Former Chief of British Defence Staff calls for dialogue with the Russians, rejects idea of no fly zone in Syria as threatening war, says Jihadis should be told to leave Aleppo, and calls for alliance with the Russians against ISIS.

Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, who has been successively Commander in Chief, Land Forces of the British Army, Chief of the British Army’s General Staff, and from October 2010 to July 2013 Chief of the Defence Staff (ie. the professional head of the British armed forces), has broken ranks with the British political class’s antipathy to Russia, and has called for the US and Britain to agree to the Syrian government’s recapture of eastern Aleppo.

Lord Richards’s comments, made in a parliamentary debate in the House of Lords where he sits as an independent, could not be clearer.  Since they are so unusual I reproduce them in full as they have been provided by the Independent newspaper.

Firstly Lord Richards criticised the present ideological crusade against Russia, and spoke of Donald Trump as someone who as President might restore dialogue with Russia, thereby securing world peace.

In doing so Lord Richards also made the point that the greatest danger presently does not come from Russia but from groups like ISIS and that it is in everyone’s interest that the US and Russia come together to fight this common enemy

In the Cold War era states coalesced and they had this understanding and it worked – even though there was a massive amount at stake, communications and mutual understanding between Russia and America wasn’t too bad.

It’s non-state actors like Isis that are the biggest threat to our security. If countries and states could coalesce better to deal with these people – and I think Trump’s instinct is to go down that route – then I think there’s the case for saying that the world certainly won’t be any less safe.

It’s that lack of understanding and empathy with each other as big power players that is a risk to us all at the moment.

Therefore I think he would reinvigorate big power relationships, which might make the world ironically safer.

The comments, which correspond exactly to things said by us in The Duran, most eloquently by our contributor Adam Garrie, will cause great anger within the powerful neocon lobby in Britain.  What Lord Richards had to say about Syria, and about Aleppo in particular, will have made them more angry still.

Before discussing what Lord Richards had to say about Syria, it is important to remember that he is an exceptionally well-informed observer of the Syrian war.  As a top ranking military officer for many years, and as Chief of the Defence Staff from October 2010 to July 2013, Lord Richards was heavily involved in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and drew up plans to arm the Jihadis in Syria.  He is therefore highly experienced about the realities of the various Middle East wars – including the Syrian war – and he knows what he is talking about when he discusses them.

On the subject of Aleppo he was crystal clear: the only proper and humanitarian thing to do is to persuade the Jihadis to leave eastern Aleppo, as Putin has told them to do, and to agree to its recapture by the Syrian government

If the humanitarian situation in Syria is our major concern, which it should be – millions of lives have been ruined, hundreds of thousands have been killed – I believe there is a strong case for allowing Assad to get in there and take the city back.

We want the humanitarian horror of Aleppo to come to a rapid halt. The best and quickest way of doing that is to encourage the opposition groups to leave. The Russians are undoubtedly using their weapons indiscriminately. If they’re going to attack those groups then there is inevitably going to be civilian casualties.

(bold italics added)

If he made this point in the starkest and clearest possible way, Lord Richards also spoke the unvarnished truth about the total impracticality and utter foolishness of even discussing a no fly zone.  In doing so he spoke scathing about Hillary Clinton

Unless she (NB: Hillary Clinton – AM) is prepared to do this properly and go to war with Russia, she shouldn’t talk about no-fly zones and nor should we. We would have to shoot down Russian aircraft in order to impose it. Do we really want to go to a shooting war over Aleppo?

…….

The alternative is for the West to declare a no-fly zone and that means you’ve got to be prepared to go to war with Russia ultimately.

I see no appetite for that and nor, frankly, do I see much sense in it. It sticks in my throat to say it because I have no love for Assad.

The fact is, the only way to get it to stop now is to allow Assad to win and win quickly and then turn on Isis with the Russians.

(bold italics added)

Expressed with such brutal clarity these comments are guaranteed to provoke howls of outrage in Britain’s neocon/regime change circles, though because of the wide knowledge in political circles that the British public actually agrees with Lord Richards these are more likely to be expressed privately than in public.  What will make the anger especially great is that Lord Richards’s arguments are actually unarguable.

The big question is whether Lord Richards is speaking only for himself or whether his comments signal a wider discussion within the British government and the British army?

Obviously I do not know the answer to this question.  However, for what it’s worth, my opinion is that it is most unlikely that a former Chief of the Defence Staff would talk publicly in this way unless he was sure his views were widely shared within the British military.  Indeed I suspect that Lord Richards is speaking out on the British military’s behalf, knowing that as a retired officer he is free to say things that serving officers bound by military discipline can’t.  Most likely there has been a lengthy round of private conversations about the prospect of war in Syria within the British military, and Lord Richards’s speech is the way the British military is making its opinions public and known to the country’s political class.

If so then Lord Richards’s speech to the House of Lords should be seen for what it almost certainly is: the public expression of the grave doubts many serving British officers surely have about Boris Johnson’s crackpot scheme for a “no bombing” zone in Syria and for the various other equally harebrained schemes for military intervention in Syria that get all too frequently talked about in the British media and in the British parliament.

The US military has made it quite clear that it adamantly opposes military intervention in Syria given the sophisticated air defence system the Russians have set up there.  Judging from Lord Richards’s comments, that is the view of the British military as well.  As discussed previously, the opposition of the military means Western military intervention in Syria simply isn’t going to happen, whether Hillary Clinton is elected President or not.

Whether the Jihadis fighting in Aleppo or elsewhere in Syria understand this is another matter.  Whether they understand it or not, the fact however is that as the Syrian and Russian militaries close in on them, they are on their own.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Former Top British Military Chief Backs Trump, Trashes Hillary Clinton; Says « Jihadis » Have Lost and Should Leave Aleppo

 This is the continuation of the testimony I will present before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s Administrative Law Court November 2 and 3, 2016.

A very similar scheme, I offer, currently is being used and foisted upon customers and consumers by vested interests and even the PA PUC I may add, which depend upon fifty-year-old or more, radar science heat-producing (thermal) studies to prove that microwave technologies RFs/EMFs do not harm human health, while specifically totally disregarding and discrediting scientifically documented Non-thermal health effects in order to cash in on federal grant monies that promote what’s being called “The Internet of Things” or the “Grid.”

Moreover, the U.S. military document in Exhibit L indicates that RF/EMF microwave safety is not cost effective and, therefore, always has been avoided and deliberately not pursued further.  That deliberate fact needs to be prosecuted as crimes of conspiracy, collusion and racketeering to maintain specific military vested interests, which have impacted industry, including controlling a one-sided inaccurate assessment of science and technology, detrimental to human health and the environment.

According to the study “Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar (microwave) effects” published in 1997 online at Environmental Health Prospectives, PECO, Exelon, and the PA PUC must consider the following regarding cancer and EMFs, which are created by microwave functioning AMI Smart Meters, including the “dirty electricity” they create:

Public and occupational exposures to microwave (RF) are of two main types. The first type of exposures are [sic] those connected with military and industrial uses and, to some extent broadcast exposures. It is this type that most of the data cited in this study draw upon. The second type, cellular telephones and their associated broadcast requirements, [which AMI Smart Meters operate on] have raised concerns about current exposures because of their increasingly widespread use. Four types of effects were originally reported in multiple studies: increased spontaneous abortion, shifts in red and white blood cell counts, increased somatic mutation rates in lymphocytes,and increased childhood, testicular, and other cancers.  In addition, there is evidence of generalized increased disability rates from a variety of causes in one study and symptoms of sensitivity reactions and lenticular opacity in at least one other. These findings suggest that RF exposures are potentially carcinogenic and have other health effects. Therefore, prudent avoidance of unneeded exposures is recommended as a precautionary measure. [1] [CJF emphasis added]

Additionally, I introduce Exhibit R-2 Scientific-Medical Evidence on EMF Radiation, which further corroborates the medical science affirming non-thermal health effects from RF/EMF radiation.

Science promotes the recommendation for using precautionary measures or the Precautionary Principle[2], which, in the case of AMI Smart Meters, is the avoidance of RFs/EMFs.  Frompovich has proven in her answers to Attorney Smith’s interrogatories that she lives, as humanly possible, an electromagnetic-free lifestyle as possible since she has no RF/EMF-producing appliances, gadgets, or even a TV in her home.  And yet, Frompovich is being harassed and threatened with no electric power if she does not submit to scientific folly, corporate agendas, and ill-found administrative mandates that depend upon 1940s radar science when it is now 2016!

Talk about insanity surrounding AMI Smart Meters!  Duquesne Light had been harassing utility customers because of AMI Smart Meter malfunctions, which were explained away as “Smart Meters are like computers, and discrepancies and technical issues occur.”  However, no technical issues occurred for decades with safe, efficient, non-plastic parts, non-RF/EMF-producing analog meters.

I have a question for the PA PUC:  Are you aware of the inefficiencies of AMI Smart Meters; how they are causing all sorts of heartaches—literally and figuratively—for customers? And, pray tell, what are you doing about them, other than holding hearings like mine and allowing, and even enabling, consumer health and domestic problems?

Reporter Jon Delano of KDKA2 TV, a Pittsburgh CBS affiliate, reports   about one customer whose first bill, after the AMI Smart Meter was installed, went from previous monthly bills of $42 to $2,545.13!  Another customer reported receiving zero bills for electricity used, and then was harassed and threatened with service termination for non-payment!

It’s totally outrageous what goes on with AMI Smart Meters, their malfunctions, safety issues like fires and, most of all, their politics!  How can customers trust they are not getting ripped off by utility companies with the obvious blessing of the PA PUC when bills skyrocket for no apparent reasons?

Here’s what ought to be most perturbing information for the PA PUC and all entities involved in pushing RFs and EMFs AMI Smart Meters on to unsuspecting public consumers.  This is happening in Australia where a judge has allowed the case to proceed through that legal system:

Over the past few years, New Farm resident Louise Brosnan has lead [sic] the community charge in raising awareness regarding her findings relating to EMR (electromagnetic radiation) and to stop Telcos emitting harmful exposure. Her efforts and research have been an attempt to get people doing something about this menace – but also to provide awareness to unsuspecting residents. Louise suffers from microwave sickness or electro-hypersensitivity and claims that Telcos via their installation of a mobile phone tower emission have threatened to assault her with unseen electrical energy.  Increasingly, in many territories, wi-fi is being removed from schools and hospitals.[3]

That assault threat is deemed sufficiently legal to allow Ms. Brosnan’s case to proceed through Australia’s legal system.  We need such legal awareness, e.g., assault and battery from microwaves and their generation, in the USA, I offer.  Australian law recognizes the culpability involved from microwave-generated RFs/EMFs.  Furthermore, Frompovich stresses that microwave assault and battery legal actions probably soon will—and should—follow within the USA legal system.

Additionally, I feel morally obligated to mention that some researchers are noticing parallels between EMF effects and autism physiology.  Dr Martha R Herbert, PhD, MD (Harvard Medical School, MGH Neurology, Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, TRANSCEND Research, Higher Synthesis Foundation & Higher Synthesis Health) gave a slide presentation titled “Parallels between EMF effects and Autism Findings,” accessible at the Pediatric Societies Conference in May of 2016.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByIQaPLaf3_PQUl0MFA1RXFlMGM/view?pref=2&pli=1

So what do EMFs do physiologically to impact autism physiology? According to Dr Herbert, there’s a page full of twelve (12) physiological issues, which I will not read but introduce as Exhibit P, “Parallels Between EMF Effects and Autism Findings.”  Additional information can be found at Footnote [4] of my written testimony.

Dr Herbert’s slide presentations Conclusions need to be taken seriously insofar as she says that “EMF is likely to make autism’s cellular, metabolic and nervous system physiological dysfunctions worse,” and that “Reducing EMF exposures could reduce severity and incidence of autism.”  If that be the case, AMI Smart Meters on every house may become the proverbial albatross around utilities necks when class action lawsuits, similar to those filed for prescription drug damages, start being filed by parents whose children are impacted by microwave RFs/EMFs and dirty electricity travelling on their homes’ wiring generated by AMI Smart Meters 24/7/365, as often as every 15 seconds, 9600 times a day!

Personally, I recommend the PA PUC look further into how RFs/EMFs, AMI Smart Meters and Wi-Fi in schools are adversely impacting children, who are the most vulnerable to RF/EMF radiation.

Moreover, I’d like to impress upon this court, the PA PUC, and all utility companies installing and operating AMI Smart Meters what the American Academy of Environmental Medicine states in its “Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health” paper Exhibit I:

While it was practical to regulate thermal bioeffects, it was also stated that non-thermal effects are not well understood and no conclusive scientific evidence point to non-thermal based negative health effect.  Further arguments are made with respect to RF exposure from WiFi, cell towers and smart meters that due to distance, exposure to these wavelengths are negligible.  However, many in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological studies demonstrate that significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF exposure and satisfy Hill’s criteria of causality[5].  Genetic damage, productive defects, cancer, neurological degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Pg. 2 [Printed copy provided]

And this from “Health Impacts of Radiofrequency Exposure from Smart Meters” April 2011, a 52-page report prepared by the California Council on Science and Technology:

Two Types of Radio Frequency Effects: Thermal and Non-Thermal

Household electronic devices, such as cellular and cordless telephones, microwave ovens, wireless routers, and wireless smart meters produce RF emissions.  Exposure to RF emissions may lead to thermal and non-thermal effects.  Thermal effects on human have been extensively studied and appear to be well understood.  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established guidelines to protect public health from known hazards associated with thermal impacts of RF: tissue heating from absorbing energy associated with radiofrequency emissions.  Non-thermal effects, however, including cumulative or prolonged exposure to lower levels of RF emissions, are not well understood.  Some studies have suggested non-thermal effects may include fatigue, headache, irritability, or even cancer.

https://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smart-final.pdf Pg. 4 [CJF emphasis added]

I’d be extremely lax if I did not address and question the “Cost Effectiveness” of AMI Smart Meters, which other states Attorneys General and Utility Commissioners have studied and feel do not support a mandated roll out, like Pennsylvanians are experiencing.

I introduce Exhibit Q Smart Meters Cost Effectiveness Questioned into the record along with the specific request that the PA PUC provide Frompovich the study regarding cost effectiveness or feasibility studies documenting AMI Smart Meters’ ability to effectuate consumer savings that was done before, and presented to the PA PUC prior to, the roll out in Pennsylvania.

Such a study certainly should have to have been required and done to comply with the PA PUC Title 66 §1501 Utilities Not Harm Customers, as part of a feasibility study regarding implementing a new product and/or type of service before deployment or roll out.  What is the date of that study, and may I please have a copy of it?

Furthermore, may I respectfully remind everyone that PECO had to stop installing, plus reinstall close to 200,000 AMI smart meters[6], due to the Sensus AMI smart meter fires [7] that were occurring in the metropolitan Philadelphia area.  One AMI smart meter fire, about which I reported internationally, has made the family destitute and no one at the PA PUC or PECO has stepped up to the plate to correct the damage caused by the installation of an AMI smart meter![8]

However, there is one last measure of unfinished business; it concerns Chairman Robert Godshall of the PA House Consumer Affairs Committee, who has sat on AMI Smart Meter opt-out bills for years and continues to this day to NOT call up, nor release, several bills currently in that committee.

Since PA state legislators have heard the plea from citizens for redress to government and introduced appropriate bills to deal with AMI Smart Meters, I allege that Chairman Godshall is depriving all Pennsylvanians of due process, plus redress from harmful health effects to citizens minds, bodies, and health by not allowing said opt-out bills to be released for a vote, which subsequently will pass that committee and the entire state legislature.

Representative Godshall knows that and is acting to prevent those bills from becoming law, I contend.  Therefore, I allege Chairman Godshall is acting in his own or industry’s best interests—not Pennsylvanians and either should recuse himself, since his son Grey works or worked for PECO/Exelon, which prompts conflict of interest claims, or there should be a recall of Representative Godshall who is preventing Pennsylvanians from having their grievances heard about AMI Smart Meters and NOT processing bills introduced into the legislative process to rectify AMI Smart Meter hardships.  Other states have enacted opt-out legislation for AMI Smart Meters, so what’s preventing Representative Godshall from releasing those bills?

May I respectfully remind the PA PUC, every PA state legislator, and all state government agency administrators, who actually function as fiduciaries in their relationships with taxpaying citizens, that you should be demanding Representative Godshall’s resignation for his blatant exercise for several years of what appears to be a pre-set and/or determined agenda, or course of action, that is not in the best interests of Pennsylvanians’ health and wellbeing, but smacks clearly of a conflict of interest and even possible collusion.

And finally, the following are my closing remarks.

Unfortunately and most dramatically, a classic example of government inefficiencies and governmental agencies’ questionable and inaccurate health information and/or advisories, or more accurately—the lack of correct and proper health information or science, plus  probable “vested-interest data propaganda,” input is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s totally inept and clearly ludicrous daily September 11, 2001 event air quality reports during the World Trade Center implosions that contended air quality was safe, along with insistent admonitions to go back to work in that area and get on with life as normal.

Such GROSSLY inaccurate information for all involved, especially first responders, EMS personnel, rescue and recovery crews, plus deconstruction and reconstruction crews later on, now has been proven scientifically false and apparently driven either by blatantly unqualified or deliberately bad scientific information, OR possibly, a deliberate “conspiracy” to keep important air quality health damaging information from those brave men and women who put their lives in danger to help their fellow human beings.  I, for one, remember that day and salute with the highest esteem I can muster those brave and selfless souls and their families who have suffered the consequences of government stupidity or malfeasance, deliberate or otherwise, I offer.

There were extremely high levels of toxic contaminants—chemicals, heavy metals and questionable particulates—and federal, City of New York and State of New York health officials knowingly did NOT protect the public’s health, only doggedly reassured and told obvious scientific lies, which leads Frompovich to question if similar modus operandi are employed with regard to electromagnetic frequencies non-thermal adverse health effects from microwave technology being forced upon Pennsylvanians via utility companies’ AMI Smart Meters and PA PUC’s regulations, despite what HB2200 stated:

(f) (2) (i) upon request from a customer that agrees to pay the cost of the smart meter at the time of the request.

Frompovich’s question to PECO and the PA PUC is this:  How many PECO customers requested an AMI Smart Meter?  May I please have the number of customer requests for a smart meter, plus the cost of each customer’s meter?  I’d be willing to wager neither of you have had such requests!

After all the scientific research, publications and documentation Frompovich has introduced into this hearing record, especially the Bioinitiative 2012 report with 1800 new studies that I introduce as Exhibit R-1, the PA PUC, PECO, all Pennsylvania utility companies, the media and federal government agencies surely now must know the current scientific facts about EMFs/RFs and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) problems emanating from microwave technologies by which AMI Smart Meters operate.

What is the PA Public Utility Commission going to do about it now that you know?

Unfortunately, human nature is such that humans cannot understand, nor appreciate, the problems others are saddled with, which some even consider as ‘odd’ UNTIL—and here’s the key moment—one actually experiences those very same problems, but then it’s too late.  Have any of you walked in an EHS person’s shoes?  When you contract electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), you, too, I can almost guarantee, will become totally distraught and demand relief.

What is the PA PUC going to do to relieve the fear, mental and physical anguish and suffering of those who have forced retrofitted AMI Smart Meters on their homes, plus all the harassment Pennsylvania consumers who refuse(d) being damaged by AMI Smart Meter EMFs receive(d); are bullied about; and/or threatened with loss of service and/or fines?

Where is the PA PUC’s collective government conscience and fiduciary responsibility regarding the PA PUC’s safety mission?

Where is the current experimental—not epidemiological—science proving there are no EMF/RF non-thermal adverse health effects?  Frompovich requests that PECO please produce them to her and the PA PUC Administrative Law judges  before any decision is rendered by this court in the Frompovich case.

Lastly, where are the PA PUC members’ individual senses of integrity, honor and agency decency regarding implementation of Act 129 of 2008 as actually passed by the legislature as HB2200, not what PA PUC employees “believed” legislators had passed?

I rest my case, and thank you very much for the opportunity to present my testimony, which I respectfully ask be printed in its entirety as part of this hearing record, with no deletions and/or redactions.

Catherine J Frompovich
November 2, 2016

Notes:

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469943/
[2] http://www.precautionaryprinciple.eu/
[3] https://app.box.com/s/svj3a4q7pi77dzrtxg3ekbn4dmp26ppm
[4] http://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MarthaHerbertPAS-Handout-1.pdf Pp. 2-3
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria
Criteria: Strength, Consistency, Specificity, Temporality, Biological gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, Analogy
[6] http://marylandsmartmeterawareness.org/smart-meter-news/after-tests-peco-to-resume-smart-meter-installations-sensus-defends-their-meters/
[7] http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-16/news/33217445_1_smart-meters-smart-meter-installation-sensus
[8] http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/smart-meters-fire-living-hell-and.html

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Unspoken Impacts of Smart Meters. Microwave Technologies RFs/EMFs « Harm Human Health »

A mass exodus of Ukrainians to Russia: The symbol of the new year in Ukraine may be a Cossack Vakula* that flies over precincts in St. Petersburg. Or a deserted farm near Little Russian Dikanka, a hut where the wind sings through the windows. Ukrainians are rushing to Russia not for overseas slippers, but for daily bread. They run from the country with their families, together with their farm neighbors, leaving forever.

1/4  WON’T RETURN

Members of the International human rights organization Human Rights Action (HRA) said that over the past year in Ukraine, where over the last 10 years the population has decreased from 48 to 42 million, more than three million people have left for Russia! And according to European researchers the depopulation going on in the Ukraine  is about to cause a social explosion.

« No need for Ukrainian youth in migrant-saturated Europe, but it’s easy to find earnings in Russia »

This is what the Prime Minister of Ukraine Vladimir Groisman acknowledged at one of the recent sessions of the government. In the session there was talk that Ukraine in the next year may be deprived of its last support – the agricultural sector. The land will soon have no one to work it, as it’s the elderly who remain in the villages.

Ukrainian youth are not needed in the Europe that is now supersaturated with migrants, but it is easy to find earnings in Russia.

Kiev media also are actively discussing the warning of Oleksandr Okhrimenko, President of the Ukrainian Analytical Center. He made the forecast  that in the next year the migratory flow from the Ukraine could grow by half, and a quarter of those who left would change citizenship, and will work in Russia.

20 MILLION LEAVE

The Russian Interior Ministry notes a sharp increase in the flow of migrants from Ukraine. It is expected that in the second half of October 25-30 thousand migrant workers more than usual will arrive in Russia from Ukraine. Already 80-85 thousand Ukrainian citizens arrive per week. Basically they come to us in search of work. At the same time, it is no longer about the residents of the Donbass, who fled from the war. It is very real ethnic Ukrainians, from the western regions.

In Ukraine, some experts are trying to support the version of this as a seasonal phenomenon: it is said, the potato harvest is done on the farms and now they have gone to earn some cash on Russian construction sites. But experts at « KP » argue that it’s not just that.

– The economic crisis has gotten worse in the Ukraine, as people are looking for any stable earnings and Poroshenko has once again shown that Ukrainians are not needed in Europe. They are not needed either as migrant workers or as visa-free visitors, Yuri Moskovski told the correspondent of « Komsomolskaya Pravda. » Moskovski is chairman of the National Affairs Council in the Government of Moscow, and the Foundation projects director, international relations for the Neighbourhood Foundation.

« They always find their niche on the Russian labor market. Our task is to receive them, place, and help them to adapt. The migration from the Ukraine will continue to grow. »** When the Zaporozhye army swore oaths to Russia, about 700 thousand people lived there. When Ukraine left the Soviet Union, there were more than 50 million citizens, and now in fact – 38. But Bandera said in his time time that for the Ukraine to establish a national state a population of 20 million would do. His successors have chosen his path. They are stubbornly headed to depopulation.

There are several reasons why the citizens of Ukraine began to recuse their nationality, and leave for Russia with their families. Though last year the Ukrainians were free to come to Russia and work, while remaining in the background with other migrants virtually invisible to law enforcement, the migration rules have become stricter this year.

Under the current legislation a migrant from Ukraine is obliged to register, acquire an INN (Taxpayer ID Number), health insurance, pass an exam on the Russian language, to acquire a work permit, is given a month to get a contract of employment, and has to pay 4000 rubles a month on the permit. Violators are fined, and forcibly expelled with a re-entry restriction for 5-10 years.

In addition, the Federal Migration Service of Russia, which was engaged in the control of illegal migration, has recently been abolished. The functions of this department were turned over to the Interior Ministry of Russia, a Ministry, which will not only supervise but also achieve results with forceful measures.

It is because the Ukrainians are in a rush to move to Russia, to obtain residence permits, and Russian citizenship, which gives the right to work without restrictions and additional fees.

Poroshenko recently added to this determination among his constituents. He put pressure on his people by means of prohibitions on Russian payment systems, and fears of an introduction of a visa regime with Russia. All within the format of the chosen policy: Team Poroshenko clearly is following the precepts of Bandera.

Notes

*Vakula the Smith: character from a Gogol story, common in porcelan; also an opera.

**The quotation marks are placed by the translator: The quoted passage is plainly from Moskovski, but the original writer has no quotation marks at all, so it is unclear where Moskovski leaves off and the writer tacks on — Tr.

Alexander Boyko, in Konsomolskaya Pravda, translated by Tom Winter

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Depopulation and « Social Explosion »: Mass Exodus from Ukraine to Russia, 80,000 People a Week

On November 3rd, Morning Consult’s Jon Reid bannered, « Poverty on the Rise in Nearly All House Districts” and he reported that, « A Brookings Institution study, released less than a week before the election, shows that the number of people living in poverty has increased in 96 percent of congressional districts between 2000 and 2010-2014.”

That finding fits along with others, such as that the economic ‘recovery’ after Barack Obama came into the White House in 2009, went virtually entirely to the very rich.

