error of imputing excessive influence to
a limited era of German militarism, whilst ignoring the far more globally influential records
of Western colonial and Communist militaristic imperialism, as well as Italian Fascism which
was the more influential model for many amenable to such ideas, with its aggressive colonial
and corporatist notions, and successful attainment of power a decade before Hitler's.
Yea, but lesson is that USA is the continuation and revival of
nazi ideology carrying its propound ideology of "exceptionalism". The neo conservative hawkish
holding the belief that USA has the right to interfere in others countries internal affairs,
that USA is above the law, that USA is predestinated by providence to spread its civilization
and more others imperialists beliefs.
F. G. Sanford
March 27, 2015 at 1:20 pm
Concur. A common slogan of the political opposition in the 1930's
was, "Fascism Means War!" It was true then, and it's still true today. The Major speaks the truth.
I hope someone is listening.
bobzz
March 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm
This piece tracks well with Charles Derber's, Morality Wars: How Empires,
the Born Again, and the Politically Correct Do Evil in the Name of Good. Hitler was rabid on the
subject of morality (i.e., favored it). He was well received by many professional theologians,
and the church generally swung in line. Not enough of the Barmen's Confession. This is another
parallel with America and Israel and a major contributor to exceptionalism.
John
March 27, 2015 at 2:12 pm
Very true. The relationship of fascism and warmongering was described
by Aristotle as the tactics of the tyrant over a democracy: fascist leaders must promote war and
internal policing because it is the sole basis of their demand for power: they must create, provoke,
or invent foreign enemies to demand power as "protectors" and accuse their opponents of disloyalty.
They must appeal to the bully-boys as their militant wing, so they produce pseudo-philosophies
of dominance.
Fascism must at times be clarified in meaning to avoid limitation to specific historical instances,
and it should be understood in those instances, but in is actually a very simple and universal
attitude. It is nothing but the behavior and propaganda of bully boys. They are selfish, ignorant,
hypocritical and malicious youths and abusive husbands and fathers, who glory in their small circle
of the intimidated and push everyone around as a principal life skill. Those who extend that circle
by operating small businesses, or as military or police officers, create and approve rationalizations
of special rights. There is no real "exceptionalism" belief or philosophy of national/religious/ethnic
superiority, it is just outright propaganda for bullying. They are quite stupid, and yet quickly
pick up the methods of fascism, so it is not worth much analysis.
John
March 27, 2015 at 2:33 pm
I should add that the resurgence of fascism and its strength in the
US and Israel is due to its association with economic concentrations. In business, the spoils
go not to the inventor or ingenious professional as claimed in business propaganda: the spoils
go to the bully-boy. Those who rise to the top in the corporate world are not the brilliant professionals
or the effective managers who shine at lower levels. The path upwards is limited to those who
come out on top wars between groups in collusion, who are without exception scheming bully-boys.
There is no other way to the top. Only the methods are different from politics. So only bully-boys
have great economic power.
In the US, economic concentrations did not exist when the Constitution was written, so it provides
no protection at all for the institutions of democracy from economic power. Economic powers controlled
elections and the press in the 19th century, so there has been no way to even debate the issue,
and now that control is almost absolute. Those are the powers obtainable only by bully-boys, the
predominant fascists of Nazi Germany and the US, and no doubt Israel. So the US has been loosely
controlled by fascism for a long time, and that control is nearly total now. Only the propaganda
to rationalize this changes to sell the policies to the intimidated.
Randy
March 27, 2015 at 2:50 pm
War is inevitable.. You simply cannot deny this and anyone who does
is just dreaming The world cannot live in some perpetual peace forever, what will happen when
oil, water, and even living space runs out? Will you watch your family starve to death while the
people over in the next town are eating to their hearts content?
As much as you want to deny it, Hitler had it right. Peace is only attainable through war,
and can only be won for your own people. There cannot be world peace, and the events of today
proves it. Hitler and Japan was defeated more than 50 years ago, where is the peace? There will
come a day where money will be worthless, the only currency will be strength, only those rich
in this currency will survive. How nature intended it to be.
Hitler knew this, and was preparing his own country, the rest of the world took the Banker
path, and look where that led us.