According to the top experts on wealth-inequality in the United States, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, American wealth-inequality soared faster during 2003-2013 than ever since the period 1923-1928, right before the Great Crash of 1929. Their study “Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913”, published in the May 2016 Quarterly Journal of Economics, reported that ever since the remilitarization of the U.S. from the 2003 invasion of Iraq onward (and continuing under Obama, with boosts to NATO, and invasions such as of Libya in 2011), the percentage of total wealth owned by the richest .1% of American families (those families whose net worth was $111 million or higher) rose from 15% of the total in 2003, to 22% of the total in 2013, and this means that the percentage going to the lower 99.9% declined from 85% down to 78% during that time.

America’s soaring inequality during the George W. Bush Presidency continued unaffected by the 2009 change of Presidential Administrations.

In fact: whereas Bush’s stock-market plunge in 2006-2008 hit the richest the hardest, Obama’s coming into office restored their lost wealth rapidly, while the wealth of the bottom 90% of the U.S. population flatlined throughout his Presidency. The Obama economic recovery was no recovery at all for the bottom 90% of Americans.

Not just wealth but personal income also soared for the super-rich under Obama. The “Share of income earned by top 0.1% wealth holders” soared throughout Obama’s Presidency, at least up through 2012, which is the latest figure shown there for that. So: at least the bottom 90% of U.S. families have experienced none of the Obama economic recovery; what ‘recovery’ from the ‘recession’ there is, went only to the very rich.

Findings such as those are consistent with, and might help to explain, the finding in the new Brookings study, that 96% of House districts have experienced increased poverty under Obama. The nation’s poor have gotten political rhetoric, but not much else, and the middle class also have received no net benefit, under Obama.

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

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Increased Poverty in 96% of U.S. House Districts, During Obama’s Presidency

Russia expects Washington to provide an explanation after a report claimed that Pentagon cyber-offensive specialists have hacked into Russia’s power grids, telecommunications networks, and the Kremlin’s command systems for a possible sabotage.

If no official reaction from the American administration follows, it would mean state cyberterrorism exists in the US. If the threats of the attack, which were published by the US media, are carried out, Moscow would be justified in charging Washington,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said, according to the ministry’s website.

NBC News said earlier in an exclusive report that US military hackers have penetrated crucial infrastructure in Russia, “making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the US deem it necessary.

The report was based on the account of a senior US intelligence official and top-secret documents. NBC said the hack was carried out in preparation for waging a full-scale cyberwar with Russia.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also commented on the report, saying Russia had “cybersecurity measures taken at the level proper for the current situation, and the threats voiced against us by officials of other nations.”

US officials earlier alleged that countries like Russia and China could use hackers to disrupt American power grids and other crucial infrastructure.

Moreover, US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Moscow engaged in hacking to damage her bid for the White house have become a major issue in the ongoing US election campaign. Though she provided no proof, the Democrat candidate accused the Kremlin of hacking into the Democrats’ computer networks and publishing sensitive information in order to swing the election in favor of her GOP rival, Donald Trump. In particular, she claimed that Russia had supplied the whistleblower website WikiLeaks with emails hacked from the account of her campaign chair, John Podesta.

 

Russia has repeatedly denied the accusations, asserting that it has no interest in influencing the election and questioning whether such publications would even have a major impact on how Americans would vote. No hard evidence of the alleged Russian hack has ever been made public, despite media reports claiming that US intelligence communities are “convinced” of the Kremlin’s guilt.

The idea that Russia is trying to harm the US through hacking and needs to be deterred is “preposterous,” American private investigator and writer Charles Ortel told RT.

“Hillary is a master. Back in the days when her husband was under threat, she suggested that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy. Now there is supposed to be a vast crazy conspiracy involving the FBI and Russia. It’s just fantasy land to me,” he said.

So far, the only country with a record of conducting cyber-attacks on other nations is the US itself. An operation called ‘Olympic Games,’ which was reportedly conducted by the US in corroboration with Israel, involved infecting the computer networks of Iranian uranium enrichment facilities with a computer virus that affected industrial controllers of centrifuges in order to destroy them.

The operation is said to have significantly damaged Iran’s production of nuclear fuel at the Natanz site. Washington apparently decided to go public about it after the virus, dubbed Stuxnet by the IT community, escaped and was identified by major cybersecurity companies.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Who’s Doing the Hacking? Pentagon « Cyber-Offensive Specialists » Hacked into Russia’s Power Grids

American Irrationalism. Something is Terribly Wrong

novembre 6th, 2016 by Chris Hedges

There is no shortage of signs of impending environmental catastrophe, including the melting of the polar ice caps and the rise of atmospheric carbon to above 400 parts per million. The earth’s sixth mass extinction is underway. It is not taking place because of planetary forces. Homo sapiens is orchestrating it. Americans are at the same time bankrupting themselves by waging endless and unwinnable wars. We have allowed our elites to push more than half the U.S. population into poverty through deindustrialization.

We do nothing to halt the waves of nihilistic violence by enraged citizens who carry out periodic mass shootings in schools, malls, movie theaters and other public places. The political and financial elites flaunt their greed and corruption.

Donald Trump appears to pay no federal income taxes.

Hillary and Bill Clinton use their foundation as a tool for legalized bribery. Our largest corporations have orchestrated a legal tax boycott.

The judicial system is a subsidiary of the corporate state.

Militarized police conduct public executions of unarmed people of color.

Our infrastructure, including our schools, roads and bridges, along with our deindustrialized cities, are in ruins. Decay and rot—physical and moral—are pervasive. 

We are blinded to our depressing reality by the avalanche of images disseminated by mass media. Political, intellectual and cultural discourse has been replaced with spectacle. Emotionalism and sensationalism are prized over truth. Highly paid pundits who parrot back the official narrative, corporate advertisers, inane talk shows, violent or sexually explicit entertainment and gossip-fueled news have contaminated cultural life. “Reality” television, as contrived as every other form of mass entertainment, has produced a “reality” presidential candidate.

Mass culture, because it speaks to us in easily digestible clichés and stereotypes, reinforces ignorance, bigotry and racism. It promotes our individual and collective self-glorification. It sanctifies nonexistent national virtues. It takes from us the intellectual and linguistic tools needed to separate illusion from truth. It is all show business all the time.

The false values of reality TV have been carried over into the current presidential race. Shown here, Donald Trump on “The Apprentice.” (NBC)

There are millions of Americans who know that something is terribly wrong. A light has gone out. They see this in their own suffering and hopelessness and the suffering and hopelessness of their neighbors. But they lack, because of the contamination of our political, cultural and intellectual discourse, the words and ideas to make sense of what is happening around them. They are bereft of a vision. Austerity, globalization, unfettered capitalism, an expansion of the extraction of fossil fuels, and war are not the prices to be paid for progress and the advance of civilization. They are part of the savage and deadly exploitation by corporate capitalism and imperialism. They serve a neoliberal ideology. The elites dare not speak this truth. It is toxic. They peddle the seductive illusions that saturate the airwaves. We are left to strike out at shadows. We are led to succumb to the racism, allure of white supremacy and bigotry that always accompany a culture in dissolution.

We cannot, for this reason, discount the possibility that Trump will be elected president. The election outcome will be decided by whatever emotion Americans feel when they cast their ballots.

Celebrity narratives, manufactured pseudo-drama, sex scandals, natural disasters, insults and invective, mass shootings and war flash before us in a constant jumble of images on ubiquitous screens. The sensory assault obliterates reality. A former congressman who sends a picture of himself in underwear to a woman is a national news story. Sober examinations of our economic, foreign, judicial and environmental policies are dismissed as too complicated and boring. They do not produce engaging images. The electronic media’s sole goal is to attract viewers and advertising dollars. It has conditioned us to demand a nonstop vaudeville act.

Because of this mass indoctrination, we have become infected by what Daniel Boorstin in “The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America” calls “social narcissism.” The bottomless narcissism of Trump and the Clintons caters to this social narcissism. They reflect back to us our desperate longing for, as well as celebration of, entertainment, celebrity, wealth, power and self-aggrandizement. It is not only advertising and public relations, as Boorstin pointed out, that carry out the incessant manufacturing of illusions that feed social narcissism.

Journalists, book publishers, politicians, athletes, entertainers, positive psychologists, self-help gurus, the Christian right and talk show hosts all feed the mania for illusion. They all chant the insane mantra that reality is never an impediment to what we desire. We can have anything we want if we work hard, get an education, believe in ourselves, grasp that we are exceptional and see the impossible as always possible. It is magical thinking. And magical thinking is the only real commodity the elites have left to offer us. Make American Great Again. Or American already is great. Take your pick of idiotic clichés.

“We tyrannize and frustrate ourselves by expecting more than the world can give us or than we can make of the world,” Boorstin wrote.

“We demand that everyone who talks to us, or writes for us, or takes pictures for us, or makes merchandise for us, should live in our world of extravagant expectations. We expect this even of the peoples of foreign countries. We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality. We demand them. And we demand that there be always more of them, bigger and better and more vivid.”

The incessant search for instant gratification and the most appealing image, including the image of ourselves we manufacture for others on social media, has robbed us of the ability to examine ourselves and our society. It has extinguished the truth. The terminal decline of the American empire, the utter inability our elites to manage anything important, the climate crisis, widespread poverty and despair do not fit with the illusion. So these realities are blotted from public consciousness. The poor are rendered invisible. The foreign policy debacles will be fixed with more bombs. Only the Soviet and fascist dictatorships, along with the medieval Catholic Church, controlled thought as effectively.

Candidates Trump and Clinton have no plans to halt our slide to oblivion. They are part of the circus. They, like all of the other elites, profit from the system that is destroying us. They lack the incentive and probably the capacity to challenge the structures and assumptions that define corporate capitalism. They function as high priests. They peddle the illusions. They laud our ingenuity and strength. They preach the inevitability of human progress and American exceptionalism. They tell us what we want to hear. They appeal to our emotions, as does all of mass culture. They do not acknowledge reality. That would spoil the show.

We vote for slogans, manufactured personalities, perceived sincerity, personal attractiveness and the crafted personal narratives peddled by candidates. Office seekers create the illusion of intimacy established between celebrities and their audiences. We see ourselves in them; admirers of the “winner” Trump see themselves as becoming him. No politician succeeds without such artifice. Today’s politics is just one more product of a diseased culture. Our political leaders are much like the celebrities who, in Boorstin’s words, “are receptacles into which we pour our own purposelessness. They are nothing but ourselves seen in a magnifying mirror.”

The incoherent absurdities mouthed for our amusement induce a state of permanent amnesia. Life is lived in an eternal present. How we got here, where we came from, what shaped us as a society, in short the continuum of history that gives us an identity, are eradicated.

The quest for identity through mass culture is self-defeating. We can never achieve what these illusions tell us we can achieve. We can never be who we want to be. It is a ceaseless chase from one chimera to the next. And this is why at the end we fall into despair and rage. It is why huge parts of the country no longer hold genuine political ideas. It is why people vote according to how they feel. It is why hatred and fear are a potent political platform. It is why we are sleepwalking into oblivion.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur American Irrationalism. Something is Terribly Wrong

Is America’s Presidential Election Rigged for Hillary?

novembre 6th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

Power brokers infesting America’s deep state decide who’ll hold all top government posts. Voters believing their say matters don’t understand how things work.

Elections are exercises in deception, especially for the nation’s highest office. Future incumbents are vetted well in advance to assure they’ll continue dirty business as usual.

Duopoly power runs things with two right wings, not a dime’s worth of difference between undemocratic Democrats and Republicans.

Trump isn’t anti-establishment. He just sounds that way. He didn’t get to be a billionaire by being a good guy, especially headquartered in New York, America’s financial capital, home to Wall Street, the epicenter of corrupt financial power, controlling the nation’s money, the lever controlling government and business.

Hillary was chosen last year to succeed Obama before announcing her candidacy. Throughout the campaign, things haven’t gone as planned. Trump surprisingly emerged last man standing among 17 Republican aspirants.

Sanders didn’t run to win – merely to create the appearance of a contest for the Democrat nomination, knowing Hillary would emerge triumphant, primaries rigged to assure it.

So what to expect on November 8? Are things rigged for Hillary – despite her baggage, most voters calling her a liar, dishonest and untrustworthy?

Pollster Doug Kaplan says “(e)very four years, there is a surge at the end by the Republican nominee, like muscle memory kicking in that in some years is enough and some is not.”

Pollster Pat Caddell said Trump has momentum. “The whole country is in motion, and states in play are going all together.” The election is up for grabs, he believes with up to 12% of the electorate “floating” between the two candidates.

Guccifer 2.0, responsible for hacking DNC emails for WikiLeaks, he claimed, “warn(ed) that the Democrats may rig the elections on November 8.”

“This may be possible because of the software installed in the FEC networks by the large IT companies,” he said. “(T)heir software is of poor quality, with many holes and vulnerabilities.”

I have registered in the FEC electronic system as an independent election observer; so I will monitor that the elections are held honestly.

I also call on other hackers to join me, monitor the elections from inside and inform the US society about the facts of electoral fraud.

According to Black Box Voting, the GEMS election management system counts about 25% of all votes in US elections.

“(A) fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes,” it explained.

This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures…

After polls close on November 8, we’ll know whether Hillary or Trump emerged triumphant. He could win if power brokers, at the 11th hour, decided Hillary’s baggage left her too tainted to serve, got Trump to assure he’ll support their agenda, and intend making him Obama’s successor by fair or foul means.

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

His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. »

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

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

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Is America’s Presidential Election Rigged for Hillary?

BREAKING: Can U.S. Elections Really Be Stolen? Yes.

novembre 6th, 2016 by Prof Mark Crispin Miller

Is election theft possible in the United States? And might the suspects live closer to home than the Kremlin?

Professor Mark Crispin Miller, author of numerous books and articles on computerized election fraud, explores the very real possibilities.

Donald Trump is right to say that the election could be stolen. 

All our elections are vulnerable as confirmed by a Harvard University Study. We have the worst voting system in the developed world.  The system is set to make honest elections virtually impossible.

Election theft involves two steps: shrinking the pool of eligible voters. Second stage: Computerized election fraud involving manipulation.

The system is both computerized and privatized. 

There is evidence that the Democratic primary was rigged as confirmed  by a Stanford University study. 

The process of « Stealing an Election » has several dimensions which go well beyond election fraud and vote rigging. 

Listen to Professor Mark Crispin Miller

.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur BREAKING: Can U.S. Elections Really Be Stolen? Yes.

This article which is of utmost relevance to US Elections 2016 was first published in April 2014. 

Many commentators – including both liberal and conservative  Supreme Court justices such as Sandra Day O’Connor –  believe that the Supreme Court wrongfully threw the election to Bush.  Many have called it the “worst Supreme Court decision in history”.

Liberals also believe that the “Brooks Brothers Riot” against the recount was a dirty trick by high-level Republican operatives (and see this):

http://www.truthmove.org/workspace/photos-content/preppy_riot.jpg

But the elephant in the room which most Democrats refuse to consider is election fraud.  This is odd, given that there is substantial evidence that election fraud has been widespread in the U.S. in recent years.

Why won’t they admit that election fraud is widespread?

Perhaps because they benefit from the false appearance of free and fair elections. As Sonoma State University and Project Censored Director Peter Phillips noted in 2005:

There is little doubt key Democrats know that votes in 2004 and earlier elections were stolen. The fact that few in Congress are complaining about fraud is an indication of the totality to which both parties accept the status quo of a money based elections system. Neither party wants to further undermine public confidence in the American “democratic” process (over 80 millions eligible voters refused to vote in 2004)…. Future elections in the US will continue as an equal opportunity for both parties to maintain a national democratic charade in which money counts more than truth.

A more cynical view: the Democratic “leadership” may simply hope to be able to outspend the Republicans in the election fraud arm’s race.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Election Fraud in America: Are Republicans and Democrats Benefiting from False « Free and Fair » Elections?

Originally published in November 2011. Image Professor Peter Dale Scott

« I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [the National Security Agency] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return. »   — Senator Frank Church (1975)

I would like to discuss four major and badly understood events – the John F. Kennedy assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11. I will analyze these deep events as part of a deeper political process linking them, a process that has helped build up repressive power in America at the expense of democracy.

In recent years I have been talking about a dark force behind these events — a force which, for want of a better term, I have clumsily called a “deep state,” operating both within and outside the public state. Today for the first time I want to identify part of that dark force, a part which has operated for five decades or more at the edge of the public state. This part of the dark force has a name not invented by me: the Doomsday Project, the Pentagon’s name for the emergency planning “to keep the White House and Pentagon running during and after a nuclear war or some other major crisis.”1

My point is a simple and important one: to show that the Doomsday Project of the 1980s, and the earlier emergency planning that developed into it, have played a role in the background of all the deep events I shall discuss.

More significantly, it has been a factor behind all three of the disturbing events that now threaten American democracy. The first of these three is what has been called the conversion of our economy into a plutonomy – with the increasing separation of America into two classes, into the haves and the have-nots, the one percent and the 99 percent. The second is America’s increasing militarization, and above all its inclination, which has become more and more routine and predictable, to wage or provoke wars in remote regions of the globe. It is clear that the operations of this American war machine have served the one percent.2

The third – my subject today — is the important and increasingly deleterious impact on American history of structural deep events: mysterious events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, or 9/11, which violate the American social structure, have a major impact on American society, repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, and in many cases proceed from an unknown dark force.

There are any number of analyses of America’s current breakdown in terms of income and wealth disparity, also in terms of America’s increasing militarization and belligerency. What I shall do today is I think new: to argue that both the income disparity – or what has been called our plutonomy — and the belligerency have been fostered significantly by deep events.

We must understand that the income disparity of America’s current economy was not the result of market forces working independently of political intervention. In large part it was generated by a systematic and deliberate ongoing political process dating from the anxieties of the very wealthy in the 1960s and 1970s that control of the country was slipping away from them.

This was the time when future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, in a 1971 memorandum, warned that survival of the free enterprise system depended on “careful long-range planning and implementation” of a well-financed response to threats from the left.3 This warning was answered by a sustained right-wing offensive, coordinated by think tanks and funded lavishly by a small group of family foundations.4 We should recall that all this was in response to serious riots in Newark, Detroit, and elsewhere, and that increasing calls for a revolution were coming from the left (in Europe as well as America). I will focus today on the right’s response to that challenge, and on the role of deep events in enhancing their response.

What was important about the Powell memorandum was less the document itself than the fact that it was commissioned by the United States Chamber of Commerce, one of the most influential and least discussed lobbying groups in America. And the memorandum was only one of many signs of that developing class war in the 1970s, a larger process working both inside and outside government (including what Irving Kristol called an “intellectual counterrevolution”), which led directly to the so-called “Reagan Revolution.”5

It is clear that this larger process has been carried on for almost five decades, pumping billions of right-wing dollars into the American political process. What I wish to show today is that deep events have also been integral to this right-wing effort, from the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963 to 9/11. 9/11 resulted in the implementation of “Continuity of Government” (COG) plans (which in the Oliver North Iran Contra Hearings of 1987 were called plans for “the suspension of the U.S. constitution”). These COG plans, building on earlier COG planning, had been carefully developed since 1982 in the so-called Doomsday Project, by a secret group appointed by Reagan. The group was composed of both public and private figures, including Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

I shall try to show today that in this respect 9/11 was only the culmination of a sequence of deep events reaching back to the Kennedy assassination if not earlier, and that the germs of the Doomsday Project can be detected behind all of them.

More specifically, I shall try to demonstrate about these deep events that

1) prior bureaucratic misbehavior by the CIA and similar agencies helped to make both the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 happen;

2) the consequences of each deep event included an increase in top-down repressive power for these same agencies, at the expense of persuasive democratic power;6

3) there are symptomatic overlaps in personnel between the perpetrators of each of these deep events and the next;

4) one sees in each event the involvement of elements of the international drug traffic – suggesting that our current plutonomy is also to some degree a narconomy;

5) in the background of each event (and playing an increasingly important role) one sees the Doomsday Project — the alternative emergency planning structure with its own communications network, operating as a shadow network outside of regular government channels.

Bureaucratic Misbehavior as a Factor Contributing to both the JFK Assassination and 9/11

Both the JFK assassination and 9/11 were facilitated by the way the CIA and FBI manipulated their files about alleged perpetrators of each event (Lee Harvey Oswald in the case of what I shall call JFK, and the alleged hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in the case of 9/11). Part of this facilitation was the decision on October 9, 1963 of an FBI agent, Marvin Gheesling, to remove Oswald from the FBI watch list for surveillance. This was shortly after Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans in August and his reported travel to Mexico in September. Obviously these developments should normally have made Oswald a candidate for increased surveillance.7

This misbehavior is paradigmatic of the behavior of other agencies, especially the CIA, in both JFK and 9/11. Indeed Gheesling’s behavior fits very neatly with the CIA’s culpable withholding from the FBI, in the same month of October, information that Oswald had allegedly met in Mexico City with a suspected KGB agent, Valeriy Kostikov.8 This also helped ensure that Oswald would not be placed under surveillance. Indeed, former FBI Director Clarence Kelley in his memoir later complained that the CIA’s withholding of information was the major reason why Oswald was not put under surveillance on November 22, 1963.9

A more ominous provocation in 1963 was that of Army Intelligence, one unit of which in Dallas did not simply withhold information about Lee Harvey Oswald, but manufactured false intelligence that seemed designed to provoke retaliation against Cuba. I call such provocations phase-one stories, efforts to portray Oswald as a Communist conspirator (as opposed to the later phase-two stories, also false, portraying him as a disgruntled loner). A conspicuous example of such phase-one stories is a cable from the Fourth Army Command in Texas, reporting a tip from a Dallas policeman who was also in an Army Intelligence Reserve unit:

Assistant Chief Don Stringfellow, Intelligence Section, Dallas Police Department, notified 112th INTC [Intelligence] Group, this Headquarters, that information obtained from Oswald revealed he had defected to Cuba in 1959 and is a card-carrying member of Communist Party.”10

This cable was sent on November 22 directly to the U.S. Strike Command at Fort MacDill in Florida, the base poised for a possible retaliatory attack against Cuba.11

The cable was not an isolated aberration. It was supported by other false phase-one stories from Dallas about Oswald’s alleged rifle, and specifically by concatenated false translations of Marina Oswald’s testimony, to suggest that Oswald’s rifle in Dallas was one he had owned in Russia.12

These last false reports, apparently unrelated, can also be traced to officer Don Stringfellow’s 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit.13 The interpreter who first supplied the false translation of Marina’s words, Ilya Mamantov, was selected by a Dallas oilman, Jack Crichton, and Deputy Dallas Police Chief George Lumpkin.14 Crichton and Lumpkin were also the Chief and the Deputy Chief of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit.15 Crichton was also an extreme right-winger in the community of Dallas oilmen: he was a trustee of the H.L. Hunt Foundation, and a member of the American Friends of the Katanga Freedom Fighters, a group organized to oppose Kennedy’s policies in the Congo.

We have to keep in mind that some of the Joint Chiefs were furious that the 1962 Missile Crisis had not led to an invasion of Cuba, and that, under new JCS Chairman Maxwell Taylor, the Joint Chiefs, in May 1963, still believed “that US military intervention in Cuba is necessary.”16 This was six months after Kennedy, to resolve the Missile Crisis in October 1962, had given explicit (albeit highly qualified) assurances to Khrushchev, that the United States would not invade Cuba.17 This did not stop the J-5 of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the JCS Directorate of Plans and Policy) from producing a menu of “fabricated provocations to justify military intervention.”18 (One proposed example of “fabricated provocations” envisioned “using MIG type aircraft flown by US pilots to … attack surface shipping or to attack US military.”)19

The deceptions about Oswald coming from Dallas were immediately post-assassination; thus they do not by themselves establish that the assassination itself was a provocation-deception plot. They do however reveal enough about the anti-Castro mindset of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit in Dallas to confirm that it was remarkably similar to that of the J-5 the preceding May – the mindset that produced a menu of “fabricated provocations” to attack Cuba. (According to Crichton there were “about a hundred men in [the 488th Reserve unit] and about forty or fifty of them were from the Dallas Police Department.”)20

It can hardly be accidental that we see this bureaucratic misbehavior from the FBI, CIA, and military, the three agencies with which Kennedy had had serious disagreements in his truncated presidency.21 Later in this paper I shall link Dallas oilman Jack Crichton to the 1963 emergency planning that became the Doomsday Project.

Analogous Bureaucratic Misbehavior in the Case of 9/11

Before 9/11 the CIA, in 2000-2001, again flagrantly withheld crucial evidence from the FBI: evidence that, if shared, would have led the FBI to surveil two of the alleged hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaz al-Hazmi. This sustained withholding of evidence provoked an FBI agent to predict accurately in August, 2001, that “someday someone will die.”22 After 9/11 another FBI agent said of the CIA: “They [CIA] didn’t want the bureau meddling in their business—that’s why they didn’t tell the FBI….  And that’s why September 11 happened. That is why it happened. . . . They have blood on their hands. They have three thousand deaths on their hands”23 The CIA’s withholding of relevant evidence before 9/11 (which it was required by its own rules to supply) was matched in this case by the NSA.24

Without these withholdings, in other words, neither the Kennedy assassination nor 9/11 could have developed in the manner in which they did. As I wrote in American War Machine, it would appear that

Oswald (and later al-Mihdhar) had at some prior point been selected as designated subjects for an operation. This would not initially have been for the commission of a crime against the American polity: on the contrary, steps were probably taken to prepare Oswald in connection with an operation against Cuba and al-Mihdhar [I suspect] for an operation against al-Qaeda. But as [exploitable] legends began to accumulate about both figures, it became possible for some witting people to subvert the sanctioned operation into a plan for murder that would later be covered up. At this point Oswald (and by analogy al-Mihdhar) was no longer just a designated subject but also now a designated culprit.25

Kevin Fenton, in his exhaustive book Disconnecting the Dots, has since reached the same conclusion with respect to 9/11: “that, by the summer of 2001, the purpose of withholding the information had become to allow the attacks to go forward.”26 He has also identified the person chiefly responsible for the misbehavior: CIA officer Richard Blee, Chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit. Blee, while Clinton was still president, had been one of a faction inside CIA pressing for a more belligerent CIA involvement in Afghanistan, in conjunction with the Afghan Northern Alliance.27 This then happened immediately after 9/11, and Blee himself was promoted, to become the new Chief of Station in Kabul.28

How CIA and NSA Withholding of Evidence in the Second Tonkin Gulf Incident, Contributed to War with North Vietnam

I will spare you the details of this withholding, which can be found in my American War Machine, pp. 200-02. But Tonkin Gulf is similar to the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, in that manipulation of evidence helped lead America – in this case very swiftly – into war.

Historians such as Fredrik Logevall have agreed with the assessment of former undersecretary of state George Ball that the US destroyer mission in the Tonkin Gulf, which resulted in the Tonkin Gulf incidents, “was primarily for provocation.”29 The planning for this provocative mission came from the J-5 of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the same unit that in 1963 had reported concerning Cuba that, “the engineering of a series of provocations to justify military intervention is feasible.”30

The NSA and CIA suppression of the truth on August 4 was in the context of an existing high-level (but controversial) determination to attack North Vietnam. In this respect the Tonkin Gulf incident is remarkably similar to the suppression of the truth by CIA and NSA leading up to 9/11, when there was again a high-level (but controversial) determination to go to war.

Increases in Repressive Power After Deep Events

All of the deep events discussed above have contributed to the cumulative increase of Washington’s repressive powers. It is clear for example that the Warren Commission used the JFK assassination to increase CIA surveillance of Americans. As I wrote in Deep Politics, this was the result of

the Warren Commission’s controversial recommendations that the Secret Service’s domestic surveillance responsibilities be increased (WR 25-26). Somewhat illogically, the Warren Report concluded both that Oswald acted alone (WR 22), . . . and also that the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, should coordinate more closely the surveillance of organized groups (WR 463). In particular, it recommended that the Secret Service acquire a computerized data bank compatible with that already developed by the CIA.31

This pattern would repeat itself four years later with the assassination of Robert Kennedy. In the twenty-four hours between Bobby’s shooting and his death, Congress hurriedly passed a statute— drafted well in advance (like the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 and the Patriot Act of 2001) — that still further augmented the secret powers given to the Secret Service in the name of protecting presidential candidates.32

This was not a trivial or benign change: from this swiftly considered act, passed under Johnson, flowed some of the worst excesses of the Nixon presidency.33

The change also contributed to the chaos and violence at the Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968. Army intelligence surveillance agents, seconded to the Secret Service, were present both inside and outside the convention hall. Some of them equipped the so-called “Legion of Justice thugs whom the Chicago Red Squad turned loose on local anti-war groups.”34

In this way the extra secret powers conferred after the RFK assassination contributed to the disastrous turmoil in Chicago that effectively destroyed the old Democratic Party representing the labor unions: The three Democratic presidents elected since then have all been significantly more conservative.

Turning to Watergate and Iran-Contra, both of these events were on one level setbacks to the repressive powers exercised by Richard Nixon and the Reagan White House, not expansions of them. On the surface level this is true: both events resulted in legislative reforms that would appear to contradict my thesis of expanding repression.

We need to distinguish here, however, between the two years of the Watergate crisis, and the initial Watergate break-in. The Watergate crisis saw a president forced into resignation by a number of forces, involving both liberals and conservatives. But the key figures in the initial Watergate break-in itself – Hunt, McCord, G. Gordon Liddy, and their Cuban allies — were all far to the right of Nixon and Kissinger. And the end result of their machinations was not finalized until the so-called Halloween Massacre in 1975, when Kissinger was ousted as National Security Adviser and Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller was notified he would be dropped from the 1976 Republican ticket. This major shake-up was engineered by two other right-wingers: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in the Gerald Ford White House.35

That day in 1975 saw the permanent defeat of the so-called Rockefeller or liberal faction within the Republican Party. It was replaced by the conservative Goldwater-Casey faction that would soon capture the nomination and the presidency for Ronald Reagan.36 This little-noticed palace coup, along with other related intrigues in the mid-1970s, helped achieve the conversion of America from a welfare capitalist economy, with gradual reductions in income and wealth disparity, into a financialized plutonomy where these trends were reversed.37

Again in Iran-Contra we see a deeper accumulation of repressive power under the surface of liberal reforms. At the time not only the press but even academics like myself celebrated the termination of aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, and the victory there of the Contadora peace process. Not generally noticed at the time was the fact that, while Oliver North was removed from his role in the Doomsday Project, that project’s plans for surveillance, detention, and the militarization of the United States continued to grow after his departure.38

Also not noticed was the fact that the US Congress, while curtailing aid to one small drug-financed CIA proxy army, was simultaneously increasing US support to a much larger coalition of drug-financed proxy armies in Afghanistan.39 While Iran-Contra exposed the $32 million which Saudi Arabia, at the urging of CIA Director William Casey, had supplied to the Contras, not a word was whispered about the $500 million or more that the Saudis, again at the urging of Casey, had supplied in the same period to the Afghan mujahedin.40 In this sense the drama of Iran-Contra in Congress can be thought of as a misdirection play, directing public attention away from America’s much more intensive engagement in Afghanistan – a covert policy that has since evolved into America’s longest war.

We should expand our consciousness of Iran-Contra to think of it as Iran-Afghan-Contra. And if we do, we must acknowledge that in this complex and misunderstood deep event the CIA in Afghanistan exercised again the paramilitary capacity that Stansfield Turner had tried to terminate when he was CIA Director under Jimmy Carter. This was a victory in short for the faction of men like Richard Blee, the protector of al-Mihdhar as well as the advocate in 2000 for enhanced CIA paramilitary activity in Afghanistan.41

Personnel Overlaps Between the Successive Deep Events

I will never forget the New York Times front-page story on June 18, 1972, the day after the Watergate break-in. There were photographs of the Watergate burglars, including one of Frank Sturgis alias Fiorini, whom I had already written about two years earlier in my unpublished book manuscript, “The Dallas Conspiracy” about the JFK assassination.

Sturgis was no nonentity: a former contract employee of the CIA, he was also well connected to the mob-linked former casino owners in Havana.42 My early writings on the Kennedy case focused on the connections between Frank Sturgis and an anti-Castro Cuban training camp near New Orleans in which Oswald had shown an interest; also in Sturgis’ involvement in false “phase-one” stories portraying Oswald as part of a Communist Cuban conspiracy.43

In spreading these “phase-one” stories in 1963, Sturgis was joined by a number of Cubans who were part of the CIA-supported army in Central America of Manuel Artime. Artime’s base in Costa Rica was closed down in 1965, allegedly because of its involvement in drug trafficking.44 In the 1980s some of these Cuban exiles later became involved in drug-financed support activities for the Contras.45

The political mentor of Artime’s MRR movement was future Watergate plotter Howard Hunt; and Artime in 1972 would pay for the bail of the Cuban Watergate burglars. The drug money-launderer Ramón Milián Rodríguez has claimed to have delivered $200,000 in cash from Artime to pay off some of the Cuban Watergate burglars; later, in support of the Contras, he managed two Costa Rican seafood companies, Frigorificos and Ocean Hunter, that laundered drug money.46

It is alleged that Hunt and McCord had both been involved with Artime’s invasion plans in 1963.47 It was I believe no accident that the organization of Hunt’s protégé Artime became enmired in drug trafficking. Hunt, I have argued elsewhere, had been handling a U.S. drug connection since his 1950 post in Mexico City as OPC (Office of Policy Coordination) chief.48

But McCord not only had a past in the anti-Castro activities of 1963, he was also part of the nation’s emergency planning network that would later figure so prominently in the background of Iran-Contra and 9/11. McCord was a member of a small Air Force Reserve unit in Washington attached to the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP); assigned “to draw up lists of radicals and to develop contingency plans for censorship of the news media and U.S. mail in time of war.”49 His unit was part of the Wartime Information Security Program (WISP), which had responsibility for activating “contingency plans for imposing censorship on the press, the mails and all telecommunications (including government communications) [and] preventive detention of civilian ‘security risks,’ who would be placed in military ‘camps.’”50 In other words, these were the plans that became known in the 1980s as the Doomsday Project, the Continuity of Government planning on which Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld worked together for twenty years before 9/11.

A Common Denominator for Structural Deep Events: Project Doomsday and COG

McCord’s participation in an emergency planning system dealing with telecommunications suggests a common denominator in the backgrounds of almost all the deep events we are considering. Oliver North, the Reagan-Bush OEP point man on Iran-Contra planning, was also involved in such planning; and he had access to the nation’s top secret Doomsday communications network. North’s network, known as Flashboard,  « excluded other bureaucrats with opposing viewpoints…[and] had its own special worldwide antiterrorist computer network, … by which members could communicate exclusively with each other and their collaborators abroad. »51

Flashboard was used by North and his superiors for extremely sensitive operations which had to be concealed from other dubious or hostile parts of the Washington bureaucracy. These operations included the illegal shipments of arms to Iran, but also other activities, some still not known, perhaps even against Olof Palme’s Sweden.52 Flashboard, America’s emergency network in the 1980s, was the name in 1984-86 of the full-fledged Continuity of Government (COG) emergency network which was secretly planned for twenty years, at a cost of billions, by a team including Cheney and Rumsfeld. On 9/11 the same network was activated anew by the two men who had planned it for so many years.53

But this Doomsday planning can be traced back to 1963, when Jack Crichton, head of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit of Dallas, was part of it in his capacity as chief of intelligence for Dallas Civil Defense, which worked out of an underground Emergency Operating Center. As Russ Baker reports, “Because it was intended for ‘continuity of government’ operations during an attack, [the Center] was fully equipped with communications equipment.”54 A speech given at the dedication of the Center in 1961 supplies further details:

This Emergency Operating Center [in Dallas] is part of the National Plan to link Federal, State and local government agencies in a communications network from which rescue operations can be directed in time of local or National emergency. It is a vital part of the National, State, and local Operational Survival Plan.55

Crichton, in other words, was also part of what became known in the 1980s as the Doomsday Project, like James McCord, Oliver North, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney after him. But in 1988 its aim was significantly enlarged: no longer to prepare for an atomic attack, but now to plan for the effective suspension of the American constitution in the face of any emergency.56 This change in 1988 allowed COG to be implemented in 2001. By this time the Doomsday Project had developed into what the Washington Post called “a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing ‘continuity of operations plans.’”57

It is clear that the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP, known from 1961-1968 as the Office of Emergency Planning) supplies a common denominator for key personnel in virtually all of the structural events discussed here. This is a long way from establishing that the OEP itself (in addition to the individuals discussed here) was involved in generating any of these events. But I believe that the alternative communications network housed first in the OEP (later part of Project 908) played a significant role in at least three of them: the JFK assassination, Iran-Contra, and 9/11.

This is easiest to show in the case of 9/11, where it is conceded that the Continuity of Government (COG) plans of the Doomsday Project were implemented by Cheney on 9/11, apparently before the last of the four hijacked planes had crashed.58 The 9/11 Commission could not locate records of the key decisions taken by Cheney on that day, suggesting that they may have taken place on the “secure phone “ in the tunnel leading to the presidential bunker – with such a high classification that the 9/11 Commission was never supplied the phone records.59 Presumably this was a COG phone.

It is not clear whether the “secure phone” in the White House tunnel belonged to the Secret Service or (as one might expect) was part of the secure network of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA). If the latter, we’d have a striking link between 9/11 and the JFK assassination. The WHCA boasts on its Web site that the agency was “a key player in documenting the assassination of President Kennedy.”60  However it is not clear for whom this documentation was conducted, for the WHCA logs and transcripts were in fact withheld from the Warren Commission.61

The Secret Service had installed a WHCA portable radio in the lead car of the presidential motorcade.62 This in turn was in contact by police radio with the pilot car ahead of it, carrying DPD Deputy Chief Lumpkin of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit.63 Records of the WHCA communications from the motorcade never reached the Warren Commission, the House Committee on Assassinations, or the Assassination Records Review Board.64 Thus we cannot tell if they would explain some of the anomalies on the two channels of the Dallas Police Department. They might for example have thrown light upon the unsourced call on the Dallas Police

tapes for a suspect who had exactly the false height and weight recorded for Oswald in his FBI and CIA files.65

Today in 2011 we are still living under the State of Emergency proclaimed after 9/11 by President Bush. At least some COG provisions are still in effect, and were even augmented by Bush through Presidential Directive 51 of May 2007. Commenting on PD-51, the Washington Post reported at that time,

After the 2001 attacks, Bush assigned about 100 senior civilian managers [including Cheney] to rotate secretly to [COG] locations outside of Washington for weeks or months at a time to ensure the nation’s survival, a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing “continuity of operations plans.”66

Presumably this “shadow government” finalized such long-standing COG projects as warrantless surveillance, in part through the Patriot Act, whose controversial provisions were already being implemented by Cheney and others well before the Bill reached Congress on October 12.67 Other COG projects implemented included the militarization of domestic surveillance under NORTHCOM, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Project Endgame—a ten-year plan to expand detention camps at a cost of $400 million in fiscal year 2007 alone.68

I have, therefore, a recommendation for the Occupy movement, rightfully incensed as it is with the plutonomic excesses of Wall Street over the last three decades. It is to call for an end to the state of emergency, which has been in force since 2001, under which since 2008 a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team has been stationed permanently in the United States, in part to be ready “to help with civil unrest and crowd control.”69

Democracy-lovers must work to prevent the political crisis now developing in America from being resolved by military intervention.

Let me say in conclusion that for a half century American politics have been constrained and deformed by the unresolved matter of the Kennedy assassination. According to a memo of November 25 1963, from Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, it was important then to persuade the public that “Oswald was the assassin,” and that “he did not have confederates.”70 Obviously this priority became even more important after these questionable propositions were endorsed by the Warren Report, the U.S. establishment, and the mainstream press. It has remained an embarrassing priority ever since for all succeeding administrations, including the present one. There is for example an official in Obama’s State Department (Todd Leventhal), whose official job, until recently, included defense of the lone nut theory against so-called “conspiracy theorists”71

If Oswald was not a lone assassin, then it should not surprise us that there is continuity between those who falsified reports about Oswald in 1963, and those who distorted American politics in subsequent deep events beginning with Watergate. Since the deep event of 1963 the legitimacy of America’s political system has become vested in a lie — a lie which subsequent deep events have helped to protect.72

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here http://www.peterdalescott.net/q.html  

Notes

1 Tim Weiner, “The Pentagon’s Secret Stash,” Mother Jones Magazine Mar-Apr 1992, 26.

2 J.A. Myerson “War Is a Force That Pays the 1 Percent: Occupying American Foreign Policy,” Truthout, November 14, 2001, link. Cf. Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 6, etc.

3 Scott, Road to 9/11, 22, 29, 98.

4 Scott, Road to 9/11, 22, 97.

5 Scott, Road to 9/11, 21, 51-52; Kristol as quoted in Lewis H. Lapham, “Tentacles of Rage: The Republican Propaganda Mill, a Brief History,” Harper’s Magazine, September 2004, 36.

6 E.g. Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine, 204-05.

7 Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy, 354.

8 Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics II, 30-33; Scott, The War Conspiracy, 387; Scott, American War Machine, 152.

9 Clarence M. Kelley, Kelley: The Story of an FBI Director (Kansas City, MO:

Andrews, McMeel, and Parker, 1987), 268, quoted in Scott, The War Conspiracy (2008), 389.

10 Scott, Deep Politics, 275; Scott, Deep Politics II, 80, 129n; HSCA Critics Conference of 17 September 1977, 181, link. Stringfellow worked under Jack Revill in the Vice Squad of the DPD Special Services Bureau. As such he reported regularly to the FBI on such close Jack Ruby associates as James Herbert Dolan, a “known hoodlum and strong-arm man” on the FBI’s Top Criminal list for Dallas (Robert M. Barrett, FBI Report of February 2, 1963, NARA#124-90038-10026, 12 [Stringfellow]; cf. NARA#124-10212-10012, 4 [hoodlum], NARA#124-10195-10305, 9 [Top Criminal]). Cf. 14 WH 601-02 Ruby and Dolan]. Robert Barrett, who received Stringfellow’s reports to the FBI, had Ruby’s friend Dolan under close surveillance; he also took part in Oswald’s arrest at the Texas Theater, and claimed to have seen DPD Officer Westbrook with Oswald’s wallet at the site of the Tippit killing [Dale K. Myers, With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit (Milford, MI: Oak Cliff Press, 1998), 287-90]).

11 It was sent for information to Washington, which received it three days later (Scott, Deep Politics, 275; Scott, Deep Politics II, 80, 129n; Scott, War Conspiracy, 382).

12 Warren Commission Exhibit 1778, 23 WH 383. (Marina’s actual words, before mistranslation, were quite innocuous: “I cannot describe it [the gun] because a rifle to me like all rifles” (Warren Commission Exhibit 1778, 23 WH 383; discussion in Scott, Deep Politics, 168-72).

13 Stringfellow himself was the source of one other piece of false intelligence on November 22: that Oswald had confessed to the murders of both the president and Officer Tippit (Dallas FBI File DL 89-43-2381C; Paul L. Hoch, “The Final Investigation? The HSCA and Army Intelligence,” The Third Decade, 1, 5 [July 1985], 3),

14 9 WH 106; Scott, Deep Politics, 275-76; Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, 119-22.

15 Rodney P. Carlisle and Dominic J. Monetta, Brandy: Our Man in Acapulco (Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press, 1999), 128.

16 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” Report of the J-5 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1 May 1963, NARA #202-10002-10018, 12. Cf. pp. 15-16: “The United States should intervene militarily in Cuba and could (a) engineer provocative incidents ostensibly perpetrated by the Castro regime to serve as the cause of invasion…”

17 Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life, 568; James A. Nathan, The Cuban missile crisis revisited, 283; Waldron and Hartmann, Legacy of Secrecy, 9.

[18 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” Report of the J-5 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1 May 1963, NARA #202-10002-10018, 12.

19 “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” NARA #202-10002-10018, 20. I see nothing in this document indicating that the President should be notified that these “fabricated provocations” were false. On the contrary, the document called for “compartmentation of participants” to insure that the true facts were not leaked (“Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” NARA #202-10002-10018, 19).

20 Quoted in Baker, Family of Secrets, 122. One of these, DPD Detective John Adamcik, was a member of the party which retrieved a blanket said to have contained Oswald’s rifle; and which the Warren Commission used to link Oswald to the famous Mannlicher Carcano. Adamcik was later present at Mamantov’s interview of Marina about the rifle, and corroborated Mamantov’s account of it to the Warren Commission. There is reason to believe that Mamantov’s translation of Marina’s testimony was inaccurate (Scott, Deep Politics, 268-70, 276).

21 See James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008).

22 9/11 Commission Report, 259, 271; Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower:

Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Knopf, 2006), 352–54 (FBI agent).

23 James Bamford, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies (New York: Doubleday, 2004, 224. For a fuller account of the CIA’s withholding before 9/11, see Kevin Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots; Rory O’Connor and Ray Nowosielski, “Insiders Voice Doubts about CIA’s 9/11 Story,” Salon, October 14, 2011, link.

24 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 7-12, 142-47, etc.

25 Scott, American War Machine, 203.

26 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 371, cf. 95. Quite independently, Richard Clarke, the former White House Counterterrorism Chief on 9/11, has charged that « There was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information » (Rory O’Connor and Ray Nowosielski, “Insiders Voice Doubts about CIA’s 9/11 Story,” Salon, October 14, 2011).

27 Coll, 467-69.

28 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 107-08.

29 James Bamford, Body of Secrets, 201. Cf. Fredrik Logevall, Choosing War: The Lost Chance for Peace and the Escalation of War in Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 200, citing John Prados, The Hidden History of the Vietnam War (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1995), 51.

30 “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” Report of the J-5 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 1, 1963, JCS 2304/189, NARA #202-10002-10018, link.

31 Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 280.

32 Public Law 90-331 (18 U.S.C. 3056); discussion in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L.

Hoch, and Russell Stetler, The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (New York: Random

House, 1976), 443–46.

33 Army intelligence agents were seconded to the Secret Service, and at this time there was a great increase in their number. The Washington Star later explained that “the big build-up in [Army] information gathering…did not come until after the shooting of the Rev. Martin Luther King” (Washington Star, December 6, 1970; reprinted in Federal Data Banks Hearings, p. 1728).

34 George O’Toole, The Private Sector (New York: Norton, 1978), 145, quoted in

Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 278–79.

35 Scott, Road to 9/11, 52-53.

36 Scott, Road to 9/11, 53-54.

37 Scott, Road to 9/11, 50-64.

38 Peter Dale Scott, “Northwards without North,” Social Justice (Summer 1989). Revised as « North, Iran-Contra, and the Doomsday Project: The Original Congressional Cover Up of Continuity-of-Government Planning, » Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, February 21, 2011.

39 Scott, Road to 9/11, 132.

40 Jonathan Marshall, Peter Dale Scott, and Jane Hunter, The Iran-Contra Connection, 13 (Contras); Richard Coll, Ghost Wars, 93-102 (mujahedin).

41 Richard Coll, Ghost Wars, 457-59, 534-36,

42 According to testimony from CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters, only “Hunt and McCord had ever been CIA full-time employees. The others [including Sturgis] were contract employees for a short duration or a longer duration” (Watergate Hearings, 3427). Cf. Marshall, Scott, and  Hunter, The Iran-Contra Connection, 45 (casino owners).

43 Peter Dale Scott, “From Dallas to Watergate,” Ramparts, December 1973; reprinted in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch, and Russell Stetler, The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond, 356, 363.

44 Peter Dale Scott, Crime and Cover-Up, 20.

45 Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics, 25-32, etc.

46 Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press  (London: Verso, 1998), 308-09; Martha Honey, Hostile Acts: U.S. Policy in Costa Rica in the 1980s (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1994), 368 (Frigorificos).

47 Tad Szulc, Compulsive Spy: The Strange Career of E. Howard Hunt (New York: Viking, 1974), 96-97.

48 Scott, American War Machine, 51-54. Hunt helped put together what became the drug-linked World Anti-Communist League. Artime’s Costa Rica base was on land whose owners were part of the local WACL chapter (Scott and Marshall, Cocaine Politics, 87, 220).

49 Woodward and Bernstein, All the President’s Men (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 23

50 Jim Hougan, Secret Agenda (New York: Random House, 1984), 16, citing Department of Defense Directive 5230.7, June 25, 1965, amended May 21, 1971.

51 Peter Dale Scott, « North, Iran-Contra, and the Doomsday Project: The Original Congressional Cover Up of Continuity-of-Government Planning, » Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, February 21, 2011. Cf. Peter Dale Scott, « Northwards Without North: Bush, Counterterrorism, and the Continuation of Secret Power. » Social Justice (San Francisco), XVI, 2 (Summer 1989), 1-30; Peter Dale Scott, « The Terrorism Task Force. » Covert Action Information Bulletin, 33 (Winter 1990), 12-15.

52 Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 140-41, 242 (Iran, etc.); Ola Tunander, The secret war against Sweden: US and British submarine deception in the 1980s, 309 (Sweden).

53 Scott, Road to 9/11, 183-87.

54 Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, 121.

55 “Statement by Col. John W. Mayo, Chairman of City-County Civil Defense and Disaster Commission at the Dedication of the Emergency Operating Center at Fair Park,” May 24, 1961, link.

Six linear inches of Civil Defense Administrative Files are preserved in the Dallas Municipal Archives; a Finding Guide is viewable online here.  I hope an interested researcher may wish to consult them.

56 Scott, Road to 9/11, 183-87.

57 Washington Post, May 10, 2007.

58 9/11 Report, 38, 326, 555n9; Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, 224.

59 Scott, Road to 9/11, 226-30. A footnote in the 9/11 Report (555n9) says:

“The 9/11 crisis tested the U.S. government’s plans and capabilities to ensure the continuity of constitutional government and the continuity of government operations. We did not investigate this topic, except as needed to understand the activities and communications of key officials on 9/11. The Chair, Vice Chair, and senior staff were briefed on the general nature and implementation of these continuity plans.”

The other footnotes confirm that no information from COG files was used to document the 9/11 report. At a minimum these files might resolve the mystery of the missing phone call which simultaneously authorized COG, and (in consequence) determined that Bush should continue to stay out of Washington. I suspect that they might tell us a great deal more.

60 “White House Communications Agency,” Signal Corps Regimental History, link.

61 The Warren Commission staff knew of the WHCA presence in Dallas from the Secret Service (17 WH 598, 619, 630, etc.).

62 Statement of Secret Service official Winston Lawson, 17 WH 630 (WHCA radio).

63 Pamela McElwain-Brown, “The Presidential Lincoln Continental SS-100-X,” Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 3, Issue 2, 23, link (police radio); Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 272-75 (Lumpkin).

64 In the 1990s the WHCA supplied statements to the ARRB concerning communications between Dallas and Washington on November 22 (NARA #172-10001-10002 to NARA #172-10000-10008).  The Assassination Records Review Board also attempted to obtain from the WHCA the unedited original tapes of conversations from Air Force One on the return trip from Dallas, November 22, 1963. (Edited and condensed versions of these tapes had been available since the 1970s from the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library in Austin, Texas.) The attempt was unsuccessful: “The Review Board’s repeated written and oral inquiries of the White House Communications Agency did not bear fruit. The WHCA could not produce any records that illuminated the provenance of the edited tapes.” See Assassinations Records Review Board: Final Report, chapter 6, Part 1, 116, link. In November 2011 AP reported that Gen. Chester Clifton’s personal copy of the Air Force One recordings was being put up for sale, with an asking price of $500,000 (AP, November 15, 2011, link).