Zachary Smith
March 27, 2015 at 3:08 pm
The world cannot live in some perpetual peace forever, what
will happen when oil, water, and even living space runs out?
Has it occurred to you that oil is only one of the many energy sources, and that the amount
of water on Earth is basically a fixed quantity? Living space? Consider contraception combined
with incentives, and disincentives for having babies galore.
Can't help but notice you didn't mention Global Warming as a gnawing problem. Why?
Finally, WHY is this site a magnet for the Hitler Fan Club?
Randy
March 27, 2015 at 3:52 pm
The idea is that resources run out, right? I wasn't going to
list everything. There is not a infinite amount of resources in this world, you can continue
living in your fairy tale world if you'd like but I will not.
Even the soil that we grow food in will one day become unusable if it is abused like
it is today. Global warming is a result of your delusion of world peace. Nature hits back
when you delay and ignore up its rule for to long.. There would be no Global Warming problem
i
Zachary Smith
March 27, 2015 at 4:00 pm
Global warming is a result of your delusion of world peace.
As I suspected.
No doubt wind turbines kill the cute birdies.
And contraception is some sort of sin.
John
March 27, 2015 at 3:36 pm
Randy, be careful to avoid traps here:
1. Wars will continue in history, but that is not a justification for doing wrong.
2. When groups are in conflict, good leadership avoids war because it causes great wrongs.
Sometimes it cannot be avoided, usually due to bad leadership. But of course that does not
justify unnecessary war.
3. Peace is not obtained by war. Sometimes it results from a successful defense against wrongful
war, sometimes it is only the peace after a wrongful war succeeds. Those who prefer peace want
to avoid unnecessary war. They are not afraid of necessary defense.
4. Those who want to keep the US from unnecessary wars know more about the world's cultures
and problems and solutions than those who always think of war as a solution. They know that
our security depends upon making friends among a wild variety of cultures at different stages
of development. That is done by helping the unfortunate even when we disagree with them, and
we can't expect much from them in return. Wars mainly make us enemies, and those who promote
wars conceal those failures. That's what this site is about.
holycowimeanzebra
March 27, 2015 at 10:53 pm
Gee, we couldn't just talk like adults about the importance of
having fewer children? War and killing is the only method of human population control?
holycowimeanzebra
March 27, 2015 at 10:54 pm
Gee, we couldn't just talk like adults about the importance of
having fewer children? War and killing is the only method of human population control?
war, slavery and general ignorance are "inevitable" so long as
people are mentally enslaved enough to tolerate them the only thing inevitable about life is
death the rest is all subject to at least some measure of control, whether those are called
political, religious or scientific..belief in such nonsense as above guarantees the continued
master race-self chosen people-ism the article's writer is trying to contend with, call attention
to and end..hitler was right about some things and wrong about most, like obama, bush, clinton,
reagan and all other "leaders" of the status quo.
frank scott
March 30, 2015 at 11:17 pm
death is inevitable but the rest of life is subject to control
by concerned, thoughtful and informed humans..war is inevitable only if the opposite type of
humans continue and if they do it may be that all of us will lose continuity, fulfilling their
dreadfully negative religious belief..the article seems to be at least trying to locate sources
for some of the diseased madness that prevails but talk of "inevitable" war is an example of
the disease.
Gregory Kruse
March 27, 2015 at 5:17 pm
Mr. Pierce appears to be a good example of a person who "knows himself,
and knows his enemy", for indeed the Kagans and Cheneys of these times are enemies of the people.
Unfortunately, most of the people don't know it yet, and in fact don't know themselves. It is
absolutely dumbfounding to hear strains of Fox News coming from the mouths of otherwise seemingly
decent and intelligent people who have the facility to think for themselves, but find it easier
to parrot a TV station. I rue the fact that history and what served for political education in
my youth led me to believe that there were no real enemies of democracy anymore. Reading back
now through the history of Europe after the War of 1812 in Russia until WWI, I have come to appreciate
the strength of fascist sentiment and passion, and I fairly tremble at the thought of the possible
rise of another Otto von Bismark or Adolph Hitler in what we think of as "modern" times. There
is only one ray of hope for me and that is the writing of such as Pierce, Parry, and some others
scattered about the internet. It isn't clear to me that people will wake up and perceive the path
we are on and in dreadful fear force a change of direction, but if not, we will learn again what
it is to suffer unimaginable horror.