65 See Scott, War Conspiracy (2008), 347-48, 385-87.

66 Washington Post, May 10, 2007.

67 Dick Cheney, In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir (New York: Threshold Editions, 2011), 348: “One of the first efforts we undertook after 9/11 to strengthen the country’s defenses was securing passage of the Patriot Act, which the president signed into law on [sic] October 2001.” Cf. “The Patriot Act, which the president signed into law on October 2001,″ link; “Questions and Answers about Beginning of Domestic Spying Program; link.

68 Scott, Road to 9/11, 236-45; Peter Dale Scott, « Is the State of Emergency Superseding our Constitution? Continuity of Government Planning, War and American Society, » November 28, 2010, http:/1/japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3448.

69 “Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1,” Army Times, September 30, 2008, link. As part of the Army’s emergency plan GARDEN PLOT in the 1960s, there were until 1971 two brigades (4,800 troops) on permanent standby to quell unrest.

70 “Memorandum for Mr. Moyers” of November 25, 1963, FBI 62-109060, Section 18, p. 29, link. Cf. Nicholas Katzenbach, Some of It Was Fun (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008), 131-36.

71 Leventhal’s official title is (or was) “Chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team, U.S. Department of State” (link). In 2010 the U.S. State Department “launched an official bid to shoot down conspiracy theories….The « Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation » page… insists that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy alone, and that the Pentagon was not hit by a cruise missile on 9/11” Daily Record [Scotland], August 2, 2010, (link). The site still exists here, (“Conspiracy theories exist in the realm of myth, where imaginations run wild, fears trump facts, and evidence is ignored.”) The site still attacks 9/11 theories, but a page on the Kennedy assassination has been suspended (link). Cf. Robin Ramsay, “Government vs Conspiracy Theorists: The official war on « sick think,” Fortean Times, April 2010, link; “The State Department vs ‘Sick Think’

The JFK assassination, 9/11, and the Tory MP spiked with LSD,” Fortean Times, July 2010, link; William Kelly, “Todd Leventhal: The Minister of Diz at Dealey Plaza,” CTKA, 2010, link.

72 For Nixon’s sensitivity concerning the Kennedy assassination, and the way this induced him into some of the intrigues known collectively as Watergate, see e.g. Scott, Hoch, and Stetler, The Assassinations, 374-78; Peter Dale Scott, Crime and Cover-up (Santa Barbara, CA: Open Archive Press, 1993), 33, 64-66.

Liberal and progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are doing their best to get us to hold our noses and vote for Hillary. I also said I’d never vote for a Republican again, after George Bush went in to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan. But life is not so simple. You can’t afford to give either side your unthinking support.

Hillary using a private email server was not the end of the world, but what about the contents of her emails? They showed her as the chief instigator of the Libya genocide that turned Africa’s most shining success story into a failed, jihadist warlord state.

And Hillary is utterly unrepentant. She wants still more! She wants to escalate the war of terror on Syria, seek confrontation with Russia and Iran, and run the risk of WW3 — to save terrorist groups like Al Nusra!

Short answer: If you don’t support terrorism, don’t support Hillary Clinton.

The crux of the problem is not that Hillary is an imperfect Democrat, it’s that she is a perfect NeoCon.

Mrs. Clinton is also a party hack who represents special interests. So even on domestic issues, we could well be better off with Trump. The Clintons made their millions from corrupt politics, while Trump is spending from his own self-made fortune to run for office. We can at least hope that he is doing this to serve his country.

In our book ISIS IS US: The Shocking Truth Behind the Army of Terror, we tell where Hillary’s Libyan terrorists went next: to Syria, to start the war there. Mercenaries, extremists and criminals from all over were paid to set up a barbaric « Islamic State » — to murder, rape, pillage — and make refugees out of millions of families.Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State when the calamities began, from Jan. 2009 through Jan. 2013. It’s true that ISIS in Iraq was fostered by the Bush regime starting in 2004. The Clinton-Obama project to destroy Libya and Syria was a direct outgrowth of that, as shown by Michel Chossudovsky in The Globalization of War.

It’s the same neo-con framework. So a vote for Hillary is like a vote for Bush. Of course, we accept imperfections when a candidate has redeeming qualities. I don’t see any such redemption with Hillary.

She has put a nuclear first strike against Russia on the table. For what? Total hegemony by the New World Order?

No thank you. We have seen enough of you, Mrs. Clinton.

John-Paul Leonard has a BA in Political Science from UCLA (1971) and an MBA from UC Berkeley (1980.) He began doing business as ProgressivePress.com in 2002, specializing in books on 9/11 and other false flag operations. He is co-author of ISIS IS US: The Shocking Truth Behind the Army of Terror with Washington’s Blog, Wayne Madsen and Syrian Girl Partisan.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US Presidential Elections: Let’s Not Get Neo-Conned by Clinton Again…

The UN Security Council’s efforts to settle the Syrian crisis still haven’t led to any positive results. The permanent members of the meetings on Syria have lots of contradictions they don’t even try to hide but expose to receive their colleagues’ support. One may hardly talk of a constructive political dialogue as the US, Great Britain and France’s representatives to the UNSC leave the hall when the Syrian ambassador is speaking.

In such a tough situation, it’s high time the UN special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura took the initiative. However, the diplomat just can’t move beyond the statements full of ambiguous facts.

De Mistura accused Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin of exploiting the militants blocked in eastern Aleppo to justify casualties among civilians. But Russian Defense Ministry has published numerous satellite images and other documents proving that the Russian and Syrian AFs carry out airstrikes only at terrorists’ positions. The coordinates are thoroughly checked beforehand to avoid mistakes.

It would be great if with such a haste de Mistura passed from words to deeds. Up to now, the envoy has been just a dummy at the negotiations between Russian FM Sergei Lavrov and the US State Secretary John Kerry. Proposals and settlement mechanisms of the Syrian conflict for some reason are expressed not by the person who by virtue of his position must seek ways for peace in Syria but by third parties. De Mistura himself keeps criticizing Russia and the US and commenting upon their efforts on establishing the cooperation.

Sitting in safety in the UN office and not in the Syrian front line, de Mistura keeps claiming he would personally escort the militants of Jabhat al-Nusra if they decide to leave eastern Aleppo. Avoiding his obligations and shifting the responsibility for finding a way out on Lavrov and Kerry, the top-ranking UN official is not going to retire. « Any sign that I’m going, will be a signal that the international community is leaving Syria. The UN will never leave Syrians, » snobbishly noted de Mistura.

Despite the fact the negotiations in Geneva started almost a year ago, de Mistura still hasn’t been able to bring all sides of the conflict to the table. The opposition set some conditions and threatened to sabotage the talks, which happened eventually. Within this period, the UN envoy couldn’t reach a compromise with armed groups and incite them to hold a direct political dialogue in Geneva. Realizing the UN’s incapability to affect them, the opposition’s leaders keep deceiving de Mistura and terrorize Syria.

For quite a long period of time, the UNSC has achieved nothing in the settlement of the Syrian crisis. Isn’t it the evidence of the fact the international community and the UN envoy de Mistura’s actions are fruitless? The diplomat’s formal and indifferent attitude towards the negotiating process doesn’t contribute to the peaceful settlement and the improvement of the humanitarian crisis the UN is designed to solve. Mass casualties and the long Syrian war once again prove that de Mistura must stop evading his commitments or resign as a person incapable of accomplishing the tasks of putting an end to the bloodshed in Syria.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Failure of the UN Security Council’s « Efforts » to Bring Peace to Syria

When I decided to become a cartographer, I didn’t just want to make pretty and useful maps. I became a cartographer to make maps that change the world for the better. Right now, no situation needs this kind of map more than the current drama unfolding around the Dakota Access Oil Pipeline’s crossing of the Missouri River.

Thousands of Native Americans and their allies have gathered on unceded Sioux land delimited by the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie to try and stand in the way of the “black snake” that could poison the Standing Rock Reservation’s water supply. Many have noted that the pipeline corridor was repositioned from its original route north of Bismarck after white citizens spoke up against the threat a spill would pose to their drinking water ― a threat duly recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Yet the Corps failed its federal mandate for meaningful consultationwith the Standing Rock Tribe before signing off on a route that moved the pipeline to their doorstep.

This is not to say that the good citizens of Bismarck and Mandan were wrong to protest. What’s wrong with the picture above isn’t the routing of the pipeline. What’s wrong is that the pipeline project exists to begin with. Some say it’s a good alternative to dangerous oil-by-rail shipments of Bakken crude. Those are bad too. We don’t need more fossil fuels making it to market to be burned and burn up the planet in turn (I am typing this in Wisconsin as the temperature nears 70 on the first of November). We do all need clean water. As the Sioux say, mni wiconi (”water is life”).

To keep to its construction schedule, the pipeline company, Energy Transfer Partners, has met nonviolent water protectors with private security guards using attack dogs in a scene reminiscent of 1963 Birmingham. It has worked hand-in-glove with law enforcement and the National Guard to create a militarized response straight out of apartheid South Africa or occupied Ireland. It has locked up hundreds of protesters in wire cages like those used early on at Guantanamo Bay. Those on the ground fear something like another Kent State, yet they keep coming, and the worldwide solidarity has gone viral.

Water protectors approach a line of riot police and armored vehicles on October 15, Carl Sack

Yet for all that, when I went out to camp with the water protectors at Oceti Sakowin on October 13, I had to rely on a friend’s hand-drawn sketch posted to Facebook for directions to the camp. If you Google “NoDAPL map,” you’ll find few maps available to provide visual context for the unfolding drama. The most popular seems to be the company’s own very-small-scale route map, showing a dotted line over highlighted counties on a generic road map backdrop.

Dakota Access Pipeline Route Map by Energy Transfer Partners, ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P.

This kind of view erases the people affected by the pipeline – quite literally, by covering over their communities with a hot pink gradient fill. It doesn’t tell you that all of Turtle Island (North America) is Indian Country, or that the project runs headlong into international treaties signed between the U.S. and various tribes and then unilaterally violated by Congress. It doesn’t show you where the frontline communities have set up camp to fight back (and here I realize that I should also make a map of the Bold Iowa resistance camp), or where the pipeline company, spurred on by the internal pressure of their $3.8 billion investment, has bulldozed sacred ground, or where exactly a pipeline break would endanger the drinking water of millions downstream.

There was one other better map of the project that I found and was partially inspired by ― a relatively simple yet powerful map by Jordan Engle (with help from Dakota Wind) published by The Decolonial Atlas. It uses the indigenous placenames for key waterways and sites in the vicinity of the Sacred Stones Camp (translations are on the blog post linked to above). It is oriented to the south, challenging the typical viewpoint of Western maps. This map has truly not gotten the attention it deserves.

 

Dakota Access Pipeline Indigenous Protest Map by Jordan Engle with assistance from Dakota Wind, THE DECOLONIAL ATLAS

Maps like this are great, and there should be more of them. However, I felt strongly that there still needed to be a map of the area that would look familiar to most viewers and orient them to the important geographic facts of the struggle. I don’t claim that none of those facts are currently in dispute, but I recognize that all maps (even road maps overlaid with pink polygons) take a position and create knowledge based on the cartographer’s point of view. Maps have great power, and it’s a power anyone with pen and paper or a computer can wield.

My geographer hero Zoltan Grossman once declared, “The side with the best maps wins.” The pipeline company has an army backed by state power to do its bidding. The water has its scrappy protectors. It’s time we put the latter on the map.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Map and The Rights of Native Americans: The #NoDAPL Map
Israel_Palestine_Flag

How Israel Is Gradually Privatising Its Occupation of Palestine

By Antony Loewenstein and Matt Kennard, November 01 2016

Private companies have been invest­­ing for years in the settlement project. But that involvement, as well as the amounts of money being made, have increased dramatically in the past decade. For Israelis, the West Bank has become a kind of special economic zone, where settlements often provide more profitable business conditions—low rents, favorable tax rates, government subsidies, and access to cheap Palestinian labor—than in Israel proper.

AURORA cover by George Burchett

Aurora: Western “Culture” is Wrecking Entire Continents… “How the Empire Operates”

By Andre Vltchek, November 04 2016

You say “European cultural institutions”, and what should come immediately to mind are lavish concerts, avant-garde art exhibitions, high quality language courses and benevolent scholarships for talented cash-strapped local students. It is all so noble, so civilized! Or, is it really? Think twice!

Syrian-Rebels-Patrol-Near-Turkey-400x271

Liberating Syria from Al Qaeda-ISIS: US-Supported Terrorists Admit Taking Heavy Casualties in Aleppo

By Stephen Lendman, November 04 2016

Liberating Syria depends on winning the battle for Aleppo. It continues raging, government forces inflicting heavy losses on US-supported terrorists. According to Fars News, citing RT International’s Arabic service, (s)ources close to the terrorist groups admitted” taking up to 2,500 casualties – dead or wounded fighters in the last six days alone.

latin-americas-currencies

China’s Economic Relations with Latin America

By Ulises Noyola Rodriguez, November 01 2016

The fall in commodity prices indicates the fragility of the economic relation between China and Latin America that at the present time registers an important deceleration in commercial transactions, a situation that the United States seeks to take advantage of in order to reposition itself in the region.

Slavery

The 1833 Blackburn Rebellion in Detroit: African Resistance, Emigration and the Burgeoning Anti-slavery Struggle

By Abayomi Azikiwe, November 03 2016

By the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries Africans in the newly-formed United States were in rebellion against slavery. Since 1619 under British rule there had been a rising stream of indentured servants and enslaved persons fueling the agricultural and industrial growth of the country.

map-montenegro-360x270-cb1434550818

Political Crisis in Montenegro: Changing the Montenegrin Leader does not change the Ideology

By Milko Pejovic, November 01 2016

The statement of the Prime Minister of Montenegro Milo Djukanovic concerning his resignation and the transfer of powers including the formation of a new parliament is actively discussed In Montenegro. Despite a positive outcome for the opposition forces the situation has not changed. Djukanovic explained his resignation by an anti-governmental conspiracy involving foreign intelligence services and the Serbian minority. Under the pretext of dealing with “conspirators” arrests of opposition leaders and activists are being continued in the country.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: How Israel Is Gradually Privatising Its Occupation of Palestine

Parliamentary supremacy in British law and politics is akin to the fetish of the union in the United States. Challenge it at your peril; question it to your misfortune.  The point was tested, with rumbling consequences, by the May government in its latest Brexit stumble dealing with Britain’s painful and at times confused response to exiting the European Union.

The way Theresa May’s government has respected that referendum result so far is open to question. Behind closed doors, it has promised various versions of what it might do, when in truth, it may well not know what it is doing at all.  Terms such as “hard Brexit” and “soft Brexit” change hands with meal like regularity; positions are foggily unclear.  The only matter sovereign at this point is solid confusion.

This confusion was even more confounded by the antics of the High Court, which suggested in it judgment of November 3 that Prime Minister May’s approach to the nature of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty had demonstrated significant error.

Parliament, in other words, had to be involved in triggering the operative functions of Article 50, which involves a two-year process for departure.  The executive would have to duly comply with those wishes.

According to Lord Chief Justice John Thomas, “The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses.”  Hardly heretical, given that the Brexiteer group had always insisted that UK sovereignty had been imperilled by the bureaucrats in Brussels.

The government statement was stubborn but in its own way an expression of frustration at what had been the most traditional of readings of Parliamentary supremacy.  “The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament.  And the Government determined to respect the result of the referendum.”

Not that the government won’t – it will just have to do so through the very legislature it has decided to hoodwink. In bringing the Brexit process before Parliament, the May play book will be brought to light.The reaction from the Leavers was furious. The Daily Mail, in sinister fashion, suggested that the judges were, as its headline went, “Enemies of the people.” Photos of these touted criminals were also published, suggesting a near vigilante call to arms.

As ever, the paper’s editors decided to wade into the issue about what was meant by those good people of Britain when they decided leaving the EU was a good idea. The “people” had effectively lost out to a court which had sided “against [their] interests”.  Had the battle against the wicked court system within the European Union been for nothing?

An image here that emerges is that of nativism burning wildly before the cliquish designs of the elite.  Such a judgment, it was hyperbolically argued, stoked the flames of dissatisfaction “not just in Britain and Europe, but also among Donald Trump’s supporters in America – that western public life is becoming a conspiracy of tightly knit, self-serving Establishment elites against the public.”

The Daily Express event went so far as to urge the British public to rush to the barricades to “fight, fight, fight”. Those humble court darlings were misfits who had purposely engineered a roadblock to prevent Brexit by including Parliament in the whole rotten business.  An eccentric reading of the ruling if ever there was one.

The European authorities are not going to go easy on what is regarded as audacious mischief making by the British populists to damage the European project. But that populist voice took the form of a vote which must, in the annals of that country’s electoral history, be respected.

Suspicion, however, abounds as to how this timetable of exit is to be performed, and such Murdoch papers as the Sunsuspect foul play amongst the conservatives.  Everyone is in need of someone to crucify.

Yet the populists, ever the bullies in the playground, were the first ones to jump ship after the vote in the name of sovereignty. Nigel Farage, having done the damage, fled to the United States to enthusiastically embrace Donald Trump’s campaign to claim that Britain had reclaimed itself.  Only the often oafish Boris Johnson was brought, most probably by compulsion, into the ministry.

Perhaps the most useful aspect to this entire affair, apart from the predictable anger on the part of the government at the intrusive rulings of courts it would rather not listen to (even their own), is the understanding of the populists.  Behind the Brexit campaign – less than the vote itself – was a despotic snigger, a sense that unaccountable power might not be such a bad thing.

As Alex Massie noted with understandable derision, “People who shouted for months about the urgent need to restore parliamentary sovereignty now reacted in horror to the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty.”[1] The populists had effectively ambushed themselves.

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

Notes

[1] http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/unhinged-backlash-high-courts-brexit-ruling/

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Brexit Stumbling: The High Court, British Parliament and Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty

When the “end of history”, meaning the establishment of a permanent Western hegemony over the entire international system, was proclaimed in the early 1990s, it was not yet obvious how the pursuit of said hegemony would evolve over the succeeding decades. The “velvet” expansion of the 1990s into the post-Soviet vacuum gave way to the “iron fist” for which the 9/11 terror strikes provided the excuse and which meant invading whichever country Washington desired. However, the “iron fist” efforts in the post-9/11 world demonstrated West’s weakness , as sustaining operations in Iraq and Afghanistan proved too much for NATO.  This failure ushered the post-“post-9/11″ world, and the “Arab Spring” became the first, though far from the only, demonstration of the evolved Western strategy which fuses the earlier approaches.

The “velvet” aspect is still there: Western entities claim they are promoting “universal human values” which, evidently, is the end that justifies all means and which automatically means it is impossible to commit war crimes in its pursuit.

Also, by implication, anyone who stands in the West’s way operates under the presumption of guilt. In order to promote said “universal values”, the West identifies, creates, or even invents a political movement which, although it consists of corrupt opportunists and outright criminals, ostensibly stands for “universal values”. This entity then receives overwhelmingly positive media coverage, to the point of referring to any police or military response to the violence it perpetrates as “war crimes”, in order to shape the public opinion in favor of limited military intervention in the form of airstrikes and a small number of special operations troops. Then one merely needs an excuse, a small incident, an insignificant act of violence by the target country’s law enforcement of the kind that happen in the US in a daily basis, in order to start beating the war drums against the “blood-soaked regime.” This approach was pioneered in Bosnia and Kosovo, the early exceptions to the “velvet” policy, but was then shelved in the post-9/11 era when it seemed that West’s aims could be achieved through more direct–and brutal–means, only to be resurrected by the Obama Administration and applied in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine with only minor variations.

But the “universal values” rhetoric is only camouflage aimed at securing the support of the liberal wing of the elite and obscuring the real aim of the aggression, the seizure of key national assets, be it petroleum or, in the case of Ukraine, farmland to bolster the fortunes of dominant sectors of Western economies, including finance and energy, and to preserve the fading Western hegemony. It is also evident Western powers are in an informal but very close alliance with the highly repressive governments of Gulf Arab states, which also stood to gain from eliminating the political competition posed by Libya’s government and from building pipelines to Europe over the corpse of the Syrian state. This alignment was made necessary by the West’s need for “boots on the ground” which can accomplish that which airpower alone cannot, with ISIS, Al-Nusra, Free Syrian Army, and other such formations being a NATO-trained and NATO-equipped force which can be sent where NATO soldiers can’t go, due to the domestic opposition such a move would provoke.

The insights into the finances of the various Clinton “foundations” provided by Wikileaks clearly show the inner workings of this alliance.

The leaks also illustrate the key aspect of this alliance, namely the secretive and conspiratorial machinations of a small group of influential actors, as opposed to the broad elite consensus that existed during the Cold War. Nevertheless, this small group of conspirators on three continents now amounts to a de-facto Washington-Brussels-Riyadh axis. It is a relatively recent creation, dating to only the beginning of the Obama Administration. It did not exist during the George W. Bush Administration: Saudi Arabia was aghast at the idea of toppling the Sunni rule in Iraq, and the EU was mostly opposed to invading Iraq. Which made the EU’s embrace of regime change in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine all the more startling, though not entirely surprising.  Just as the US foreign policies are driven by the fear of being eclipsed by rising or recovering powers like China or Russia, the 2008 crisis bared the EU’s weakness and thus provided an incentive for EU hardliners engage in reckless policies in the hopes of staving off its collapse.

Is the game worth the candle? Considering the shrillness of the pro-war propaganda in both the US and the EU today, to the point of risking World War 3,  the imagined benefits of regime changes must have been enormous. Stamping out the last truly sovereign states of the Middle East would have strengthened the West’s claim on global hegemony. The failures Ukraine and in Syria, and ultimately also in Libya,  therefore place Western powers face-to-face with the prospect of historic decline.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The West’s Global Hegemony Project: The Washington-Brussels-Riyadh Axis

There is no doubt that the forthcoming US Presidential elections are perhaps the most controversial ones in the US history. This has nothing of course to do with the various personal ‘scandals’ supposedly marring the two candidates, i.e. the emails scandal vs. the sexual utterances that are incompatible with the political correctness imposed by the ideology of globalization. These are obvious diversions created by the system itself in order to disorient the American victims of globalization from the real issues of these elections.

In fact, if we talk about real politics rather than politicking, the personalities of the two candidates matter little, as both are ‘products of the system’ and in this sense one could argue that there is no real difference between them. Yet, there is a crucial difference between these two candidates, which was not present in previous post war candidates, who were simply ‘products of the system’ distinguished only by their differences as regards usually minor aspects of economic policies, i.e. more liberal/neoliberal or, alternatively, more state interventionist measures.

Yet, none of these candidates ever questioned the very fundamentals of a system, which eventually––helped by the post war US hegemony–– led to the emergence of a new phenomenon: the multinational corporations. This marked the rise of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization, as well as the emergence of a Transnational Elite that informally runs it, with the help of the transnational economic and political-military institutions that the same elites created, such as the IMF, WB, WTO and NATO). These fundamentals may well be summarized by what is called euphemistically ‘the four “freedoms”’, i.e. the free movement of goods and services, as well as of capital and labor. This is what the US elections (and the Brexit referendum before that) is all about.

The real differences between Clinton and Trump

Hillary Clinton is in fact a typical ‘product of the system’, who was systematically promoted by it, exactly in order to carry out faithfully the demands of the elites in the implementation of these “freedoms” and what they imply both at the domestic but also the foreign and geopolitical levels. She is well known for her criminal role in the massacre of the Libyan people and her infamous exclamation “we came, we saw, he died”, referring to the brutal lynching of Muammar Gaddafi, the Nasserite leader of the Libyan national liberation movement, at the hands of the Libyan ‘revolutionaries.’ That is, at the hands of the barbaric terrorists, who were funded by the Transnational Elite and supported by the State Department, which she headed at the time. It is the same kind of ‘revolutionaries’ who today are employed in Syria (some of them moved from Libya to Syria immediately they finished the ‘job’ there), with the same aim for regime change.

On the other hand, Donald Trump, although a product of the same system himself, he is a self-made product of it, who managed to become a candidate for the highest post of the Transnational Elite without any direct or indirect  assistance by it and its institutions (mass media, economic, political, academic, and cultural institutions). No wonder he has been the target of an unprecedented attack by all of these elites and institutions. In other words, he was savagely attacked by them, not because he is a revolutionary of some kind, but simply because he is not as controllable by the elites, as all previous US presidents––not to mention the Clintons (husband and wife) who have been executive assistants of the elites, par excellence. Hillary is therefore the perfect candidate to carry out their criminal plans (the first woman candidate and a perfectly controllable ambitious politician), exactly as Obama was before a similar perfect candidate (the first black candidate––a privileged black of course––and a perfectly controllable ambitious politician).

So the main problem for the elites with Trump is that he is an ‘unknown quantity’ –the biggest, for the elites, crime. Particularly so as his professed policies firmly put him within the rising world movement against globalization, which already gave us Brexit, that is, a genuine revolution of the victims of globalization in the UK, and the consequent counter revolution. At the same time, in the USA, because of the much higher stakes involved, the counter revolution began even before any corresponding revolution there! This, despite the fact that Trump had drawn mass support and won elections and public opinion not just because he is a ‘populist demagogue’ (as they claim) but because, as even a prominent member of the globalist ‘Left’ admitted,[1] he rejected the free trade agreements which allowed multinationals to exploit labor all over the world. Furthermore, domestically, he questioned the uncontrolled importation of cheap immigrant labor, called for large-scale public investment, opposed the new cold war with Russia and China, and rejected US support for NATO’s military build-up in Europe and intervention in Syria, North Africa and Afghanistan. Similarly, as even a columnist of the flagship of the globalist ‘Left’ recently stressed––after expressing first his dislike for Trump and Farage––the assumptions that globalists (he calls them ‘free traders’) make about the beneficial effects of free trade are wrong and as the latest transatlantic deal (CETA, the deal between Canada and EU) shows, globalisation is all about protecting big business – from the public. And then, he went on:

For decades, presidents and prime ministers, policymakers and pundits have told voters there is only one direction of travel: free trade. Now comes Brexit and Donald Trump – and the horrible suspicion that the public won’t buy it any more. And the elites don’t know what to do, apart from keep insisting the public listen.[2]

Globalization : the class issue of our era

As I am going to show here briefly, globalization is a class issue. In fact, the class issue of the globalization era. It is common knowledge nowadays that the globalization process has already led to an unprecedented concentration of income and wealth, which several studies have confirmed. Thus, as regards, first, the US concentration of income, according to Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz:

 Large segments of the population in advanced countries have not been doing well: in the US, the bottom 90% has endured income stagnation for a third of a century. Median income for full-time male workers is actually lower in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than it was 42 years ago. At the bottom, real wages are comparable to their level 60 years ago.[3]

Also, as regards the concentration of wealth as a result of globalization, a recent study has shown that in the last five years or so, the wealth of a circle of billionaires consisting of 388 people has risen by 44 per cent, (or half a trillion dollars), while the wealth of the poorest fell by 41 per cent, (more than a trillion), the result being that the richest 62 people in the world are worth the same as half the world population! [4]

The social consequences of the huge inequality created by globalization, even in the USA, the country that played a leading role in promoting the opening and liberalization of markets throughout the post-war period, are well known. Thus, a very recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association implicitly showed that the more a country is integrated into the NWO the greater the negative impact on health and life expectancy. The result is that, as average life expectancy in developing nations continues to rise, life spans in parts of America are getting shorter. This has reached the point where the poorest American men, at the age of 40, have a life expectancy comparable to the average 40-year-old man in Pakistan and Sudan! Rightly, therefore, Dr Deaton, a professor of economics at Stanford University, noted that the “infamous 1 per cent is not only richer” they have also “ten to 15 more years to enjoy their richly funded lives,” with their life expectancy being better than the average for any nation on earth.[5]

No wonder that, following the victory of Brexit and the fact that one of the two presidential candidates in the forthcoming US elections has adopted many of the demands of the victims of globalization, the Transnational elites have been terrified by this rapid rise of the anti-globalization movement. Particularly so as it is not anymore just the neo-nationalist movements in East Europe (such as those in Hungary and Poland) which challenge globalization. Thus, following Brexit, the Eurosceptic Alternative for Germany party (AFD) came second, ahead of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, in regional elections held in September, while similar parties and movements in Italy, France, Austria and the Netherlands have also seen a huge rise in their popularity.

This could explain the recent concerted attack against the rising new anti-globalization movement by some of the prominent members of the Transnational elite, such as the head of the IMF, the president of the European Central Bank and the president of the European Council.[6] All of them suddenly discovered the gross inequality in the distribution of income and wealth as a result of globalization and blamed the political elites for not taking enough measures on boosting support for low income workers and reducing inequality. Yet, they are fully aware of the fact that any such measures are impossible, in an environment of open and liberalized markets. This is because any such measures, if they are designed to be as effective as present circumstances demand, they are bound to affect negatively competitiveness––the foundation of globalization itself. Not surprisingly, the arch-gatekeeper of globalization, the EU Commission President, immediately came out to ‘restore order’ and declare that the recipe for combating growing discontent in Europe was “more union” including a military headquarters “to co-ordinate efforts towards creating a common military force”. No wonder Le Pen, the leader of the French neonationalist movement, was prompted to ask, in an obvious insinuation that the new EU army will in effect be used to smash any popular revolts against globalization and the EU: “What is the EU protecting us from — are you protecting us against prosperity?”[7]

It is therefore clear that this binary strategy (i.e. the ‘good cop’ strategy of improving the image of globalization and the ‘bad cop’ strategy of force to impose ‘law and order’) are going to define the response of the Transnational Elite in the future to the emerging revolt of the victims of globalization. Yet, the disquiet of globalists cannot anymore be hidden, as it happened in their latest big family reunion in New York.[8] Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization, particularly the liberalization of labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive.

However, the globalization process has already had not only devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population, but has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Furthermore, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria). In fact, an election victory for Hillary, the blindly obedient organ of the Transnational Elite, could well lead to a new and potentially more serious crisis than the 1962 missile crisis, given her support for the most dangerous policies on Syria, advocated by the same criminal elements of the same elite that led to the present catastrophe in the Middle East.

The bankruptcy of the globalist ‘Left” and the rise of neo-nationalism

In view of the above, It was almost farcical to see that a prominent role in the present front against the victims of globalization in the USA is played by its globalist ‘Left’, that is the Left which is integrated into the NWO and does not question globalization and its institutions. This, on top of course of the entire political establishment (from Obama to George W. Bush) and also the whole economic establishment, the press corps, and the social media,[9] (let alone the CIA!)[10]––all playing a vital role in this reactionary front. Thus, from Bernie Sanders, the ‘socialist’ candidate and Nation to the self-declared “anarchist” Noam Chomsky and Michael Albert’s Znet, as well as many others, all declared their (‘reluctant’) support for the criminal candidate of the Trasnational Elite. No wonder that even Slavoj Žižek, one of the protagonists of the world globalist ‘Left,’ seemed worried about this “Stalinist” image of the ‘Left,’ presenting a total consensus in favor of Clinton: “from Bernie Sanders supporters, to what remains of the Occupy movement, from big business to trade unions, from army veterans to LGBT+ and ecologists…something that even the worst kind of one-party systems have never achieved.[11] Clearly, for this politically and theoretically bankrupt American ‘Left’, the fact that the working class (for which supposedly they fight) fully supports Trump is irrelevant. Alternatively, for these ‘libertarians’, workers are ignorant enough, so that they have to be ‘educated’ by these enlightened people about whom to vote for! In fact, however, the blue collar ex workers of the American motor industry, for instance, who are determined to vote for Trump[12], know better than the Left intellectuals, academics and others who, mostly are beneficiaries of globalization.

Yet, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy, which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This is a very different kind of movement than the old aggressive nationalist movement. It is a movement that is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over the world, but particularly in Europe, mainly by the working class that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist ‘Left’, as well as of the World Social Forum[13] and the various Foundations funding it, the neo-nationalist movement is the only political force left to fight against globalization in general and the EU in particular.

It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the Transnational Elite, constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist ‘Left’, which, instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty,[14] indirectly promoted globalization itself, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. As a result, the neo-nationalist parties are embraced today by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[15] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.  Similarly, in the USA, where it is Donald Trump’s campaign which expresses these neo-nationalist trends, we may see a new revolution similar to the Brexit revolution, albeit much more important given the hegemonic role that USA still plays in the world.

The Brexit revolution and Trump

Despite the obvious differences between the Brexit revolution and the movement for Trump, which arise also from the fact that the former was a referendum whereas the latter is an election, what matters most are the similarities between them, as both reflect different instances of the same world revolutionary phenomenon.

Thus, the Brexit revolution, far from being an isolated incident, related ––as some globalists argued in order to defame it–– to the ideological paraphernalia of old British imperialism, reflects, in fact, a world revolutionary phenomenon. In fact, it was the IMF itself that lately came out in recognizing the revolutionary character of Brexit –– of course, in order to express the Transnational Elite’s panic about it and draw the appropriate conclusions. Thus, as The Times described the statement by Maurice Obstfeld, the IMF’s chief economist on recent world economic developments:

Brexit may be the start of a growing revolt against globalization and technological advance in the developed world that threatens to depress living standards, the International Monetary Fund has warned. Persistently weak growth is unleashing “negative economic and political forces” that are fuelling protectionism in Britain, the rest of Europe and the US, according to the IMF, and governments need to respond before the problem gets worse.[16]

Furthermore, as I will try to show briefly here, Brexit was very much a popular ‘revolution’, as the entire movement was a movement ‘from below’, i.e. from the victims of globalization themselves. The main factor which created a movement ‘from below’ for Brexit was the growing realization by the British people that its national and economic sovereignty has been decisively eroded within the EU, forcing the elites, albeit reluctantly, to accept the demand for a referendum. This realization was inevitable if one takes into account that Britons, who used to live in one of the strongest nation-states in the world, have now been reduced to spectators, forced to watch, powerless, the effective destruction of their industrial base, in the very place where industrialization was born. In fact, this was a referendum in which an unprecedented number of voters took part, and in which well over a million more people voted for change than for the status quo on UK’s membership of the EU.

Two important characteristics of the referendum were usually minimized by the Transnational Elite’s media: first, the geographical pattern of the vote, which is particularly revealing as regards the class nature of Brexit and, second, the age pattern of the vote, which is very much related to the ideological and cultural aspects of globalization.

As regards first, the geographical pattern of the vote, the way in which people voted was a clear indication of the fact that this was a ‘revolution from below’ of the victims of globalization. Thus, the only region in England to vote for Remain was London, while the Brexit victory was overwhelming in the deprived areas of England, where the victims of globalization live, i.e. the victims of the criminal de-industrialization process imposed by the multinational corporations, which they moved en masse to the Chinese and Indian labor ‘paradises’––exactly as they have been doing in the USA in the last three decades or so.  That is, to the places offering multinationals not only a very disciplined work force that is paid survival wages, but also all the tax concessions possible, in order to induce them to invest and create a pseudo kind of development

Also, as far as the age distribution of the Brexit vote was concerned, the most significant exception to the voting pattern described above was among those under the age of 24, where the Remain vote was 75 percent in favor.[17] In fact, Bremain was supported by an apolitical youth — the perfect subject for manipulation by the elites and its media (including social media) — who are brainwashed by ideological and cultural globalization. Thus, it has been estimated that while there was a turnout of 82% among those aged 55 and over, barely a third of the 18-24 age group managed to cast their vote. But those youngsters who did bother to vote were fanatical opponents of Brexit, who as soon as the referendum result was announced, began demonstrating against it with the direct or indirect support of the local elites, as well as of the Transnational Elite (George Soros, the well-known ‘master of ceremonies’ of pink revolutions of every kind, played a leading role on this).[18] Yet, when these youngsters were asked to explain their fanatical support for the EU, they were usually at a loss to justify their stand![19] No wonder the Hillary camp has been very keen to persuade (usually a-political) youngsters to vote.

The counter revolution in Britain and the USA

As one could expect, the Brexit revolution has led to a fierce counter revolution in Britain by the globalist establishment (which now includes the Labor Party), that I described in The New World Order in Action. This counter revolution was manifested both at the economic and the political levels.

At the economic level, the Transnational economic elite and its institutions (IMF, OECD, the Bank of England etc.), as well as various think tanks, economists, academics, Nobelists and so on, came out before the referendum with a ‘Project Fear’ aiming to portray the doomsday that supposedly was going to follow a Brexit decision. Yet, the latest news give a very different economic picture than the doomsday predicted by the prophets of doom. Data from the Office for National Statistics for the third quarter, the first full quarter since the referendum in June, showed that the Treasury was wrong to suggest that the economy would collapse into recession after a vote to leave. Instead, Britain’s economy has defied expectations of an immediate post-Brexit crash, by growing 0.5 per cent in the three months to September, a stronger rate than the start of the year.[20] The only significant economic impact of Brexit so far was on the value of sterling––something that was to be expected given the role that speculators such as George Soros had played in the past, when he became multimillionaire by simply speculating against the British currency. Today, Soros’s role is to try to reverse at all cost Brexit. Thus, as soon as the result of the referendum was announced Soros declared: “Britain eventually may or may not be relatively better off than other countries by leaving the EU, but its economy and people stand to suffer significantly in the short-to medium term.”[21]

At the political level, the globalist establishment in Britain had used every possible means so far either to revert the result of the referendum, which politically is extremely difficult, given the massive participation and support for Brexit by the victims of globalization, or at least to water down the meaning of it to render it meaningless––what they call euphemistically, a “soft Brexit”. This counter revolution culminated today with the British High Court decision aiming, in effect, to water down any future Brexit decision, according to the elites’ wishes. So, Britain, the famous ‘mother of parliamentarianism’ has been reduced in the globalization era to the level where a few High Court Judges, with the help of parliamentarians under the control of the economic elites, are able to challenge the popular will which was expressed directly and massively.

Finally, one common characteristic of the British and US counter revolutions is the exploitation of the immigration issue in order to smear Brexiteers, as well as supporters of Trump, as anti-immigrants, if not racists. Although of course such elements may well exist within the neo-nationalist antiglobalization movement in Britain, Europe and the USA, yet the vast numbers of the victims of globalization who support this huge movement mostly consist of workers and ex-workers, who used to be supporters of the Left, before the latter was integrated into the NWO. It is therefore hard to believe that all these people have suddenly abandoned the ideals of the Left and moved to the Right. In fact it can be shown that it was the Left that moved to the Right, as far as the issue of entry into the EU clearly showed (see New World Order in Action).

The exploitation of the immigration issue was intensified  particularly in the last few years when the ideology of open borders was massively promoted by the media of the Transnational Elite, accompanied by a mass, supposedly humanist, campaign to save the refugees. That is, the mass of dislocated people who were of course created in the first place by the Transnational Elite itself, through its wars in the Middle East! Needless to add that ‘open borders’ –– the policy promoted by Soros, the Transnational Elite, Varoufakis and the likes –– in fact exploits an old libertarian ideal, completely distorting its essence in the process.

Open borders is meaningful only in a democratic world order where the peoples of the world are really self-determined, controlling themselves the productive resources at their disposal, including human resources. That is, a world with no exploitation and no inequality, where it is peoples themselves that determine how best to meet the needs they decide to satisfy, through social control of some sort (e.g. through an economic democracy as I described it elsewhere)[22] rather than through the anarchy of the markets. Clearly, the world we live in today is exactly the opposite of this kind of ideal world and those fighting for open borders are in fact the elites and their associates aiming to maximize their profits through the free movement between countries, not only of capital and commodities, but of cheap labor as well. The inevitable effect is the equalization ‘to the bottom’ of the real value of wages and salaries (their ‘cost of production’) all over the world.

This is therefore the essence of the economic side of immigration and not the pseudo-humanist black propaganda about helping the masses of refugees and the victims of globalization. Particularly so, when both the former and the latter are simply the byproducts of political and economic globalization respectively. Clearly, it was the unprecedented economic violence of the NWO (initiated by the opening and liberalization of markets) as well as the military violence (unleashed by the wars of the Transnational Elite in the globalization era) that created the billions of the victims of globalization and the millions of refugees respectively. In other words, the successful attempt by the Transnational Elite to convert an economic consequence of globalization, and the economic and military violence it implies, into a (supposedly) humanitarian refugee problem and an issue of satisfying the libertarian principle of ‘open borders’, is perhaps its greatest deception of humanity today and one of the great deceptions of all times. What is even worse is the general acceptability of this deception by almost every country in the world which has been integrated into the NWO.

It is the same deception which is used extensively by the elites, with the full support of the globalist “Left”, in order to smear the new antiglobalization movement (which at present is expressed almost solely by the neonationalist movement) as anti-immigrant , if not racist. Therefore, the need for the creation of a radical antiglobalization movement, which would unite the growing millions of the victims of globalization, irrespective of Left and Right labels, with the aim to fight for economic and national sovereignty, ––as the necessary (though not the sufficient) condition for a real systemic change––is more imperative today than ever.-

 This article is based on the author’s new book under the title The New World Order in Action: Globalization, The Brexit Revolution and the “Left”, (Progressive Press, November 2016) https://www.amazon.com/World-Order-Action-Vol-Globalization/dp/1615779353/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478292192&sr=8-1&keywords=Takis+Fotopoulos

Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher and economist who founded the inclusive democracy movement. He is noted for his synthesis of the classical democracy with the libertarian socialism and the radical currents in the new social movements. He is the editor of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy (which succeeded Democracy & Nature). He was previously (1969 1989) Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London. In his seminal work Towards An Inclusive Democracy (London & New York: Cassell, 1997), which has been translated into French, German, Spanish, Italian, Greek and Chinese, the foundations of the inclusive democracy project were set. He is also the author of over 2,000 articles in British, American and Greek books, journals, magazines and newspapers, several of which have been translated into over twenty languages

 Notes

[1] See James Petras, “Obama versus Trump, Putin and Erdogan: Can Coups Defeat Elected Governments?”, Global Research,10/8/2016 http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-versus-trump-putin-and-erdogan-can-coups-defeat-elected-governments/5540500*p

[2] Aditya Chakrabortty, “I hate Trump, but on the issue of free trade he has a point”, The Guardian, 19/10/2016

[3] Joseph E. Stiglitz, “Globalization and its New Discontents”,Project Syndicate, 5/8/2016 https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-by-joseph-e–stiglitz-2016-08 

[4] Sam Joiner, “Richest 62 in world worth the same as poorest 3.5 billion”, The Times, 18/1/2016

[5] Will Pavia, “Poor Americans have same life expectancy as Sudanese”, The Times, 13/4/2016

[6] Claire Jones & Alec Barker, “Do more to help globalization’s losers, say champions of liberalism”, Financial Times, 13/9/2016

[7] David Charter, Juncker calls for more union to beat ‘galloping populism’, The Times, 14/9/2016

[8] Anand  Giridharadas, “Besieged Globalists Ponder What Went Wrong”, New York Times, 26/9/2016

[9] Robert Epstein, “Google has power to control elections, can shift millions of votes to Clinton”, RT, 1/11/2016 https://www.rt.com/op-edge/364910-robert-epstein-google-hillary-clinton/

[10] Patrick Martin, “Why the CIA is for Hillary Clinton”, Global Research, 6/8/2016 http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-the-cia-is-for-hillary-clinton/5539997

[11] Slavoj Žižek, “The Hillary Clinton Consensus Is Damaging Democracy”, Newsweek, 12/8/2016 http://europe.newsweek.com/slavoj-zizek-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-us-presidential-election-bernie-489993?rm=eu

[12] see e.g. Sam Fleming and Patti Waldmeir, “Donald Trump’s trade message resonates in car country”, Financial Times, 8/8/2016

[13] Prof. Michel Chossudovsky,” Rockefeller, Ford Foundations Behind World Social Forum (WSF). The Corporate Funding of Social Activism

Global Research, 11/8/2016 http://www.globalresearch.ca/rockefeller-ford-foundations-behind-world-social-forum-wsf-the-corporate-funding-of-social-activism/5540552

[14] See e.g. “Globalization is barbarous, multinationals rule world – Marine Le Pen”, RT, 8/12/2014 http://rt.com/news/212435-france-pen-globalization-barbarity/

[15] Francis Elliott et al. ‘Working class prefers Ukip to Labour”, The Times, 25/11/2014

[16] Philip Aldrick, “Brexit was just the start of a global revolt, IMF warns”, The Times, 5/10/2016

[17] Chris Marsden & Julie Hyland, ““Seismic Shock”: UK Vote to Leave the EU Triggers Economic and Political Crisis, Global Research, 24/6/2016 http://www.globalresearch.ca/seismic-shock-uk-vote-to-leave-the-eu-triggers-economic-and-political-crisis/5532656?print=1

[18] G. Soros, “The promise of Regrexit”, Project Syndicate, 8/7/2016 https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-promise-of-regrexit-by-george-soros-2016-07

[19] Dominic Lawson, “OK, you’re angry. But ignore the vote and tanks could be on the streets”, Sunday Times, 3/7/2016

[20] Philip Aldrick, “Economy defies Brexit slowdown fears”, The Times, 27/0/2016

[21] “Soros warns of EU disintegration”, BBC News, 25/6/2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36630468

[22] See Towards An Inclusive Democracy, op.cit. ch. 6

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur A Brexit-Style Revolution in the USA? The Real Differences between Clinton and Trump

Fraud and Corruption – Probing the Clinton Record

novembre 6th, 2016 by Michael Welch

« Down here, a smaller version of this, $800,000 similar slush fund has landed a sitting Congressman, an African-American lady who has been in Congress for about twenty plus years, running for re-election this year, she faces 357 years in our federal prisons for $800,000, a smaller, shorter-lived set of fraud. This is a big scandal!« 

-Charles Ortel on the Clinton Foundation’s misappropriation of funds. (From this week’s interview.)

.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Lire

Length (59:33)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

FBI Director James Comey’s 11th hour bomb-shell announcing an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails seems to have compromised what was believed to be an easy victory for the former First Lady in the lead-up to Tuesday’s elections.

Wikileaks has disclosed evidence that while Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and aides like Huma Abedin. used unencrypted computers on a private server to conduct secret business and then did their best to cover up and destroy evidence of that activity.

There is considerable conjecture about what was in those emails that could have been so incriminating, or dangerous, that they would have forced Comey’s hand so close to election day.

Nevertheless, there is already plenty of documentation in the public record indicative of criminal behaviour proximate to Ms. Clinton that deserves scrutiny before Americans go to the ballot box. That record is the focus of this week’s installment of the Global Research News Hour.

Charles Ortel is a private financial investor, writer and former Wall Street banker. In 2007 he became a whistle-blower and was instrumental in bringing down General Electric after revealing GE’s fraudulently overvaluing its stock by many billions of dollars to mislead its investors. Ortel has been scrutinizing the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation since February of 2015. His research reveals a pattern of massive fraud through questionable and illegal practices which have enriched the Clintons at the expense of the good works that the Foundation was purportedly set up to perform. Ortel is our guest in the first half hour.

Debbie Lusignan, better known by her social media handle “Sane Progressive” started documenting evidence of election fraud during the race for the Democratic nomination. She has likewise monitored the race for President and is disclosing a lot of information ignored by the press, pertinent to the real political aspirations of the American people. Debbie makes her debut on the program to elaborate on what she’s discovered.

Finally, Glen Ford, commentator and executive editor of Black Agenda Report, joins us near the end of the hour to explain why the Clintons have been successful in appealing to Black Americans in spite of a record in office hostile to that population.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Lire

Length (59:33)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Fraud and Corruption – Probing the Clinton Record

Guerre, Propagande, Clinton & Trump…

novembre 6th, 2016 by Mondialisation.ca

Sélection d’articles du 29 octobre au 5 novembre 2016.

hillary-clinton-donald-trump 2A l’intérieur du gouvernement invisible : Guerre, Propagande, Clinton & Trump

Par John Pilger, 29 octobre 2016

Aujourd’hui, le gouvernement invisible n’a jamais été aussi puissant et aussi peu compris. Dans toute ma carrière de journaliste et de cinéaste, je n’ai jamais connu de propagande aussi influente sur nos vies que celle qui sévit aujourd’hui, et qui soit aussi peu contestée.

drapeau onu

Un référendum pour l’abolition des armes nucléaires !

Par ACDN, 29 octobre 2016

L’Assemblée générale de l’ONU pourrait convoquer en 2017 une conférence internationale chargée d’établir un « instrument juridique contraignant », c’est-à-dire un traité d’interdiction et d’élimination des armes nucléaires. Le gouvernement français s’y oppose et modernise son arsenal. Mais une centaine de parlementaires veulent au contraire que la France participe à l’abolition des armes nucléaires. Ils proposent une loi organisant un référendum qui pose clairement la question. Ils appellent leurs collègues à la cosigner, et les électeurs à la soutenir.

médicamentsComment des laboratoires pharmaceutiques rémunèrent des médecins pour des études scientifiquement contestées

Par Rachel Knaebel et Simon Gouin, 30 octobre 2016

Chaque année, les grands laboratoires pharmaceutiques dépensent des millions d’euros en « études observationnelles ». Le principe ? Rémunérer des médecins pour qu’ils transmettent à ces mêmes labos des données concernant les effets des médicaments prescrits sur leurs patients.

cuba-usa

Condamnation unanime des sanctions économiques des Etats-Unis contre Cubaà

Par Salim Lamrani, 31 octobre 2016

Une nouvelle fois, la communauté internationale a rejeté les sanctions économiques qui étranglent le peuple cubain. Pour la vingt-cinquième année consécutive, l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies a exprimé sa condamnation du blocus économique, commercial et financier imposé par Washington à Cuba depuis plus d’un demi-siècle.

expressions-quiles-terreur

Comment voter Non aux armes nucléaires

Par Manlio Dinucci, 01 novembre 2016

Se mettant à la queue des USA, le gouvernement italien s’est rangé contre la Résolution, approuvée à grande majorité dans le premier comité de l’Assemblée générale, qui demande la convocation en 2017 d’une conférence des Nations Unies pour « négocier un outil légalement contraignant pour la prohibition des armes nucléaires, qui amène à leur élimination totale ».

Memoria Algérie

Algérie : 62e anniversaire de la lutte de libération. L’obligation d’une nouvelle révolution en face de la réalité du monde.Par Chems Eddine Chitour, 01 novembre 2016

Nous sommes à la veille du premier novembre et on peut parier que le rituel bien rodé  et atemporel sera servi à une société algérienne  indifférente. Pourtant cette épopée devrait de mon point de vue – au vue de l’immense tâche accomplie par nos ainés- être réactualisée chaque année et le moins que l’on puisse faire est de faire un bilan de nos réalisations dans le  tous les domaines  notamment le savoir, l’élévation du niveau de vie , bref la quête d’objectifs toujours ambitieux.

stop-alla-nato

«Nous sommes en état de guerre, engagés sur deux fronts qui deviennent de jour en jour plus incandescents et dangereux.»

Par Comité No Guerra no Nato, 02 novembre 2016

Nous sommes en état de guerre, engagés sur deux fronts qui deviennent de jour en jour plus incandescents et dangereux. En accusant la Russie de « déstabiliser l’ordre de la sécurité européenne », l’Otan sous commandement étasunien a rouvert le front oriental, en nous entraînant dans une nouvelle guerre froide, par certains aspects plus dangereuse que la précédente, voulue surtout par Washington pour briser des rapports Russie-Ue dommageables pour les intérêts étasuniens.