Zachary Smith
March 27, 2015 at 7:21 pm
It is absolutely dumbfounding to hear strains of Fox News coming
from the mouths of otherwise seemingly decent and intelligent people who have the facility
to think for themselves, but find it easier to parrot a TV station.
Dumbfounding is right!
Sometime back I was astonished to hear a relative at least as bright as myself (and educated
at the same University) tell me that Fox was the ONLY news source which could be trusted. She'd
moved from Indiana to the deep South years ago and sort-of "gone native". It was an ordeal
to remain calm and use lip-glue.
Theodora Crawford
March 27, 2015 at 6:56 pm
Excellent discussion and worth the challenge of a thought-provoking
and complex argument about governance and war. Today's environment is frightening with so much
negative opinion, an absurd sense of US "exceptionalism" and unthinking faith in the power of
war (clinched by a nuclear option as last resort).
Alas, we have the government we deserve.
Abe
March 27, 2015 at 7:33 pm
In 1926, German political theorist Carl Schmitt wrote his most famous
paper, "Der Begriff des Politischen" ("The Concept of the Political"), in which he developed his
theory of "the political".
For Schmitt, "the political" is not equal to any other domain, such as the economic, but instead
is the most essential to identity. As the essence of politics, "the political" is distinct from
party politics.
According to Schmitt, while churches are predominant in religion or society is predominant
in economics, the state is predominant in politics. Yet for Schmitt the political was not an autonomous
domain equivalent to the other domains, but rather the existential basis that would determine
any other domain should it reach the point of politics (e.g. religion ceases to be merely theological
when it makes a clear distinction between the "friend" and the "enemy").
Schmitt, in perhaps his best-known formulation, bases his conceptual realm of state sovereignty
and autonomy upon the distinction between friend and enemy. This distinction is to be determined
"existentially," which is to say that the enemy is whoever is "in a specially intense way, existentially
something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible." (Schmitt,
1996, p. 27)
For Schmitt, such an enemy need not even be based on nationality: so long as the conflict is
potentially intense enough to become a violent one between political entities, the actual substance
of enmity may be anything.
Although there have been divergent interpretations concerning Schmitt's work, there is broad
agreement that "The Concept of the Political" is an attempt to achieve state unity by defining
the content of politics as opposition to the "other" (that is to say, an enemy, a stranger. This
applies to any person or entity that represents a serious threat or conflict to one's own interests.)
In addition, the prominence of the state stands as a neutral force over potentially fractious
civil society, whose various antagonisms must not be allowed to reach the level of the political,
lest civil war result.
Leo Strauss, a political Zionist and follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, had a position at the
Academy of Jewish Research in Berlin. Strauss wrote to Schmitt in 1932 and summarized Schmitt's
political theology thus: "[B]ecause man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion
can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against against other men. Every
association of men is necessarily a separation from other men the political thus understood is
not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state."
With a letter of recommendation from Schmitt, Strauss received a fellowship from the Rockefeller
Foundation to begin work, in France, on a study of Hobbes. Schmitt went on to become a figure
of influence in the new Nazi government of Adolf Hitler.
On 30 January 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany. The SA and SS led torchlight
parades throughout Berlin. Germans who opposed Nazism failed to unite against it, and Hitler soon
moved to consolidate absolute power.
Following the 27 February Reichstag fire, the Nazis began to suspend civil liberties and eliminate
political opposition. The Communists were excluded from the Reichstag. At the March 1933 elections,
again no single party secured a majority. Hitler required the vote of the Centre Party and Conservatives
in the Reichstag to obtain the powers he desired. He called on Reichstag members to vote for the
Enabling Act on 24 March 1933.
Hitler was granted plenary powers "temporarily" by the passage of the Enabling Act. The law
gave him the freedom to act without parliamentary consent and even without constitutional limitations.
Schmitt joined the Nazi Party on 1 May 1933. Within days of joining the party, Schmitt was
party to the burning of books by Jewish authors, rejoicing in the burning of "un-German" and "anti-German"
material, and calling for a much more extensive purge, to include works by authors influenced
by Jewish ideas.[
In July 1933, Schmitt was appointed State Councillor for Prussia (Preuίischer Staatsrat) by
Hermann Gφring and became the president of the Vereinigung nationalsozialistischer Juristen ("Union
of National-Socialist Jurists") in November. He also replaced Hermann Heller as professor at the
University of Berlin (a position he held until the end of World War II).
Schmitt presented his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a
justification of the Fόhrer state with regard to legal philosophy, in particular through the concept
of auctoritas. Half a year later, in June 1934, Schmitt was appointed editor-in-chief of the Nazi
news organ for lawyers, the Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung ("German Jurists' Journal").
In July 1934, he published "The Leader Protects the Law (Der Fόhrer schόtzt das Recht)", a
justification of the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives with the authority of Hitler
as the "highest form of administrative justice (hφchste Form administrativer Justiz)".
Schmitt presented himself as a radical anti-semite and also was the chairman of a law teachers'
convention in Berlin in October 1936, where he demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish
spirit (jόdischem Geist)", going so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists
should henceforth be marked with a small symbol.
Nevertheless, in December 1936, the SS publication Das schwarze Korps accused Schmitt of being
an opportunist, and called his anti-semitism a mere pretense, citing earlier statements in which
he criticized the Nazis' racial theories. After this, Schmitt resigned from his position as "Reichsfachgruppenleiter"
(Reich Professional Group Leader), although he retained his post as a professor in Berlin, and
his post as "Preuίischer Staatsrat".
After World War II, Schmitt refused every attempt at de-nazification, which effectively barred
him from positions in academia. Despite being isolated from the mainstream of the scholarly and
political community, he continued his studies especially of international law from the 1950s on.
In 1962, Schmitt gave lectures in Francoist Spain, two of them giving rise to the publication,
the following year, of Theory of the Partisan, in which he qualified the Spanish civil war as
a "war of national liberation" against "international Communism."
Schmitt regarded the partisan as a specific and significant phenomenon that, in the latter
half of the twentieth century, indicated the emergence of a new theory of warfare.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the most simple formulation of Schmitt's friend-enemy
distinction was enunciated by this intellectual giant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sfNROmn7bc
In that Schmittian fulmination known as the Bush Doctrine, the "partisan" is transformed into
the "terrorist," no longer "internal" but a truly "global" enemy to be destroyed wherever found.
As further codified by the Obama Doctrine: the decider has the right.
The world-ordering, planet-appropriating doctrine of American exceptionalism has no space in
its Grossraum (great space) concept for a "Eurasia."
The very enunciation of a "Eurasian" political sphere is a "terrorist" act, and all those associated
with such "lunacy" are "enemies" to be annihilated.
John
March 28, 2015 at 12:50 am
Junger was not so pro-war when he lost his son in WW11.
John
March 28, 2015 at 12:50 am
Junger was not so pro-war when he lost his son in WW11.
Dato
March 28, 2015 at 6:28 am
Just as defeated German generals and the Conservative Revolutionaries
believed that Germany lost World War I because their economy and nation was only "partially mobilized
One would like to know wherein lay the premises of such a belief. Indeed, the general staff
of the Reich laid out plans and performed actions for a "total war", and the effects, once the
war ended, were hard to oversee: Not only were there scant resources and only barely functioning
capital infrastructure left after the war, people were actually dying of hunger in the streets
(made worse by the entente's continuing blockade even into 1915). Maybe all the information was
hard to come back then.
From "Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism" by Astore and Showalter, p 40ff:
The war, Hindenburg noted, had become a colossal Materialschlacht, or material struggle,
waged by modern industrial juggernauts. The western front in particular witnessed organized destruction
on a scale theretofore thought impossible. Staggered by the sheer wastage of modern war, all combatants
sought with varying degrees of success to mobilize their economies. The so-called Hindenburg Program
was Germany's concerted attempt to mobilize fully, if somewhat belatedly, for total war. Improving
the efficiency of economic mobilization was certainly a worthwhile goal. Hindenburg's, and especially
Ludendorff's, key mistake was to presume that an economy could be commanded like an army. The
end result was a conflict of effciencies. What was best for the army in the short term was not
necessarily best for the long-term health of the economy. Furthermore, as economic means were
mobilized to the fullest, the sacrifices required and incurred by modern warfare's destructive
industrialism drove Germany, as well as the Entente powers, to inflate strategic goals to justify
national sacrifice. Extreme economic mobilization encouraged grandiose political and territorial
demands, ruling out opportunities for a compromise peace, which Hindenburg and Ludendorff rejected
anyway. Under their leadership, imperial Germany became a machine for waging war and little else.