Non à l'OTANAppel du colloque « Le rôle de l’OTAN dans la guerre mondiale morcelée ». Non aux bombes nucléaires en Italie

Par Comité No Guerra no Nato, 02 novembre 2016

Aux Etats-Unis sont en phase de développement -documente l’US Air Force- les bombes nucléaires B61-12, destinées à remplacer les actuelles B61 installées par les USA en Italie et dans d’autres pays européens. La B61-12 -documente la Fédération des scientifiques américains (Fas)- n’est pas seulement une version mise à jour de la B61, mais une nouvelle arme nucléaire

trump-clinton

L’échec de la démocratie: comment les oligarques planifient de voler l’élection

Par Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, 03 novembre 2016

Je suis maintenant convaincu que l’oligarchie qui gouverne l’Amérique a l’intention de voler l’élection présidentielle. Dans le passé, les oligarques n’ont pas pris en charge un quelconque candidat pour le faire gagner car les oligarques possédaient les deux. Mais ils ne sont pas propriétaires de Trump.

Russie dollarLa Russie, la Chine et l’Arabie saoudite mettent en échec l’hégémonie du dollar

Par Ariel Noyola Rodríguez, 03 novembre 2016

Les États-Unis rencontrent de plus en plus d’obstacles sur leur chemin pour maintenir l’hégémonie du dollar comme monnaie de réserve mondiale. Ces derniers mois, les pays émergents ont vendu beaucoup de bons du Trésor américain, principalement la Russie et la Chine, mais aussi l’Arabie saoudite.

sahara-occidental

République Arabe Sahraouie démocratique : l’historique du conflit

Par René Naba, 04 novembre 2016

Le Maroc célèbre, le 6 novembre 2016, le 41e anniversaire de la «Marche Verte» marocaine (6 novembre 1975) sur fond de quatre camouflets retentissants dont trois sur le Sahara occidental : La décision de la Cour de Justice Européenne (CJUE) annulant le 10 décembre 2015 un accord entre le Maroc et l’Union européenne…

Brasil terra

Des fonds de pension alimentent l’accaparement des terres au Brésil

Par Grain, 04 novembre 2016

Dans le monde entier, des agriculteurs sont privés de leurs terres, de manière souvent violente, et ces terres passent aux mains de grandes sociétés et de spéculateurs qui voient le foncier agricole comme un investissement lucratif. Mais quels sont les mécanismes complexes derrière ces agissements ?

hillary-clinton

Une présidente américaine au cerveau endommagé, le doigt sur le bouton nucléaire ?

Par F. William Engdahl, 04 novembre 2016

Hillary Rodham Clinton nous donne l’impression ces derniers temps que plus on la secoue, plus il en sort de nouveaux scandales. Nous avions déjà les scandales de Mena, Arkansas, là où son mari, «Bubba», était aussi connu en tant que William («Bill») Jefferson Clinton, Procureur général et ensuite Gouverneur.

AudiFest

AuditFest, une rencontre entre mouvements sociaux et ’municipalités du changement’ pour l’abolition des dettes illégitimes

Par Jérôme Duval, 05 novembre 2016

Ces 14 et 15 octobre, plus d’une centaine de participantEs se sont retrouvéEs à Barcelone pour l’AuditFest organisé par la PACD (Plateforme pour un Audit Citoyen de la Dette en Espagne) durant la traditionnelle semaine internationale contre la dette et les institutions financières internationales en hommage à Thomas Sankara. L’objectif de cette rencontre était de rassembler des personnes impliquées dans l’audit citoyen municipal…

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Guerre, Propagande, Clinton & Trump…

Ces 14 et 15 octobre, plus d’une centaine de participantEs se sont retrouvéEs à Barcelone pour l’AuditFest organisé par la PACD (Plateforme pour un Audit Citoyen de la Dette en Espagne) durant la traditionnelle semaine internationale contre la dette et les institutions financières internationales en hommage à Thomas Sankara. L’objectif de cette rencontre était de rassembler des personnes impliquées dans l’audit citoyen municipal, tels des éluEs et/ou employéEs des « municipalités du changement » ou militantEs d’organisations citoyennes comme la PACD. L’enjeu étant de mettre sur la table différentes stratégies possibles pour enclencher des audits citoyens municipaux, se coordonner pour mettre fin au paiement d’une dette largement illégitime et désobéir, s’il le faut, à un carcan législatif qui impose son paiement. Le tout permettant de reconstruire une certaine autonomie municipale capable d’impulser le changement souhaité. L’audit doit être entendu comme un outil de transformation sociale, de construction de pouvoir populaire.

Comme Jeza Goudinoff de la PACD l’a rappelé lors de l’introduction de ces deux journées, il y a à peine quelques années on ne parlait que très peu de dette publique en Espagne. Aujourd’hui, de nombreuses municipalités veulent remettre en cause son paiement jugé injuste. « Nous voulons voir la facture avant de payer ! » souligne t-elle.

C’est dans le Nau Bostik, lieu alternatif, décoré d’une grande banderole « El Deute Mata » (« La Dette Tue » en catalan), lors d’un événement particulièrement bien organisé, qu’ont eu lieu ces riches débats.


L’audit citoyen ne vient pas de nulle part

Iolanda Fresnillo de la PACD et Ekona a rappelé que la démarche d’audit pour réclamer des comptes à un pouvoir oppressif, ne vient pas de nulle part, mais relève d’un long parcours parsemé de luttes. Si son origine vient des pays du Sud, il s’étend maintenant aux quatre coins de la planète et particulièrement en Europe du Sud où les effets de la crise sont sévères. Jusqu’à maintenant se sont principalement les institutions qui se sont emparées de la question un temps donné. Or il s’agit dorénavant que les populations concernées soient les acteurs de cette revendication, que l’audit devienne réellement citoyen et permanent. En effet, si des audits très intéressants ont eu lieu dans de nombreux pays (Brésil, Argentine, Norvège, Équateur et plus récemment Grèce), le manque de participation et de contrôle citoyen sur ces processus – ou sur la suite donnée à ces processus – expliquent en grande partie qu’ils n’ont pas eu l’impact souhaité en termes de justice et de transformation sociales |1|.

que l’audit devienne réellement citoyen et permanent

Jérémie Cravatte a abondé dans ce sens en rappelant que les campagnes d’audit citoyen sont nées dans un contexte particulier. Quand la dette dite « souveraine » a commencé à être utilisée pour justifier des cures d’austérité faisant suite aux sauvetages bancaires, des initiatives ont commencé à se développer pour déconstruire le discours dominant sur les origines de cette dette publique et pour mettre en avant des alternatives à son paiement aveugle (comme en Grèce lors du mouvement des places) : le CAC français est alors né en 2011, la PACD espagnole en 2012 et l’ACiDebelge en 2013. En expliquant comment se concrétise l’audit communal en Belgique (voir la présentation jointe à cet article), il a souligné l’importance d’espaces comme ICAN pour mutualiser les expériences de ces audits citoyens et les renforcer.

Fanny Malinen a décrit la dynamique de Debt Resistance UK au Royaume-Uni en soulignant que, à l’inverse de l’Espagne, elle n’est pas partie d’un mouvement social large. Si les municipalités se financent traditionnellement envers l’État central, celui-ci favorise de plus en plus leur recours aux banques privées et à leurs produits toxiques.

Enfin, un point commun aux trois pays est que le droit à l’information n’y est pas respecté mais que ces campagnes d’audit citoyen le revendiquent à l’aide de différents outils et actions (comme l’OCM).


Un manuel d’audit citoyen municipal

Cette rencontre fut aussi l’occasion de présenter un guide d’audit citoyen municipal tout juste sorti de l’imprimeur. L’auteur Yago Álvarez, nous a présenté son ouvrage nourrit de ses débats avec différentes initiatives d’audits municipaux lors de ses déplacements. L’apport de chacune de ces expériences a permit au fil du temps de construire un véritable outil didactique au service des populations qui veulent auditer les comptes de leur municipalité. Un nouveau site http://auditoriaciudadanamunicipal.com/ est mis en place autour de cette publication afin de visualiser les différentes initiatives au niveau municipal, où l’on peut également télécharger le livre de Yago Álvarez.


Quelques exemples d’expériences d’audit ou complémentaires à l’audit

Vicente Losada nous explique qu’un des premiers groupes d’audit citoyen sectoriel et transversal s’est créé en mai 2013 dans la communauté de Madrid sur le secteur de la santé. Ce groupe de travail organiquement lié à la PACD a surgi dans un contexte d’attaques néolibérales dévastatrices et en réaction à une brutale offensive de privatisation de sept hôpitaux. En réaction s’est développée une énorme mobilisation, la ’Marée blanche’ (en référence aux manifestations de blouses blanches de travailleuses et travailleurs de la santé). C’est aussi l’époque de la fameuse revue catalane ’Café Amb Llet’ qui passait au vitriol la corruption et la politique antisociale du gouvernement en matière de santé. Audita Sanidad tient maintenant un site Internet, http://auditasanidad.org/, où l’on peut suivre ses travaux et lire ses rapports. Ils estiment qu’au moins 240 millions d’euros de dépenses en produits pharmaceutiques et technologies médicales correspondent à une dette illégitime par corruption.

Adriana Losada de Stop Pujades, la coordination pour un transport public accessible, nous informe qu’il est question de privatiser toute la gestion de tous les transports publics de toute la Catalogne, à une entreprise liée à la banque Caixa pour un contrat de 15 ans. La mobilisation a permis de rendre public ce contrat jusqu’alors inconnu. Les activistes de Stop Pujades font régulièrement des actions dans le métro et ouvrent gratuitement les accès au public pour revendiquer une gestion 100 % publique, un retour immédiat aux tarifs de 2013 et une table ouverte de négociation pour décider des futurs tarifs. L’ATM (Autorité du Transport Métropolitain, Autoritat del Transport Metropolità), dont la gestion demeure très opaque, accumule une dette de 540 millions d’euros avec le secteur financier.

Sarah Forq a présenté le principe du budget participatif et l’expérience de la commune de Santa Cristina d’Aro, en Catalogne, à laquelle elle a participé activement. Si les budgets participatifs (au même titre que les budgets alternatifs) sont des outils qui peuvent nourrir les réflexions sur l’audit citoyen permanent, ils ne concernent le plus souvent qu’une partie minoritaire du budget et, surtout les dépenses et non les recettes, laissant ainsi peu de marge de manœuvre.

Decidim a exprimé le fait que le projet assumé de Google est de remplacer l’État (tout en étant le Marché). Nous pouvons décider de lutter sans prendre en compte les outils digitaux et cette évolution technologique (comme le secteur public qui utilise actuellement des outils dépassés), ou d’intégrer cette donne dans notre lutte et de nous les approprier. La technologie peut – sous certaines conditions (comme l’usage du logiciel libre) – faciliter et augmenter la participation de la majorité sociale à la gestion publique. Si cela passe aujourd’hui par l’amélioration de l’administration publique, l’horizon doit être l’auto-organisation de la population. Les intervenantEs ont souligné que le but n’est pas de remplacer la participation physique mais bien de la compléter.

Simona Levi et l’avocate Carmen Herranz ont rappelé le travail d’investigation extraordinaire de l’organisation 15MPaRato qui a abouti à l’inculpation de Rodrigo Rato, ancien président du FMI, ex vice-président du gouvernement de José María Aznar du PP et ancien président de Bankia (conseiller de la multinationale Telefónica depuis 2003). Dans un contexte de corruption généralisée, 65 banquiers de Caja Madrid et Bankia (dont Rodrigo Rato), se retrouvent sur le banc des accusés dans l’affaire des cartes de crédit au « black » avec lesquelles 83 anciens hauts responsables ont dépensé 15,2 millions d’euros à des fins personnelles entre 2003 et 2012.

Lors d’un atelier consacré à la question de la fiscalité au niveau municipal, il a été rappelé que la marge de manœuvre en matière de fiscalité des nouveaux gouvernements municipaux est fortement réduite. Ce fut l’occasion de souligner qu’en Espagne les églises ne payent aucun impôt et que la Mairie de Barcelone ne perçoit rien de la Sagrada Familia, propriété du diocèse, malgré ses 2,3 millions de visiteurs annuels. De même les grande entreprises utilisent les méandres de l’administration pour échapper à l’impôt comme ce fut le cas d’Ikea à Sadabell qui avait omis de payer plus d’un million d’euros entre 2012 et 2015 mais qui, le jour même de l’annonce dans la presse, s’est empressé de payer ses dettes.

Une autre lutte récente et sœur de l’audit citoyen est la pression citoyenne pour l’inclusion (et l’application) de clauses sociales et environnementales dans les contrats de marché public. Actuellement, la pression vient plutôt des lobbys entrepreneuriaux |2| et, par exemple, 6 euros sur 10 dépensés par le public dans la santé à Madrid va aux plus grosses entreprises privées du secteur.

Parmi les expériences complémentaires, on compte également la municipalisation des services et biens communs.Et puisque qui dit « démocratie », dit forcément « proche des citoyenNEs », la gestion des services et de biens communs doit, de fait, être envisagée à une échelle locale et en cogestion entre les municipalités et les collectivités citoyennes. Les obstacles sont nombreux (financement des services publics insuffisant et administrations traditionnellement opaques et rigides, mais aussi politique énergétique réservée exclusivement à l’exécutif de Madrid qui délègue la production et la distribution à des sociétés privées) mais le développement d’outils visant la mise en place effective d’une gestion locale est bien réelle. Une structure de partage entre municipalités progressistes pour échanger des idées, expériences et ressources a été mise en place dans cet objectif en Catalogne. Des ponts sont également créés entre les municipalités et le niveau provincial pour forcer la relocalisation des processus décisionnels. David Navarro, conseiller municipal de Cadix (120 000 habitantEs) a mis en avant le travail en cours pour re-municipaliser les services de nettoyage des plages. L’arrivée en juin 2015 du nouveau Maire, José María González Santos « Kichi », a été saluée avec enthousiasme et a rempli les places comme jamais vu ces dernières années |3|, l’espoir est palpable. Il y a urgence à légiférer et faire de la politique autrement.


À l’épreuve des institutions 

L’économiste Bibiana Medialdea est intervenue pour informer de l’audit en cours à Madrid. Madrid est une des villes les plus endettées d’Europe, sa dette est passée de 990 millions d’euros fin 2000 à 7,7 milliards d’euros en 2012. Bibiana Medialdea est coordinatrice du Conseil consultatif de l’Audit de la Dette et des Politiques Publiques de la Mairie de Madrid. Elle a rappelé que l’audit de la gestion municipale était inclue dans le programme de Ahora Madrid, formation politique maintenant à la tête de la municipalité et qu’aussitôt après les élections de mai 2015, le processus a été adopté en juillet avec l’appui du PSOE (Ahora Madrid n’a pas la majorité pour gouverner). Dans cette Commission d’audit institutionnelle participent des fonctionnaires de Ahora Madrid, du PSOE et de Ciudadanos. La période étudiée comprends les trois dernières législatures de Ruiz-Gallardón et Ana Botella. mais avec la volonté d’aller plus loin et de laisser le processus fonctionner sur le long terme. Les perspectives sociales, environnementales et de genre, souvent désastreuses et produits de politiques sociales mal orientées ou négligées, sont prises en compte. Cet audit est fondamental mais des craintes sont exprimées quant à la participation citoyenne et la nécessité d’avoir une pression sociale, notamment de celles et ceux qui espèrent un changement et qui tardent à le voir venir.

Madrid est une des villes les plus endettées d’Europe

Carlos Sánchez Mato, conseiller économique à la Mairie de Madrid a rappelé notre responsabilité de lutter contre la Loi Montoro qui limite les dépenses des municipalités aux dépens des services publics pour satisfaire le service de la dette. La municipalité de Madrid, qui a payé toutes ses dettes et se retrouve en situation de surplu budgétaire, va pouvoir présenter un plan de dépenses en services sociaux pour la population. Si ce plan est rejeté par l’exécutif, il faudra rendre compte de cette injustice à tous les niveaux pour faire tomber la loi prévient Carlos Sanchez Mato.

Alfredo Sánchez de la PACD Madrid a dénoncé les projets pharaoniques aux coûts exorbitants qui ont endetté la ville. Par exemple, la mise en souterrain du périphérique M30 qui a bénéficié aux entreprises ACS et Ferrovial, et dont les travaux initialement budgétisés à 1,7 milliards d’euros en 2004 coûteront finalement près de 10 milliards d’euros à la population madrilène.


La suspension et l’annulation difficiles à envisager

Au-delà de difficultés de fonctionnement inhérentes à l’Institution, les personnes présentes dans les administrations municipales et issues des mouvements sociaux se confrontent à un problème de taille : le cadre légal mis en place par le vieux système.

L’élément majeur de ce cadre qui est le plus souvent revenu dans les discussions est la « Loi Montoro ». Cette loi priorise le remboursement de la dette au dépend des dépenses publiques capables de répondre aux besoins de la population. Si une municipalité arrête de rembourser sa dette en tout ou en partie |4| dans le rapport de forces actuel, non seulement les intérêts de retard s’accumuleront mais elle risque de se voir couper les vivres par le pouvoir central.

Il ne faut pas répéter l’expérience désastreuse de Syriza en Grèce.

Partant de là, les seules pistes envisagées – parfois déjà mises en place – pour gérer le problème de la dette de manière plus juste sont la fiscalité, la lutte contre la corruption, les investissements considérés productifs, la restructuration de dette (par l’allongement du remboursement et/ou la diminution des taux d’intérêts, comme cela se faisait déjà avant), etc.

Toutes ces pistes sont complémentaires à l’audit et à l’annulation de la dette illégitime. Mais certains des programmes des formations politiques à la tête des « municipalités du changement » ne se limitaient pas à cela et, si le cadre existant fait tout pour rendre la suspension et l’annulation très difficiles à envisager, nombre d’entre elles comptent bien tenir leur engagement – quitte à désobéir s’il le faut. Il ne faut pas répéter l’expérience désastreuse de Syriza en Grèce.


Un front uni des municipalités contre la dette illégitime

Nombre de « municipalités du changement » se battent de façon isolée et mettent en avant leurs propres solutions par rapport à l’impasse dans laquelle veut les pousser le gouvernement central. Elles créent des brèches, certes, mais il faudrait qu’elles se coordonnent pour amplifier ces pistes de solutions alternatives. Seule une lutte collective, organisée et bien coordonnée pourra libérer les populations du joug de la dette illégitime.

C’est bien de cette volonté partagée dont il a été question et la rencontre de l’AuditFest s’est terminée par une déclaration d’intention de créer un front des municipalités unies contre la dette illégitime. Ruben Rosson, conseiller de la mairie d’Oviedo a donné rendez-vous le 25 et 26 novembre à Oviedo pour construire ensemble cette proposition. Il a aussi fait mention du Manifeste d’Oviedo qui rejette l’endettement illégitime et l’austérité, signé à ce jour par plus de 580 personnalités politiques dont des maires, conseillers municipaux ou députéEs. Il a aussi été question de l’articulation des mouvements sociaux dans ce processus tant leurs participations est essentielle, d’une part parce qu’ils représentent les citoyenNEs – les premiers concernés par les politiques misent en cause – et d’autre part parce que le pouvoir politique ne pourra pas construire le rapport de forces seul.

Jérôme Duval

Notes

|1| Iolanda Fresnillo souligne ainsi que la participation citoyenne est la clé des processus d’audit. Preuve en est que les institutions proches des créanciers ont récupéré le concept et proposent aujourd’hui elles-mêmes des audits (FMI, Deloitte, etc.).

|2| Voir, par exemple, l’onglet « corruption du site www.numeroteca.org

|3| Voir la vidéo de l’investiture de José María González ’Kichi’ à Cadix : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sK…

|4| Même dans le cas, par exemple, de factures illégales décrit par un fonctionnaire de la mairie de Séville.

Jérôme Duval est membre du CADTM, Comité pour l’abolition des dettes illégitimes (www.cadtm.org) et de la PACD, la Plateforme d’Audit Citoyen de la Dette en Espagne (http://auditoriaciudadana.net/). Il est l’auteur avec Fátima Martín du livre Construcción europea al servicio de los mercados financieros, Icaria editorial 2016 et est également coauteur de l’ouvrage La Dette ou la Vie, (Aden-CADTM, 2011), livre collectif coordonné par Damien Millet et Eric Toussaint qui a reçu le Prix du livre politique à la Foire du livre politique de Liège en 2011.
  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur AuditFest, une rencontre entre mouvements sociaux et ’municipalités du changement’ pour l’abolition des dettes illégitimes

«Quand quelqu’un prête de l’argent alors qu’il sait que l’emprunteur ne sera pas en mesure de le rembourser, c’est de la philanthropie. S’il exige d’être remboursé, c’est de l’escroquerie.» Réseau International

Un mal qui répand la terreur, les intérêts d’une dette, puisqu’il faut les nommer par leur nom, une plaie qui a accompagné l’humanité. A des degrés divers, l’humanité est endettée. Nous verrons que certains crèvent le plafond de la dette, d’autres crèvent à cause de celle-ci.
La dette mondiale

«Saviez-vous, écrit l’économiste Michael Snyder, que chaque homme, femme et enfant sur cette planète détient une dette de plus de 31.000 dollars? Or, comme près de 3 milliards de ces gens survivent avec moins de 2 dollars par jour, eh bien en réalité, la dette qui vous revient est beaucoup plus importante. Si nous prenions en compte toutes les richesses que l’économie mondiale a produit cette année et que nous les utilisions pour rembourser la totalité de cette dette, ça ne serait pas encore suffisant. Selon un récent rapport publié par le McKinsey Global Institute et intitulé Debt and (not much) deleveraging, le montant total de la dette mondiale est passé de 142.000 milliards de dollars à la fin de l’année 2007 à plus de 230.000 milliards de dollars aujourd’hui, ce qui est supérieur à 300% du PIB de la planète (Le PIB mondial est estimé à 73.434 milliards de dollars américains en 2015). Nous sommes assis sur la plus volumineuse montagne de dettes de toute l’histoire. En fait, le McKinsey Global Institute affirme que les niveaux d’endettement ont augmenté dans toutes les grandes économies au monde depuis 2007. (1)

La dette des Etats-Unis d’Amérique

C’est à se demander comment des pays aussi riches soient endettés ! Surtout pas les Etats Unis qui disposent de l’imprimerie de faire des dollars à l’envi. En fait les choses ne sont pas aussi simples. Chaque pays en fonction de son train de vie et de ses réelles performances est amené à s’endetter s’il ne maitrise pas sa comptabilité.

«Pour Egon Von Greyerz: «les six présidents responsables de la faillite des États-Unis depuis l’élection de Ronald Reagan en 1981 écrit-il, les États-Unis ont eu cinq présidents qui ont dépensé des sommes en constante augmentation afin de s’accrocher au pouvoir et acheter des votes. Cela a entraîné la plus grande entreprise d’impression monétaire de l’histoire. (…) Ainsi, la dette américaine ne pourra que s’évaporer lorsque le pays fera faillite. Vu qu’il n’existe pas d’autre façon d’éradiquer cette dette, une faillite des États-Unis est inévitable dans les années à venir. Mais avant cela, la Réserve fédérale et le gouvernement américain inonderont le marché de jumbo jet money, puisque le helicopter money sera insuffisant. Tout cet argent créera de l’hyperinflation, mais il ne paiera pas la dette. Il ne fera qu’augmenter le montant de la dette, qui atteint déjà des milliers de milliards.» (2)

«Après 55 ans de déficits, la dette américaine est passée de 286 milliards de dollars à 19.600 milliards de dollars. L’économie américaine a eu une croissance naturelle, sans déficit budgétaire, jusqu’en 1960. À ce moment, une implication plus lourde des États-Unis dans la guerre du Vietnam créa les premiers déficits. Lorsque Eisenhower passa le pouvoir à Kennedy en 1961, la dette des États-Unis n’était que de 286 milliards de dollars. Vingt ans plus tard, durant la première année de l’administration Reagan, la dette américaine a atteint la somme faramineuse de 1000 milliards de dollars. Peu de gens réalisent que Reagan a obtenu ces bons résultats en triplant quasiment la dette, de 900 milliards de dollars à 2600 milliards de dollars. En huit ans, Reagan a engendré 1700 milliards de dollars de dette, soit presque le double de ce que tous les présidents avant lui, réunis, avaient fait depuis 1789. La plupart des gens croient que Bill Clinton a bien géré l’économie américaine et qu’il a créé des excédents budgétaires pour la première fois en 35 ans. Lorsque Clinton s’en alla, en 2001, il avait réussi à ajouter 1600 milliards de dollars de dette, pour porter le total à 5700 milliards de dollars. Le suivant à battre des records fut George W. Bush, qui augmenta la dette de 4300 milliards de dollars, en la faisant passer de 5700 milliards de dollars à 10.000 milliards de dollars. Mais c’est Obama qui s’avère être le plus prolifique des présidents. La dette des États-Unis sera aux alentours de 20.000 milliards de dollars au départ de Monsieur Obama… «Après moi, le déluge» Obama. Ces 36 dernières années, la dette des États-Unis a été multipliée par 22. Il avait fallu 220 ans pour atteindre 10.000 milliards de dollars de dette, et Obama a réussi à doubler cette dette en seulement huit ans. Étant donné qu’il a déjà reçu le prix Nobel de la paix, peut-être devrait-on lui décerner le Nobel d’économie pour avoir été le président le plus prolifique de l’histoire mondiale.» (2)

«L’Amérique se goinfre de dette conclut l’auteur, dans ce pays où le crédit est roi, l’heure de vérité se rapproche. Un pays qui, durant 55 ans, ne peut gérer ses finances correctement est sur la route de la perdition. Ce n’est qu’une question de temps avant que l’économie américaine n’implose(…) Les États-Unis ne voudront pas que leur devise perde son statut, et ils se battront très farouchement. Malheureusement, cela pourrait déclencher des conflits militaires majeurs. Évidemment, tout cela impliquera de l’impression monétaire d’une ampleur jamais vue dans l’histoire. (…) L’or: la seule monnaie qui survivra. La meilleure assurance contre les risques financiers et économiques sont les actifs tangibles, tels que l’or et l’argent, à condition qu’ils soient détenus de façon sécurisée, hors du système financier. Les métaux précieux seront le reflet de la destruction de la monnaie-papier. À 1 350 dollars l’once, il n’y a pas de meilleure assurance à posséder.» (3)

Pour Michael Snyder: le remboursement de la dette américaine est mathématiquement impossible. Saviez-vous écrit-il que si l’on prenait tout l’argent que possèdent les Américains, ça ne serait toujours pas suffisant pour rembourser l’intégralité de la dette publique américaine? Aujourd’hui, cette dette publique dépasse 145.000 dollars par ménage, et elle ne fait qu’augmenter année après année. (…) Et puis il y a la question des intérêts sur la dette américaine. Pour le moment, le reste du monde nous prête de gigantesques montagnes d’argent à des taux d’intérêt ridiculement bas. Si le taux d’intérêt de la dette augmentait nous dépenserions plus de 1000 milliards de dollars par an uniquement dans le remboursement des intérêts de la dette publique.» (4)

Les déboires du dollar

Nous savons que la planche à billets détenue par les Américains depuis les accords de Bretton Woods leur permet de dicter la norme économique. Dans les années 1960, Les Etats- Unis avaient une dette gérable mais la guerre du Vietnam les a amenés à faire tourner la planche à billets. Jusqu’au 15 août 1971, un dollar était l’équivalent de 1 g d’or, mais ce jour-là Nixon décida de rendre le cours flottant. L’once d’or de 33g ne vaudra plus 33 dollars, mais fluctuera. Résultat des courses le cours de l’or n’a cessé d’exploser. Actuellement, il faut 1280 $ pour 33g d’or le cours a été multiplié par 40. On comprend alors comme le montre la publication suivante pourquoi c’est le sauve-qui-peut La Russie, la Chine et l’Arabie saoudite qui mettent en échec l’hégémonie du dollar.