And Hindenburg and Ludendorff emerged as Germany's most committed merchants of death.
Nothing in Hindenburg's background prepared him for the task of overseeing an economic mobilization.
Thus, he left details to the technocrat Ludendorff. Aided by Lieutenant Colonel Max Bauer, Ludendorff
embarked on a crash program to centralize and streamline the economy. Fifteen separate district
commands in Germany needed centralizing if economic mobilization was to be rationalized; rivalries
among federal, state, and local agencies needed to be curtailed. As enacted, the Hindenburg Program
sought to maximize war-related production by transforming Germany into a garrison state with a
command economy. Coordinating the massive effort was the Kriegsamt, or War Office, headed by General
Wilhelm Groener.
Yet, Ludendorff's insistence on setting unachievable production goals led to serious dislocations
in the national economy. Shell production was to be doubled, artillery and machine gun production
trebled, all in a matter of months. The German economy, relying largely on its own internal resources,
could not bear the strain of striving for production goals unconstrained by economic, material,
and manpower realities. The release of hundreds of thousands of skilled workers from military
duty back to the factories, which led to short-term increases in the production of armaments,
did not solve critical and systemic shortages of labor. Large-scale deportation and impressment
of Belgian workers was a stopgap that only further alienated world opinion, notably in the United
States. In the aggregate, the high level of autonomy enjoyed by the military contributed to wasteful
duplications of effort and patterns of bureaucratization that eventually defied even the Germans'
gift for paperwork.
Brad Owen
March 28, 2015 at 6:36 am
Excellent article. I still think the Financial Oligarchy, which currently
holds the "Imperium" in City-of-London/Wall Street jointly, are the financial enablers of these
"Conservative Revolutionaries". One of the main tasks of an Empire is to PREVENT any rival power
structure (such as a legitimate Republic taking root within a colony, becoming a powerful nation-state,
and becoming most attractive to the other subjugated colonies the ONLY basis for U.S. "exceptionalism",
and our one unforgivable "sin" in the, now covert, British Empire) from arising within its' Realm.
The witless conservative revolutionaries are enabled by the Financier/Emperors (think of Grand
daddy Prescott; bagman for the NAZIs) PRECISELY because they will lead to "the eventual bankrupting
and destruction of the Nation", as Major Pierce says, thus being rid of a dangerous Republic within
their Empire. These policies and wars are meant to destroy US, here, in America, and lead us,
and the World, FAR AWAY from the wisdom of our Preamble. BTW, Kaiser's Germany, and Dr. Sun Yat
Sen, were influenced by "Lincoln's economists" Henry Carey and Friedrich Liszt the "republican
infection" was spread far and wide, after Lincoln's victory in his proxy war with the British
and French empires (The Russian Empire, as always, was USA's quiet ally in that war).
Peter Loeb
March 28, 2015 at 6:45 am
NAMING NAMES
The history of fascism is helpful, It remains that it is a common tendency of liberals/
progressives to believe in the illusion that one person, one party exchanged for another
will transform a society (any society).
As Naseer Aruri documents in his incisive book, DISHONEST BROKER, that the US has collaborated
with Zionism for decades, Both US political parties have been complicit. This
has been the case for 35 years prior to the current Administration and certainly was the
case going back as far as Harry Truman.(Aruri's brief book was written just prior to
the election of Obama.)
Netanyahu's supposed "shock" to Washington is that his blatant racism and opposition to
the "peaceful negotiations" of two so-called "sovereign" nations made such good PR. One commenter
observed that it was like asking the lamb to "negotiate" with the wolf. Aruri
repeats that the US, which has always supported the oppressor(Israel), could act as"mediator"
thus excluding international law altogether. (Aruri blames in equal measure PLO's Arafat who agreed
to "occupation by consent" (Aruri).
Netanyahu blew the US "cover" for just a second. The next Democratic leadership if it is
Hillary Clinton as President or Chuck Schumer as Democratic leader has never been
noted for any sympathy for Palestinians aka "the inferior race" (Israelis). Both Clinton and
Schumer have represented New York State in the US Senate. Both want to elect more members of their
party (Democratic) and to use the dollars of wealthy US Jews in accomplishing this.
The voices of the hundreds of thousands who lose their jobs as disposeable (except in
campaign rehetoric) have less and less meaning. The very rich are the beneficiaries and they lay
off thousands of workers and managers to move to low wage and more compliant
location with high tech ease.
From my perspective, the only means to delay this is economic. On the one hand it is
BDS but on a larger field it is the weakness of the US economy and others of the West.
Recalling that it was WW II that "solved" the Great Depression and not the ineffective programs
of FDR's "New Deal" (See Gabriel Kolko, MAIN CURRENTS IN MODERN AMERICAN
HISTORY). Todd E. Pierce does not mention the so-called global "revolution" but as the
French have phrased it "La revolution se mange" (" The revolution eats itself") Everyone
wants someone else to fight their battles for them at no cost to themselves.
Pierce does not evaluate the power relationships weakening virtually all governments
today. Inequality has eaten us up (we have eaten ouselves!).
-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA USA
muggles
March 28, 2015 at 1:41 pm
Extremely good essay today by Todd Pierce. Very impressive scholarship
and insight, particularly in the light of his impressive military career.
Many good comments posted also, despite the inevitable odor of anti Semitism found in some,
always the case when "Germany" is part of the topic. "Bankers", etc. Much easier to stereotype
than to think.
Yes, France and Britain were also hyper militaristic in the 19th century, far more than Germany,
which of course wasn't united until the very end of that century, which meant that while some
German states were quite active militarily in the period (Prussia) it didn't act as a "nation"
as it did later in the 20th century.
France lost most of the militarist ideology after two crushing defeats in the World Wars and
post colonial failures. Britain maintained that outlook despite the World Wars but the wars devastated
the economic ability and imperial reach which had sustained that view, despite the persistent
Churchill worship. Thatcher's defense of the tiny Falklands was merely an almost comic echo of
times past. Still, today in many British intellectual circles (if not in actually participating
in the armed forces) military worship continues.
Germany today has now lost most of its taste for war. Instead it leads Europe economically.
Butter rather than guns.
Pierce's essay highlights the sinister influence of Leo Strauss, something that libertarian
historian-economist Murray Rothbard warned about several decades ago as well. As Godfather of
the neocons, Strauss is the intellectual architect of today's bloodlust American political establishment.
His being Jewish was the only thing which kept him from being a full fledged Hitlerite.
So neocons, many themselves Jewish (though many not) are mere slightly less crazy fascists
as were the interwar German nationalists who easily jumped into the Nazi bed when the cult of
personality overwhelmed the German rightwing.
There has long been a cult of war worship, going back to ancient times. The fact that warfare
brings death and disease and horrible injury doesn't matter. The fact that it destroys wealth
and human prosperity and harmony is ignored. Individuals are crushed to the greater "good" of
arms against whatever enemy can be found. Sociopaths and psychopaths use militarism as the path
to "greatness."
That much of the American "right" is in the thrall of the pseudo fascist neocon ideology of
Straussian war worship as the path to "security" and "national greatness" should be the red blinking
"danger-danger!" light for every thinking American.
Thanks Mr. Pierce.
Steve Naidamast
March 28, 2015 at 3:07 pm
I have not thoroughly read this article but will do so after I print
it out.
However I would like to add that though there were quite a few people in 190s Germany that
were proponents of warfare there is a slow but increasing amount of research that is beginning
to show that Adolph Hitler was not the war-monger western historians have made him out to be.
In addition, after the advent of war in 1939, up through 1941, Hitler was making peace overtures
to the west, which Britain continuously ignored and rejected.
This too was done up through 1915 by Germany in World War I, which Britain also
ignored.
As recent research is beginning to show, it was not Germany who was itching for
war in 1939 but in fact Britain and Poland. And war is what they eventually got and
very much to Britain's and Poland's demise as the former lost her empire and the latter was
swallowed up by Soviet Russia.