 « Les États-Unis écrit Noyola Ariel Rodriguez, rencontrent de plus en plus d’obstacles sur leur chemin pour maintenir l’hégémonie du dollar comme monnaie de réserve mondiale. Ces derniers mois, les pays émergents ont vendu beaucoup de bons du Trésor américain, principalement la Russie et la Chine, mais aussi l’Arabie saoudite. (…) La suprématie de Washington dans le système financier mondial a subi un coup énorme en août dernier: la Russie, la Chine et l’Arabie saoudite ont vendu des bons du Trésor des États-Unis pour la somme de $37,9 milliards, selon la dernière mise à jour des données officielles publiée il y a quelques jours. (…)De toute évidence, le rôle du dollar comme monnaie de réserve mondiale est de nouveau remis en question. En 2010, l’amiral Michael Mullen, président des chefs d’état-major américain a averti que la dette était la principale menace pour la sécurité nationale. Pékin a massivement acheté de l’or au cours des dernières années, et la Banque centrale de Russie a fait de même. Au cours du deuxième trimestre de 2016, les réserves d’or de la Banque de Chine ont atteint 1823 tonnes. La Fédération de Russie, pour sa part, a augmenté ses réserves d’or et a clôturé le deuxième trimestre de cette année, avec un total cumulé de 1500 tonnes. Face aux brutales secousses du dollar, il est crucial d’acheter des actifs plus sûrs, comme l’or. Selon les estimations du Fonds monétaire international (FMI), les réserves d’or des banques centrales du monde entier ont déjà atteint après l’inventaire, au début d’octobre, un volume total de près de 33.000 tonnes.» (5)

«(…)La grande nouvelle est que la course à la dé-dollarisation de l’économie mondiale a été rejointe par l’Arabie saoudite, un pays qui depuis des décennies était resté un allié fidèle de la politique étrangère de Washington. Étonnamment, au cours des douze derniers mois Riyadh s’est débarrassé de plus de 19 milliards dollars de bons du Trésor des Etats-Unis (…). Par conséquent, il est fort probable que, tôt ou tard, la compagnie pétrolière Saudi Aramco acceptera les paiements en yuans au lieu des $. Si cela se réalise la Maison des Saoud jouera à fond le pari du petroyuan. Le monde est en train de changer sous nos yeux.» (5)

Qui dépense le plus aux Etats-Unis? Un exemple: le complexe militaro-industriel n’a jamais été en manque de crédit. Pour maintenir plusieurs centaines de bases à l’étranger et utiliser des armes de plus en plus chers, il faut un budget colossal. Nous devons savoir que le budget du Pentagone (600 milliards de dollars) est équivalent à celui de tous les autres pays du monde!).

La dette publique française grimpe dangereusement

Dans le même ordre, la dette française est abyssale Cela nous rappelle la fameuse lettre de Choiseul à Louis XVI attirant l’attention du roi  sur la probable banqueroute du royaume.  « Point de banqueroute, ni avouée, ni masquée par des réductions forcées. Point d’augmentation d’impôts,   Point d’emprunts, parce que tout emprunt diminue toujours le revenu libre  Pour remplir ces trois points, il n’y a qu’un moyen. C’est de réduire la dépense au-dessous de la recette, et assez au-dessous pour pouvoir économiser chaque année une vingtaine de millions, afin de rembourser les dettes anciennes. Sans cela, le premier coup de canon forcerait l’État à la banqueroute ». (6)

On sait que le Parlement a amendé fin 2015 le budget d’austérité pour débloquer des dépenses supplémentaires pour la sécurité, la justice et l’armée. Exit l’austérité: «Le pacte de sécurité l’a emporté sur le pacte de stabilité». En 1974, la dette publique française représente seulement 16% du PIB 2. Il y a 20 ans, en 1995, elle en est encore à 55% du PIB. Depuis, elle explose: 67% en 2005, près de 90% en 2012, 95% en 2014. Pour arriver, mi-2015, à 97,6% du PIB – soit plus de 2 100 milliards d’euros.

Pointant du doigt le gaspillage du fait d’intérêts très faibles contrairement à ceux permis aux pays du Sud: Georges Hugeux écrivait en août 2015:

«Depuis la prise de mandat de François Hollande, la dette publique a grimpé de 262,7 Md soit 14,4%, résultat d’une croissance atone et d’un déficit public répété (4,0% du PIB pour 2014 contrairement aux 3,0% demandés par le traité de Maastricht) obligeant l’Etat français à se financer sur les marchés obligataires. Si nous comparons l’évolution de la dette française sur les huit dernières années, nous pouvons effectivement constater que sous le mandat de Nicolas Sarkozy la dette a progressé d’environ 600 Md soit 50% en cinq ans. Vers une dette dépassant 100% du PIB en 2015? Bienvenue au club des triples chiffres: la France rejoint l’Italie et la Grèce à grands pas. La perspective négative de deux agences de notation reflète la faible marge de manoeuvre du gouvernement. Sans une reprise de la croissance autour de 2%, les agences prévoient que le ratio d’endettement de la France continuera de grimper. La France devient de moins en moins crédible dans ses négociations financières sur la scène européenne». (7)

Les pays pauvres doivent-ils rembourser la dette?

« Un siècle et demi après l’abolition officielle de l’esclavage, pouvons-nous affirmer que celui-ci a disparu?(…) La dette du Tiers-Monde ou comment fabriquer les conditions d’exploitation et d’esclavage écrit Pauline Imbach du CADTM. Les grandes puissances, les institutions financières internationales les entreprises multinationales, sont responsables du pillage de l’économie des pays du tiers-monde. La dette des pays en voie de développement est estimée à 3 360 milliards de dollars. Elle maintient 85% de l’humanité dans la misère: les pays pauvres payent plus pour leur dette que pour leurs budgets de santé et d’éducation réunis. Ces pays ont remboursé l’équivalent de 102 fois ce qu’ils devaient en 1970, mais entre-temps leur dette a été multipliée par 48. La dette est un des mécanismes du maintien et de fabrication des conditions d’exploitation et d’esclavage. Abolir la dette de manière totale et sans condition, constituerait un premier pas important pour l’abolition de l’esclavage. Tant que les droits humains fondamentaux ne seront pas garantis, l’esclavage existera ». (8)

« Pour Pauline Imbach , la souveraineté politique et économique des pays du Sud est bafouée et les droits humains fondamentaux ne sont pas garantis. Un être humain qui n’a pas d’accès à l’eau, à la nourriture et à d’autres droits et besoins fondamentaux n’est pas libre. Il faut 80 milliards de dollars par an pendant 10 ans pour assurer à la totalité de la population les services sociaux essentiels (éducation primaire, santé, eau). Ainsi, il suffirait d’un prélèvement de 2 millièmes sur le patrimoine cumulé des 10,1 millions de millionnaires en 2007 (estimé à 40.700 milliards de dollars) pour trouver les 80 milliards de nécessaires. Le refus du partage des richesses (le revenu des 500 individus les plus riches de la planète dépasse les revenus cumulés des 416 millions de personnes les plus pauvres) et le maintien délibéré de populations entières dans des conditions de vie contraires aux droits humains est une forme d’esclavage.» (8)

Qu’en est il de la dette algérienne ?

L’Algérie avait une dette de 25 milliards de dollars entre 1988 et 1993, l’Algérie a utilisé 75% de la valeur de ses exportations pour payer le service de la dette. Nous nous tenions le ventre chaque fois que Michel  Camdessus directeur général du FMI venait à Alger nous ajuster structurellement en nous incitant avec des mots (maux ?) doucereux à tailler encore plus dans les secteurs de l’éducation, de la santé.. Ceci il faut le rappeler on était en plein terrorisme , une autre plaie que nous avions à combattre. Il a fallu attendre 2004 pour que l’Algérie- embellie pétrolière aidant- nous avons remboursé jusqu’au dernier centime par anticipation et cerise sur le gateau ou peut être justice divine , le même FMI , cette fois en la personne de Christine Lagarde a sollicité l’Algérie pour un prêt de 5 milliards de dollars. Bon prince l’Algérie a accepté d’aider le FMI..

En définitive, la dette des pays riches est une vue de l’esprit, il est admis que les Etats Unis ne pourront jamais rembourser leur dette. Comme il est admis que des pays comme la France ne pourra pas le faire aussi. Reste les petits pays  comme la Grèce la martyr de la troïka, le Portugal et l’Italie qui ploient à des degrés divers sous la dette.

Pour les pays africains, la dette est imposée et les pays sont pris à la gorge.  Le discours de Sankara aux Nations unies sur le refus de payer la dette devrait servir d’exemple et amorcer une résistance en face des puissants pour effacer cette dette plus que jamais odieuse et dont la genèse est en fait une appropriation des matières premières de ces pays

Professeur Chems eddine Chitour

Ecole Polytechnique enp-du.dz

1.http://www.businessbourse.com/2016/10/01/michael-snyder-la-dette-mondiale-depasse 300-du-pib-de-la-planete/

2.http://www.businessbourse.com/2016/08/14/michael-snyder-game-over-le-remboursement-de-la-dette-americaine-est-mathematiquement-impossible/

3.http://www.businessbourse.com/2016/09/16/egon-von-greyerz-les-six-presidents-responsables-de-la-faillite-des-etats-unis/

4. Michael Snyder: Game Over! the economic collapse blog 14 Août 2016

5.Noyola Ariel Rodriguez – Le 24 octobre 2016 http://lesakerfrancophone.fr/la-russie-la-chine-et-larabie-saoudite-mettent-en-echec-lhegemonie-du-dollar

6. Lettre de Turgot au roi Louis XVI : http://www.andac.info/spip.php?article283

7.Georges Ugeux http://finance.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/08/06/la-dette-publique-francaise-grimpe-dangereusement/

8.Pauline Imbach www.cadtm.org/Un-monde-d-esclavage-maquille-au

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur État de la dette du monde. Ceux qui gaspillent et ceux qui paient pour eux.

As thousands of Indigenous people from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, other Native American tribes, and their allies continue their protest against the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL), corporate media have continued to focus almost exclusively on the presidential election. Most media ignored last week’s vicious attack on the Water Protectors, as they call themselves.

The construction of the pipeline would violate the human right to water, the right of Indigenous peoples to practice their cultural traditions, and several federal statutes.

On October 27, more than 100 police from seven different states and the North Dakota National Guard, clad in riot gear and carrying automatic rifles, arrived in MRAPs [Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected military vehicles], Humvees and an armored police truck. They defended Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the company behind the pipeline, and arrested 142 Water Protectors. That brings the total arrested since August to over 400. More than 40 people have been injured, and some have broken bones and welts from rubber bullets fired by officers.

To read more stories like this, visit Human Rights and Global Wrongs.

Ret. Army Col. Ann Wright, who spent four days at Standing Rock, reported: « Police used mace, pepper spray, tear gas and flash-bang grenades and bean-bag rounds against Native Americans who lined up on the highway. »

The 1,170-mile, $3.7 billion oil pipeline is scheduled to traverse North Dakota, South Dakota, Illinois and Iowa. Slated to transport over 570,000 barrels of fracked oil daily, the pipeline would pass under the Missouri River at Lake Oahe, just a half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s drinking water source. It could affect 28 tribes and millions of people.

An inevitable oil spill from the pipeline, releasing diesel fuel and toxic levels of contaminants into the river, would be culturally and economically catastrophic to the tribe, polluting its source of water and critical farmlands.

Oil spills are all too common. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration documented over 2,000 significant accidents from oil pipelines since 1995. An average of 121 accidents has taken place annually from 2013 to 2015.

People who drink water with oil in it or eat meat from livestock exposed to oil have a higher rate of cancer and digestive problems, according to a 2010 report by Worcester Polytechnic Institute, which studied three major oil spills. And people who use oil-contaminated water for bathing or laundry have a higher incidence of skin problems, including rashes, eczema and skin cancer.

North Dakota and six other states deployed their police officers to attack and arrest the Water Protectors in order to facilitate the construction of this pipeline, which would seriously threaten the tribe’s water supply, in violation of the human right to water.

Torture and Degrading Treatment of Water Protectors

Those arrested were held at the Morton County Correctional Center in 10-by-14 foot cages, some in dog kennels. They reported being forced to wait for access to food, water, bathrooms and medical attention. Some charged with misdemeanors were strip-searched. Women were left naked in their cells and male guards harassed them. Some people were zip-tied in stress positions for hours.

Water Protectors who had locked themselves to some construction equipment reported being waterboarded. Waterboarding has long been considered torture, which violates the UN’s Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States.

Amnesty International, which has sent a team to Standing Rock to investigate the human rights abuses, stated that some of this treatment violates the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. (In addition to ratifying the Convention against Torture, the United States has also ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which outlaws cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.)

Violation of the Human Right to Water

The mantra of the Water Protectors at Standing Rock is « Water Is Life. » The World Health Organization (WHO) stated in its 2010 Fact Sheet on The Right To Water, « Water is the essence of life. Safe drinking water and sanitation are indispensable to sustain life and health, and fundamental to the dignity of all. »

The WHO also determined, « Access to safe drinking water by indigenous peoples is closely linked to their control over their ancestral lands, territories and resources. Lack of legal recognition or protection of these ancestral lands, territories or resources can, therefore, have far-reaching implications for their enjoyment of the right to water. »

Indeed, the international community has recognized that access to safe drinking water must be analyzed within a human rights framework.

States have a duty to ensure access to the means of survival, the United Nations Human Rights Committee wrote in its 1982 general comment No. 6. The Committee was interpreting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its 2002 general comment No. 15, stated, « The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights. » The Committee defined the right to water as the right of all people « to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses. » Water must be free from chemical substances that constitute a threat to health, according to the WHO’s analysis of general comment No. 15.

Construing the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted that the right to water is part of the right to an adequate standard of living.

Although the United States has not ratified the covenant, we have signed it, thereby incurring a legal obligation to refrain from taking actions inconsistent with the object and purpose of the covenant, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention but considers it to be binding customary international law.

The WHO also observed that a violation of the right to water violates the well-established international principle of non-discrimination enshrined in all major human rights treaties. Discrimination means any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of specific characteristics of an individual such as race, religion, age or sex, which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Dakota Access pipeline was originally set to go through Bismarck and Mandan, North Dakota, which would have adversely affected white people. (Both Bismarck and Mandan are around 90 percent white.) When people in those communities opposed the projected route, it was altered to travel through areas close to Native American communities. This is a violation of the non-discrimination principle.

In 2010, the UN General Assembly specifically recognized the human right to water and sanitation, and stated that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realization of all human rights.

Violation of Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Practice Cultural Traditions

The pipeline would pass through areas of great cultural significance, including sacred sites and burial grounds protected by federal law. Construction would destroy these burial grounds, sacred sites and historically significant areas in its path.

Cultural resource surveys were conducted by out-of-state, non-tribal consultants of the company seeking to build the pipeline. But only tribally trained and approved consultants are actually able to assess such sites. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has never had the opportunity to discuss protocols for cultural surveys, or participate in surveys that were conducted. It was only provided partial surveys after they were completed.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states, « Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites. »

This declaration, a moral document but not a treaty, passed with 144 states voting in favor, four voting against, and 11 abstentions. The United States voted in opposition.

Violation of Federal Statutes

On July 27, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the US Army Corps of Engineers, the primary federal agency that granted permits needed for the construction of the pipeline. The lawsuit alleged violations of multiple federal statutes, including the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act, when the permits were issued.

Moreover, the Corps did not do a full Environmental Impact Statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

« Construction and operation of the pipeline, as authorized by the Corps, threatens the Tribe’s environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance to the Tribe, » the complaint reads.

The Standing Rock Sioux were not properly consulted on the cultural and environmental impacts of the pipelines, as required by law. The tribe requested a preliminary injunction to halt construction until it could survey the pipeline route for cultural and heritage resources.

« Although federal law requires the Corps of Engineers to consult with the tribe about its sovereign interests, permits for the project were approved and construction began without meaningful consultation, » Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states, « Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights. » The declaration further says, « Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including … sanitation, health » and « to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence. » That includes the right to clean water.

On September 9, US District Judge James Boasberg denied the tribe’s request for injunctive relief and the tribe appealed.

Immediately following the court’s denial of the injunction, responding to pressure from the Water Protectors, three federal agencies — the Department of Justice, Department of the Army, and Department of the Interior — issued a joint statement announcing they will halt any additional permitting and reconsider their past permits for the project.

There is still one remaining permit that has not been issued. Since the Corps owns land on either side of Lake Oahe, Dakota Access must obtain an easement from the Corps to dig the tunnel for the pipeline underneath the lake on federally owned lands.

The three federal agencies asked that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe. The company refused.

If Dakota Access is found to have knowingly damaged a historic or cultural resource with the intent of sidestepping the National Historic Preservation Act, the Corps cannot issue the easement.

Meanwhile, Chairman Archambault has called on the Department of Justice to conduct an investigation into heavy-handed police tactics and possible civil rights violations.

UN Special Rapporteurs and Observers Concerned About Abuses

The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, called on the United States to halt the construction of the DAPL because it poses a significant risk to the drinking water of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and threatens to destroy their sacred sites and burial grounds.

Tauli-Corpuz’s call was endorsed by eight other UN mandate holders, including the special rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders, the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, human rights and the environment, the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, cultural rights, human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, as well as the chairperson of the working group on business and human rights.

They also expressed concern at reports of intimidation, harassment and prosecution of Indigenous peoples exercising their right to peaceful assembly at Standing Rock.

A delegation from the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues sent observers to Standing Rock to investigate the Water Protectors’ claims of human rights abuses, including the right to water, protection of sacred sites, the right to free prior and informed consent before development affecting their territories, the protection of Indigenous human and environmental rights defenders, unlawful arrests, excessive force and mistreatment in custody.

In a letter to President Barack Obama, Sen. Bernie Sanders asked that the president urge the Corps to stop construction within a mile between Highway 1806 and the Missouri River. Sanders also asked Obama to direct the Department of Justice to send observers to protect the Water Protectors’ First Amendment rights to protest, and remove the National Guard from the camp. Finally, Sanders wrote that all federal permits should be suspended until the Corps completes a full cultural and environmental review.

There is renewed hope for the Water Protectors. On November 1, Obama said the Corps is examining whether the pipeline can be rerouted to southern North Dakota to alleviate the concerns of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its allies. « As a general rule, my view is that there is a way for us to accommodate sacred lands of Native Americans, and I think that right now the Army Corps is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline, » he said.

The National Lawyers Guild formed the Red Owl Legal Collective on site to provide legal representation for those arrested — including protesters, members of the press, legal observers and lawyers — and to work on civil litigation.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild and on the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her books include Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law; The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse and Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. Visit her website: MarjorieCohn.com. Follow her on Twitter: @MarjorieCohn

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Dakota Pipeline: The Human Right to Water at Standing Rock

US Hypocrisy’s Face at the UN – Samantha Power

novembre 5th, 2016 by William Boardman

What is so remarkable and troubling about the presentation we’ve heard today is that what Russia really wants from the U.N. is credit. Congratulations, Russia, you’ve stopped, for a couple days, from using incendiary weapons. Thank you for not using cluster bombs in civilian areas. Thank you for staying the hand of brutality with regard to bunker buster weapons. You don’t get congratulations and get credit for not committing war crimes for a day or a week.Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN, October 26, 2016

Samantha Power is the face of American diplomacy at the UN, where she gives ardent voice to American hypocrisy, deceit, intellectual dishonesty, and mockery of the rest of the world. Appalling as her performance has been, her portrayal is accurate, right down to her denial-laden confidence in American exceptionalism.

the Grand HIgh Witch Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN

Samantha Power, the Grand HIgh Witch US ambassador to the UN

Power’s comment above came in the midst of a discussion of the carnage in Syria, a discussion without substance or pity, without a care for ending the killing. Her tone and content were in sharp, ugly contrast to the report of UN aid chief Stephen O’Brien addressing the Security Council about the layered wars in Syria that began with peaceful protests early in 2011:

Each month, I have come before you and presented an ever-worsening record of destruction and atrocity, grimly cataloguing the systematic destruction of a country and its people. While my job is to relay to you the facts, I cannot help but be incandescent with rage. Month after month, worse and worse, and nothing is actually happening to stop the war, stop the suffering.

Stephen O’Brien is “incandescent with rage” at the outrage that is Syria, and the perhaps greater outrage of inaction by the Security Council as a body as well as its individual states. O’Brien bears witness to destruction and atrocity that the council cannot stop and to which its member states contribute. They do not express rage, incandescent or otherwise; they express the snide posturing of politics and tactical advantage.

Vitaly Churkin, the Russian Federation’s ambassador to the UN, said O’Brien had delivered a sermon, not an objective report. Churkin said that the Russian Federation continued to negotiate with armed groups, continued to deliver humanitarian aid by the ton, and continued the eight-day-old bombing pause. Churkin said Aleppo was worse because the Al Nusra Front had not yet fulfilled its promise to separate from more moderate opposition forces. Churkin said that negotiation demands were constantly changing, that fighters used civilians as human shields, that a political solution should remain the first priority, and that New Zealand should be thanked for working to build a consensus among the members to end the fighting.

The American response is as heartbreaking as ever:

…What is so remarkable and troubling about the presentation we’ve heard today is that what Russia really wants from the U.N. is credit….

Samantha Power responded to the Russian assertion of facts not with rebuttal, but with sarcasm, mockery, and pettiness. Hers is an essentially ad hominem response that allows no credit for a bombing halt of any duration. And no wonder. Power speaks for a country that bombs others more or less at will for as long as it likes. The US has bombed Afghanistan without serious surcease since 2001, and Iraq almost as long. The US continues to participate in the Saudi Arabian coalition’s relentless bombing of Yemen’s hospitals, schools, and funerals, taking part in war crimes as part of a criminal war.

…Congratulations, Russia, you’ve stopped, for a couple days, from using incendiary weapons….

Mockingly, the ambassador from the country of military shock and awe acts as if her hands are clean from decades of devastation visited upon the region. Power acts as if the US aerial destruction brought to bear on defenseless tribes in Afghanistan and Pakistan or defenseless urban civilians in Syria, Iraq and Yemen had never happened. Power has nothing to say about American use of depleted uranium weapons that leave their targets – both people and the land – as radioactive threats to human health for generations.

…Thank you for not using cluster bombs in civilian areas. Thank you for staying the hand of brutality with regard to bunker buster weapons….

The US/Saudi assault on Yemen uses cluster bombs in civilian areas, but Samantha Power has no sarcastic objection to that. The US manufactures cluster bombs – banned by most of the rest of the world – to sell to the Saudis to use in civilian areas in Yemen. The US had no hesitation using bunker-busting bombs in laying waste to Iraq.

…You don’t get congratulations and get credit for not committing war crimes for a day or a week…

Beyond her heavy-handed mockery, Power offered nothing useful. She might have admitted the constant pattern of American war crimes, especially since 2001, whether torture, kidnapping, imprisonment at dark sites, drone strikes, or any of the other horrific acts of American policy throughout the Middle East since World War II. Being the United States means never having to say you’re sorry, no matter how sorry your human rights record, no matter how sorry your fidelity to international law, and worst of all in the world of power politics, no matter how sorry your actual accomplishments are. No matter how monstrous American behavior becomes, Samantha Power is paid to praise it as the necessary actions of the world’s indispensible nation.

In 2008, when Samantha Power was part of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, she famously called Hillary Clinton a “monster.” So does it take one to know one?

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.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US Hypocrisy’s Face at the UN – Samantha Power

US Media Hypes Nonexistent Economic Recovery

novembre 5th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

America’s privileged class never had things better. For the vast majority of others, hard times keep getting harder.

Commenting on Friday’s Labor Department jobs report, Trump was right calling the numbers “phony.”

America’s economy is weak, he said earlier, burdened by widespread poverty, high unemployment and underemployment, downward mobility and crushing national debt.

“Our country is in deep trouble.” Trump correctly explained millions of good, high-paying jobs disappeared, sent overseas to low-wage countries.