Coleen Rowley
March 28, 2015 at 6:26 pm
Great article showing how history repeats! But most of your points,
with the exception of Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu to speak to Congress and more Democrats
than Republicans backing Obama's negotiation strategy with Iran, apply as much to the Democrat
as Republican Party leadership. I think I even read where Robert Kagan may back Hillary Clinton
whilst his fellow PNAC founder William Kristol will back Bush or whatever Republican wins the
nomination. The neocon ideology seems to be fully in control of both parties.
Thank you Coleen for your comment. I share your concern that a
Clinton/Bush race will be one in the same. I'm desperately hoping we get neither as candidates
because it will mean "business as usual".
hisoricus
March 28, 2015 at 8:29 pm
One of the most startling things I've found in reading "Nazi propaganda"
is their dead-on accurate prediction of America's coming role as a primary threat to world peace,
in its rulers' quest for total global domination. The United States was routinely mocked in the
German press as the phony "democracy of dollars" controlled by the plutocrats of Wall Street
gosh, how'd they ever get a wacky idea like that, huh?
Hitler clearly stated in Mein Kampf "we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system
for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation
of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and
we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
Hitler attempted to rapidly build Germany into a global power that would be capable of fending
off the twin threats of capitalist imperialism from the west and totalitarian communism from the
east but these forces were too strong: the "new Germany" never had a chance of survival. Eighty
million Germans faced a billion-strong British empire that was determined to destroy all economic
rivals, and had centuries of experience in mass murder and destruction in the Third World. Add
to this the 320 million people of a communist USSR and a capitalist USA whose elites could agree
on only one thing, that Germany's astoundingly successful experiment in national socialism must
first be annihilated and then its true character erased from history.
Today the German government's cruel treatment of Jews who made up one half of one percent
of Germany's population, by the way is all that most people know of National Socialism, which
is rather like remembering America's Founders only as the brutal slaveholders and Indian killers
that they were.
Ask yourself: how is it evenly remotely possible that the second German war could be the only
time in our history that our leaders did not lie to us about why we were supposed to hate and
butcher a people who had done us no harm?
Monster from the Id
March 28, 2015 at 9:44 pm
Hoooo boy, the delusion is strong in this one
richard vajs
March 29, 2015 at 8:54 am
One good thing about the "coming together" of the fascist Republican
Party and the fascist Israeli Likud Party it will make for a unified target. As I've heard military
drill instructors advise, "You people need to spread out one hand grenade would get you all!".
I look forward to no separation between the two and the tossing of that grenade.
Coleen Rowley
March 29, 2015 at 10:34 am
First I need to make clear I'm against bombing. Anyone. I'm in
the "war is not the answer; war is a crime; war is waste; war is a lie; war is hell camp. I
think individuals are justified in valid "self defense" but not the nation-state or ethnic-religious
type tribalism that Carl Schmitt apparently referred to as the "political" groupings that justify
and benefit from "pre-emptive" wars of aggression. It IS a slippery slope but still we must
stick to principles.
But with that said, the Likud-inspired AIPAC and other Israeli fronts were very much aware
of your drill sergeant's advice, Richard. The Israel lobbyists were highly effective in the
past, in contrast to other political lobbies (who generally favored one party or the other),
simply because they did "spread out" and were able to infiltrate both Republican and Democratic
parties (as well as their corresponding "think tanks") so as to better control the whole US
government.
The Boehner invite of Netanyahu, Republican Militarist Senator Cotton's letter and the exposing
of AIPAC's forcing of Democratic congresspersons to now oppose their own Party Leader, Obama,
in order to launch war on Iran, could be significant in ending that control of both parties
by splitting the parties. Bush's former UN Ambassador and top neocon John Bolton's outright
and explicit call for bombing Iran in the NYT helps pull off the mask and expose what the neocons
are after. Middle of the road Democratic congresspeople, almost all of whom are normally are
hard-pressed to not vote and give AIPAC anything it wants, may find it easier to publically
explain how they cannot in good conscience vote this one time, for the Israel Lobby and what
the terrible new war it wants.
And my guess is the reason Kristol and Kagan would be splitting their support, if that does
materialize, Kristol for Bush and Kagan for Clinton, would be exactly in line with your old
drill sergeant's advice.
Solon
March 29, 2015 at 10:26 pm
re: "Avnery's analogy of how Congress responded to its de facto leader
was apt"
The analogy could not be less apt.
The German leaders were in their own nation, addressing the concerns of their own people, concerns
including the debasement of their culture, the debasement of their money, high unemployment, challenges
in finding food, riots and mob violence incited by Communist and Bolshevic subversives, and chaos
in their political system. Promises were made to the German people by their leaders to solve their
problems, a plan was laid out and most of the promises were kept: within 4 years, Germans were
employed, the economy was revitalized with public works spending, and the people's morale was
unified around German cultural values. Several of their international problems were settled without
violence, as the people demanded and the NSDAP government promised.
On the other hand, the leader of a foreign state stood before a representative body in which
only 16% of the people have any confidence. He told this body that their leader should not be
trusted, and they cheered.
The representatives of the people pledged their fealty to this leader of a foreign state and promised
to send him more taxpayer money to kill more of the people whose lands and homes the foreign state
is stealing. None of the concerns of the American people - for jobs, for relief from high food
prices, for adequate treatment of 50,000 military persons wounded in wars fought at the behest
of the same foreign leader - none of those concerns were addressed by the cheering crowd.
This author suffers from Hitler Derangement Syndrome: his thinking is so suffused with the
relentlessly propagandized notion that Hitler and NSDAP are the embodiment of evil that his analysis
is forced and his judgments flawed.
An assessment of the full panoply of facts and evidence will reveal that it was not Hitler
and NSDAP but the forebears of the same man who sought to - and came pretty close to succeeding
in subverting the US political system.
The German people under NSDAP leadership were reclaiming their government and culture, and
for that they cheered.
Their resistance to the ideology that Strauss and his cohort sought to impose on Germans was
an affront to the pro to-neocons, and so they organized with warmongering British and manipulative
American leaders to destroy Germany and incinerate the German people in what C E Hughes called
the first use of weapons of mass destruction as a means of terror against a civilian population.
zhu bajie
March 30, 2015 at 1:23 am
The comparison is interesting, but it a comparison between Japanese
Militarism and the US permanent war regime would also be enlightening. Neither the US nor Japan
have or had a charismatic orator, a Mussolini or a Hitler.
zhu bajie
March 30, 2015 at 1:58 am
Re "exceptiohnalism," Lewis' _The American Adam_ should be read. The
idea that Americans can do no wrong has been around since the early days of the Republic.
Re: "It was left to Israeli Uri Avnery to best capture the spirit
of Netanyahu's enthusiastic ideological supporters in Congress."
I disagree with that sentence, albeit it's a judgment call. But I don't think Avnery is even
in the running. The best capture of that I've seen is Noy Alooshe's masterful video remix of the
event itself. .
hbm
March 31, 2015 at 3:06 am
You don't get Nazis without Ashkenazis.
Why should Neocons be at all surprising?
Rob
April 2, 2015 at 10:58 am
I enjoyed the article, but I cannot agree that Netanyahu is the de
facto leader of the Republican Party. Rather, he is a prop in the ongoing drama known as "Republicans
doing everything in their power to oppose and embarrass President Obama and the Democrats."
I have long advocated that those public figures who agitate for war should be sent into the
battlefield along with all able bodied members of their families. That would quickly put an end
to chicken hawk warmongers. The exception would be Charles Krauthammer, who is paralyzed in his
lower extremities. That man should be sent into battle in his wheelchair.
Mark Wilson writes Twitter has
updated its privacy policy, creating a
two-lane service that treats U.S. and non-U.S. users differently. If you live in the U.S.,
your account is controlled by San Francisco-based Twitter Inc, but if you're elsewhere in the
world (anywhere else) it's handled by Twitter International Company in Dublin, Ireland. The changes
also affect Periscope. What's the significance of this? Twitter Inc is governed by U.S. law; it
is obliged to comply with NSA-driven court requests for data. Data stored in Ireland is not subject
to the same obligation. Twitter is not alone in using Dublin as a base for non-U.S. operations;
Facebook is another company that has adopted the same tactic. The move could also have implications
for how advertising is handled in the future.
seek minor advances within the terms of the system. She did not share these conclusions with Alinsky who had given her generous access during the preparation of her thesis and a job offer thereafter, which she declined.
45 comments for "Neocons: the Echo of German Fascism"