Most jobs created are rotten ones – part-time, low-pay, poor-or-no benefits ones. Most workers need two or three to survive. Half of the nation’s households are impoverished or bordering it – one missed paycheck from homelessness, hunger and despair.

According to economist John Williams, “Main Street USA is not happy.” Real unemployment is 23%, not the phony 4.9% reported, excluding millions unable to find work so they stopped looking, becoming nonpersons in the process as far as the Labor Department is concerned.

Real inflation is 9.1%. Phony numbers hide reality. Social Security recipients are cheated – this year no increase in benefits over 2015, next year the one announced is too minuscule to matter.

Insurers are raising Obamacare premiums by double-digits next year – on average 25%, in some states much higher, with fewer provider choices and reduced benefits in some cases, putting proper healthcare increasingly out-of-reach for millions without incurring onerous debt.

“Manufacturing never recovered from its pre-recession peak,” said Williams. “Third quarter GDP growth of 2.9% was not credible.”

“Underlying economic reality remains far from recovery and expansion. Headline GDP remained massively inconsistent with recession seen in freight traffic, petroleum usage, corporate revenues, construction, industrial production, broad employment indicators,” housing starts and other economic data.

Fed governors “redefin(ed) economic normalcy” to reflect non-recovery, America’s privileged benefitting, not most others, struggling through protracted Main Street Depression conditions likely to worsen.

Williams explained the incumbent party lost the race for the White House every time since 1932 when annual real disposable income growth was below 2.9%. In Q II 2016, it was 1.8%.

NYT reinvented reality ignored all of the above. On November 4, its editors bashed Trump for truth-telling about the dismal state of America’s economy, citing phony government figures, concealing the deplorable state of things for most people.

“Trump…presumably believes…his best shot at the White House is to insist that the economy is in terrible shape and that he alone can fix it,” said Times editors. When he disagrees with reported data, “he calls them ‘phony numbers.’ “

The Times is part of the state-sponsored conspiracy concealing dismal reality from the public. America’s economy was thirdworldized, increasingly resembling a banana republic, combining neoliberal harshness with police state repression.

With shameless understatement, Times editors said “economic recovery has not touched every American equally.” They failed to explain the vast majority was left out.

Costs of essentials to survive keep rising. Incomes fail to keep pace, so the standard of living for most Americans keeps falling.

Will Trump fix things? He’ll try unsuccessfully without majority congressional support. What about Hillary? She’s beholden to Wall Street, war profiteers and other corporate predators.

Harder than ever hard times are likely if she succeeds Obama. Her promises otherwise were Big Lies. Times editors conceal ugly truths in boosting her candidacy instead of responsibly opposing it.

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

His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. »

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US Media Hypes Nonexistent Economic Recovery

In reality, since even before Syria’s conflict began unfolding in 2011, the United States had been planning for the nation’s division and destruction through the use of militant proxies allied to Al Qaeda since as early as 2007. Like Libya, Syria was meant to be swiftly overwhelmed by covert terrorism and military operations backed by the West and its regional allies, as well as a torrent of psychological, economic, and even cyber warfare.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in a now prophetic 2007 article titled, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” would reveal (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

However, with Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s stubborn defense against NATO-backed militants and direct NATO airstrikes in 2011, time was bought for the Syrian state to move past the initial shock and awe of American designs and strike an operational pace that has since allowed it to weather, even overcome the worst of this proxy conquest.

And since then, US policymakers have searched for “alternatives” to achieve their goals in Syria, without overtly revealing the fact that since even before “day 1,” the US has banked its entire strategy on the use of Al Qaeda and other designated terrorist organizations for the overthrow of the Syrian government and the division of the Syrian state.

Indeed, US Institute for Peace (USIP) vice president of Applied Research on Conflict Steven Heydemann in the New York Times would write in an article titled, “You Don’t Need a No-Fly Zone to Pressure Russia in Syria,” that:This includes the current US-designed, Turkish-led incursion into northern Syria to create what US policymakers have been calling a “buffer zone” since at least as early as 2012, as well as a plan to designate the northern Syrian city of Idlib the new, “internationally recognized” capital of Syria.

The most effective diplomatic means for the United States to regain leverage in Syria is for Washington to lead an international effort to undermine the Assad government’s claims and recognize a different government as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

The best candidate for recognition is the little-known Syrian Interim Government, or S.I.G. Unlike many other opposition groups, which are based in Turkey, the S.I.G. is based inside Syria, with offices in Idlib and scattered throughout opposition-held territory.

The problem with Heydemann’s proposal is the same problem that has plagued the entirety of US policy toward Syria, the essential but unobtainable requirement of covering up the opposition’s obvious ties to Al Qaeda.

Idlib is Al Qaeda Central  

It is in Idlib that the US itself admits it has been regularly targeting senior leaders of Al Qaeda. The most recent was revealed on November 2, with the US State Department’s own propaganda channel, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in an article titled, “Pentagon Says It Killed Senior Al-Qaeda Leader,” admitting:

A U.S. drone strike in Syria killed a senior Al-Qaeda leader who once had ties to Osama bin Laden, the Pentagon said on November 2. 

The October 17 strike near Idlib killed Haydar Kirkan, who “was intent on plotting and carrying out attacks against the West,” Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said.

And early last month, the US would admit that yet another terrorist leader was targeted and allegedly killed – also in Idlib, Syria. The Business Insider in an article titled, “Egyptian al Qaeda leader killed by US drone strike in Idlib, Syria,” would reveal:

Syria’s militant Jabhat Fateh al Sham, formerly the Nusra Front, said on Monday that Egyptian cleric Abu al Faraj al Masri, a prominent member of the militant group, had been killed in a strike by the U.S.-led coalition.

In addition to the Pentagon finding Idlib to be a seemingly “target rich environment” for Al Qaeda leaders, the Western media itself has – over the years – admitted that Idlib is perhaps second only to Al Raqqa in terms of serving as a nexus for Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

The Wall Street Journal in a 2015 article titled, “Assad Loses Final Idlib Stronghold to Al Qaeda-led Insurgents,” would report:

After a two-year siege, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria and other insurgents on Wednesday captured the one remaining Syrian army air base in Idlib, a development that activists said effectively expelled the last of President Bashar al-Assad’s military from the northwestern province. 

The Wall Street Journal article also admits the similarities between Idlib and the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) controlled city of Al Raqqa, claiming:

This makes Idlib the second of Syria’s 14 provinces to slip completely from Syrian army control. Earlier this year, militant groups captured the provincial capital, also called Idlib, as well as other towns and villages. 

The province of Raqqa fell to Islamic State extremists last year, after IS militants captured its provincial capital, also called Raqqa, in January 2014. Islamic State group has since declared the city as the seat of its caliphate, which spans a third of both Syria and Iraq.

USIP’s Steven Heydemann in his NYT op-ed is essentially calling on the West to recognize a city in a region completely overrun by Al Qaeda as the new “capital” of Syria and recognize an obscure, irrelevant puppet as Syria’s legitimate leader despite not only his impotent “Syrian Interim Government” holding no control over any section of Syria, including Idlib itself, but the reality that even Al Qaeda and ISIS combined still control only a fraction of Syria’s population.

US to Make Al Qaeda Capital in Syria, Syria’s Capital?

Over 60% of the Syrian population lives in government controlled territory, with this number rising monthly as security operations to restore order across the country continue to garner success, particularly in Aleppo. This includes control over most of Syria’s largest cities, including Damascus itself, most of Aleppo, Homs, Latakia, Hama, Tartus, and Daraa.

Heydemann’s plan – like all US “plans” before it – at face value and amid its more intricate details contradict the US’ own rationale for becoming involved in Syria in the first place. Handing a nation over to an unpopular, illegitimate minority in no shape, form, or way constitutes “democracy” – even the strained definitions used by the West to describe it. With Heydemann’s “Syrian Interim Government” existing in the very center of Al Qaeda’s operations in Syria, no plan to date has so transparently attempted to protect and preserve designated terrorist organizations operating in Syria.Idlib, on the other hand, doesn’t rank even among Syria’s top ten most populated cities – making plans to designate it a de facto capital all the more transparently absurd.

Considering the second part of Heydemann’s plan includes a revised version of a US-initiated no-fly zone, US assets would literally be used in Syria to protect Al Qaeda’s de facto capital in Idlib from Syrian or Russian attacks.

To foil America’s “Plan C” in Syria – which in reality is simply a revised version of its original plan all along – media platforms operating beyond the influence of Western special interests much educate the public regarding the true nature of Idlib, who really runs it, and what the implications are of arbitrarily designating it and the terrorists that are occupying it the “legitimate government of Syria.”

By doing this, not only will the US continue to struggle to sell its floundering policies to the public, it will further reveal the truth about US intentions in Syria, stretching back to 2007 when journalists even then attempted to raise the alarm over the West’s use of Al Qaeda a proxy force to divide and destroy nations the world over.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US Plan “C” in Syria: Make “Al Qaeda Central” the New Capital

HEBRON, OCCUPIED WEST BANK — Mofid Sharabati shifted uncomfortably on the edge of his bed, having offered all other available seats to the cadre of journalists sprawled across his tiny living room. He waited patiently while his company ate shawarma wraps, still warm after being hand-delivered from a local establishment up the road. He eyed his 10-year-old son Marwan paternally as he dashed back and forth, tiny hands diligently disposing of tin foil and used food wrappers as people finished their meals.

After a few moments, one of the journalists asked Sharabati to describe life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

We live in fear 24 hours a day.

“We live in fear 24 hours a day,” he immediately said, speaking through a translator. Marwan, now sitting next to him, nodded in agreement. He stared at his feet, fidgeting with the ends of his oversized basketball jersey.

The room of journalists sat quietly for a second, unsure of what to ask next.

Sharabati and his family live in Hebron, the largest city in the occupied West Bank and home to around 200,000 Palestinians. I visited Sharabati’s tiny second-story apartment in mid-October as part of a delegation of journalists traveling with the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a left-of-center organization based in Washington, D.C. that seeks a “just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” through advocacy and education efforts — including highlighting the Palestinian cause.

A journalist holds aloft a sound bomb, used to disperse demonstrators in Hebron. CREDIT: Jack jenkins

Our trip coincided with a rash of violence that has raged across Israel-Palestine over the past two months, resulting in the deaths of 11 Israelis and more than 58 Palestinians, according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Much has been written about the various causes of the fighting, during which Palestinians are frequently shot dead, often after attacking Israeli soldiers and citizens, usually with knives. Some argue the attackers, many of whom are teenagers or even children, are inspired by anti-Israeli messages shared on social media, or religious militants such as ISIS who have endorsed the stabbings. Others — including many of the attackers themselves — say they are responding to perceived efforts by Jewish activistsand the Israeli government to erode Muslim control of the Al-Aqsa mosque in East Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam.

But as analysts furiously debate the immediate catalyst for the attacks, there has been less focus on another factor that — while perhaps not the spark that lit the latest blaze — undoubtedly created the conditions for tension in the first place: Israel’s longstanding occupation of the West Bank territories, including the construction of settlements the United Nations deems illegal and whose legitimacy the United States government rejects.

Sharabati and his family offered me a glimpse into life under this occupation, detailing the trials endured by many Palestinians who are all too often literally caught in the crossfire. ThinkProgress could not independently verify all aspects of Sharabati’s story, but his account closely matches numerous reports of Palestinian life published by groups like Amnesty InternationalHuman Rights Watch, and Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem.

The checkpoint

Even within the notoriously tense West Bank, Hebron is a uniquely combustible city. Located roughly 45 minutes south of Jerusalem, violence between Israelis and Palestinians has erupted numerous times over the years — even before the the establishment of the state of Israel. Locals say this is largely due to the presence of Israeli settlements, which are considered invasive by Palestinians but vociferously defended by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the settlers themselves, who insist they have every right to be there. Clashes between the two camps have been recurrent, including the horrific slaughter of 67 Jewish civilians in 1929, after which most Jews abandoned Hebron for several years. When settlers returned in 1967, nets were installedin the town’s Old City to keep Israeli settlers from tossing stones and garbage onto Palestinians as they passed below.

Things reached a breaking point in 1994, when an American-born Israeli settler massacred 29 Muslim worshippers at a shrine known to Jews as the Tomb of the Patriarchs and to Muslims as the Ibrahimi Mosque. The increasingly volatile situation was then addressed in 1997, when officials signed an agreement to partition the city into two sections: “H1,” to be controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA), and “H2,” to be controlled by Israel.

A checkpoint in Hebron. CREDIT: Jack jenkins

The imperfect results were on full display just down the street from Sharabati’s home, where a checkpoint divides a Palestinian-controlled section of the city from an Israeli-controlled area. Sharabati and his brother greeted me and other journalists on the Palestinian side of the heavily-armed barrier, surrounded by curiosity seekers who stopped to observe the arrival of yet another group of journalists. Hundreds of Hebron residents strolled past as we exited our vehicle, chattering in Arabic while shopping and eating in the heart of the thriving city.

Yet the crowds steered clear of the nearby concrete blocks that marked the entrance to the checkpoint. Israeli sound bombs and empty tear gas canisters littered the pavement in front of a looming, fence-covered military installation, the refuse of efforts by IDF soldiers to dispel various protests that have sprung up during the recent unrest.

At the direction of our guide, we passed through the checkpoint one at time, a standard procedure made all the more unsettling in the wake of recent stabbings. A trio of heavily armed IDF soldiers greeted us on the other side, weapons out, as a fourth watched us from above. After they let us pass, an eerily deserted street opened up before us, a far cry from the teaming masses we left behind a few moments before.

As our party walked down the empty Shuhada Street towards Sharabati’s abode — flanked all the while by two soldiers — the translator explained that the emptiness was due to the city’s bizarre system of subdivisions, where various roads and sections are restricted to Palestinians. Sharabati and his children, for instance, live on the Israeli side of the checkpoint, where only Palestinians with homes can enter if they have explicit permission from the Israeli army. Other areas ban Palestinian businesses, and some forbid them from even walking down the street.

A former IDF member — speaking as part of Breaking the Silence, an organization that collects testimonies of ex-soldiers — would later tell me that the military has a name for these roads: “sterile streets.”

CREDIT: Source: B’Tselem

The draconian measures are justified by the Israeli government as necessary to ensure security; Sharabati and other Palestinian Hebron residents have few, if any, options for protest. Although their land is occupied by the Israeli government, the Palestinians living in the West Bank are not citizens of Israel, and the residents living anywhere other than East Jerusalem are not afforded the ability to apply for citizenship — even if they marry an Israeli. Instead, they are subject to an entirely different legal system: Palestinians operate under military law, where many rights and privileges standard for an Israeli — such as seeing a judge within 24 hours of being arrested — are not guaranteed. Although they can vote for leaders of the PA, they cannot vote in elections for the Israeli government, which ultimately controls many facets of their daily life.

Most Palestinians who used to live on Sharabati’s street have abandoned their homes, citing harassment from Israeli settlers and soldiers. Sharabati made similar claims, noting that sometimes soldiers “throw rocks at us.”

Yet despite these difficulties, he refuses to move.

“This has been my family’s home for 150 years,” he said, defiantly.

Punished for bearing witness

The decision to stay in their ancestral home in Hebron has not made life easy for Sharabati, or the others who live in his house. Every member of his family could recount troubling run-ins with authorities and nearby settlers. Sharabati handed journalists x-rays of his back, showing a series of pins used to repair his broken spine after he reportedly tried to defend his home from an invasion of settlers and members of the IDF. His brother’s visibly injured eye, he said, was misshapen during the same altercation.

Even his son Marwan, who struggled to reach the hat rack to put away a scarf during our visit, was reportedly detained by police in October for several hours. His alleged crime: holding a stone.

  

A barrier pierced by bullets used to kill a Palestinian woman in late September. CREDIT: Jack Jenkins

When the family isn’t the victim of violence, it is often a witness to it.

At least three different Palestinians were gunned down near their home during the recent surge of knife attacks, all of which showcase longstanding tensions among area groups. One occurred in a neighboring section of the city on October 17, when an Israeli soldier opened fire after being stabbed by 18-year-old Palestinian Tarek Ziad Natsha. The local settler population reportedly blocked the ambulance tasked with carrying the wounded attacker to the hospital, but were eventually dispersed by police, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Natsha died in the hospital. The soldier survived.

Meanwhile, two other shooting incidents near Sharabati’s home are being investigated as examples of unnecessary use of force. The first occurred on September 22, when a woman named Hadeel al-Hashlamoun was shot and killed by soldiers for allegedly threatening them with a knife. At least two bystanders disputed this account, and many pointed out that she was behind a barricade when they opened fire. Bullet holes from the encounter — clearly piercing through the barrier — are still visible when passing through the checkpoint, raising questions as to whether she presented an imminent threat. A report from Amnesty International has since declared her death unnecessary, classifying it as an “extrajudicial execution.”

Fadel Mohammed al-Qawasameh’s blood still stains the street outside Sharabati’s home. CREDIT: Jack Jenkins 

It was the second shooting in less than a month, however, that left a lasting impression on the Sharabati family. On October 17, Fadel Mohammed al-Qawasameh, an 18-year-old resident of Hebron, was gunned down by an Israeli settler immediately outside the family’s house, again for allegedly trying to stab someone. But as the boy lay dying, a video was shot from Sharabati’s window that appears to show officials placing something next to the dying body. Local Palestinians cited this as proof that the soldiers planted evidence, and the clip quickly went viral.

The response from the IDF was swift. When the military learned of the tape, Sharabati said they raided his home, a common occurrence for Palestinians living under military rule. He said they then confiscated his camera and laptop, broke them, and arrested his brother — supposedly for emailing the video to others.

“This is the life we live every day,” he said. “We live in fear they could come back into our home at any time. There is always someone awake.”

Meanwhile, al-Qawasameh’s blood still stains the pavement just feet from the family’s doorstep. They walk by it every day.

Jack Jenkins

Senior Religion Reporter at ThinkProgress. Player of harmonica and ukulele. Tips: [email protected]

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Living In Fear: One Palestinian Family’s Struggle to Survive in the Occupied West Bank

La décision de la Haute Cour d’hier, selon laquelle seul le Parlement a le droit de déclencher la sortie de la Grande-Bretagne de l’Union européenne, a créé une grave crise constitutionnelle et politique.

Le verdict, dont le gouvernement va faire appel, a rejeté le droit du Premier ministre, Theresa May, de commencer le Brexit (la sortie britannique) sans vote parlementaire en utilisant la prérogative royale. Ce sont des pouvoirs archaïques, autrefois détenues par les monarques britanniques, et maintenant réservés au gouvernement sur l’avis du Premier ministre et du Cabinet.

L’audience devant le Lord Chief Justice [deuxième personnage le plus important de la hiérarchie judiciaire britannique après le ministre de la Justice] Thomas de Cwmgiedd, le Maître des archives (Master of the Rolls – juge aussi, troisième dans la hiérarchie), Sir Terence Etherton, et le juge Sales, s’est concentrée sur l’article 50 du Traité de l’Union européenne qui dispose qu’un État membre peut quitter le bloc « conformément à ses propres exigences constitutionnelles ».

May avait prévu de déclencher le Brexit en mars 2017, en contournant un vote au Parlement. Cela aurait commencé deux ans de négociations quant à ses termes. Avec les ministres de l’UE déclarant que le Royaume-Uni devrait être puni pour sa décision comme un avertissement à d’autres États membres et May (qui a fait campagne pour rester dans l’UE) tentant de gagner le soutien du lobby vociférateur pro-Brexit dans son propre parti, une partie importante de la bourgeoisie craint que cela n’entraîne un « Brexit dur » dans lequel le Royaume-Uni perdrait l’accès au marché unique.

Avec la majorité des députés en faveur de rester dans l’UE, les avocats du gouvernement ont soutenu à la Haute Cour qu’il était « constitutionnellement inadmissible » que le Parlement vote sur le processus du Brexit, car cela reviendrait à renverser la « volonté populaire » – enregistrée par le vote de quitter l’UE par 52 contre 48 pour cent au référendum du 23 juin.

Les arguments ont été présentés le mois dernier lors d’une audience devant la Cour royale de justice à Londres. Contre le gouvernement se trouvait un groupe de requérants représentant des intérêts au sein de la City, le quartier financier de Londres, dirigé par Gina Miller, un gestionnaire de placements pour le cabinet « SCM Private » installé à Londres.

Les avocats des requérants ont cité la Déclaration des droits de 1689 qui dispose que les lois ne devraient pas être écartées ou suspendues sans le consentement du Parlement. Le recours à des prérogatives royales pour déclencher l’Article 50 aurait pour conséquence de priver les citoyens des droits qu’ils ont en tant que citoyens de l’UE et qui sont consacrés par la loi britannique. Ces droits constitutionnels ne pouvaient être éliminés par l’exécutif, ont-ils soutenu, sans « la paralyser et briser le dos de la Constitution ».

La Haute Cour a confirmé cet argument, affirmant que les démarches du gouvernement pour entamer des négociations de sortie sans l’approbation du Parlement renverseraient 400 ans de tradition juridique. Tout en affirmant que « rien de ce que nous disons n’a d’incidence sur la question des mérites ou des démérites » du Brexit, le jugement de 32 pages indique que la « seule question » concernait « si, en vertu du droit constitutionnel du Royaume-Uni, la Couronne – agissant par l’intermédiaire du gouvernement exécutif du moment – a le droit d’utiliser sa prérogative » de déclencher l’Article 50.

La « subordination de la Couronne (c’est-à-dire : le gouvernement exécutif) à la loi est le fondement de l’état de droit au Royaume-Uni », déclare-t-il, en notant que cela a ses racines dans la guerre civile anglaise (1642-1651), « et est reconnu depuis lors ».

Quant à l’argument selon lequel « l’opinion de l’électorat » se situe au-dessus du droit constitutionnel, les juges l’ont rejeté au motif qu’« en droit : “Les juges ne savent rien de la volonté du peuple, sauf dans la mesure où cela est exprimé par une loi du Parlement” ».

Un porte-parole du gouvernement a déclaré que les ministres feraient appel à la Cour suprême contre la décision. L’audience aura lieu les 7 et 8 décembre. Cependant, tout retard éventuel ou tout autre procès juridique prolongé risque de dérailler les plans du gouvernement et ouvre la possibilité d’une élection générale anticipée.

L’ouverture d’une crise constitutionnelle souligne l’imprudence de la décision de l’ancien Premier ministre conservateur David Cameron de consentir à un référendum sur le Brexit. Le mouvement a été entièrement façonné par la tentative de régler un différend fractionnel de la droite au sein du Parti conservateur et de ses franges dans le Parti de l’indépendance britannique (UKIP).

Après avoir appelé à un référendum, tous les partis dans la campagne ont cherché à utiliser les préjugés nationalistes et anti-immigrés afin de détourner de la crise sociale croissante et le danger de la guerre. Pour le camp de « Rester », dirigé par Cameron, l’objectif était d’exercer la menace d’un potentiel Brexit pour obtenir de plus grandes concessions de l’UE, en particulier en obtenant un traitement bénéfique pour la ville de Londres. Cela signifiait que la campagne pour « Quitter » l’UE – dominée par l’aile la plus xénophobe et Thatcherienne de la bourgeoisie – a pu monopoliser l’opposition légitime à l’UE.

Aucun des deux camps n’a tenu compte des conséquences plus fondamentales de leurs actes, y compris des questions constitutionnelles complexes soulevées. Le Lord Kerr de Kinlochard, le secrétaire général de la Convention européenne qui a rédigé ce qui est devenu le traité de Lisbonne, a déclaré qu’il n’avait jamais imaginé l’utilisation de l’Article 50. « Je pensais que les circonstances dans lesquelles il serait utilisé, si jamais, seraient s’il y avait un coup d’État dans un État membre et que l’UE avait suspendu l’adhésion de ce pays », a-t-il dit. « Je pensais qu’à ce moment-là, le dictateur en question pouvait être tellement méchant qu’il aurait dit “bien, je pars” et qu’il serait bon d’avoir une procédure sous laquelle il pourrait partir ».

Le choc du vote de 52 pour cent en faveur du Brexit a donc ouvert une crise existentielle pour la bourgeoisie britannique. Non seulement elle menace de diminuer gravement le rôle du Royaume-Uni en tant que principal allié politique et militaire des États-Unis en Europe, mais elle rouvre la possibilité de la rupture du Royaume-Uni lui-même.

Le gouvernement écossais a déjà menacé de tenir un deuxième référendum sur l’indépendance en cas d’un « Brexit dur », alors que le Premier ministre du Pays de Galles, Carwyn Jones, du Parti travailliste, a salué la décision de la Haute Cour, arguant que les Administrations décentralisées devraient également avoir la possibilité de voter sur la position de négociation de May sur le Brexit.

La semaine dernière, la Haute Cour d’Irlande du Nord a rejeté une tentative de recours judiciaire visant à obtenir un vote parlementaire sur les plans de Brexit de May. L’affaire avait été entendue au motif que l’action exécutive de May menaçait de mettre en péril les accords de partage de pouvoir entre les partis unioniste et républicain établis par l’Accord du Vendredi saint de 1998. Le juge Maguire, qui siégeait à la Haute Cour de Belfast, a déclaré que « l’opinion de la cour est que le pouvoir de la prérogative est toujours en vigueur et peut être utilisé aux fins de déclencher l’Article 50 ».

Si l’appel à la Cour suprême est infructueux, l’issue de la question est censé dépendre de si le gouvernement arrive à organiser un vote unique substantiel sur le Brexit, ou si l’approbation parlementaire s’applique aux négociations et aux modalités de toute entente éventuellement conclue. Il est généralement supposé que la plupart des députés, les « pro-Rester » comme les autres, ne poseront pas un veto au résultat du référendum. Cependant, s’il est dit que le Parlement peut superviser les termes d’un accord, cela ouvre la voie à de nombreux amendements et à un processus encore plus prolongé et politiquement incendiaire, y compris la participation de la Chambre des lords et un deuxième vote.

Ayant fait campagne pour un vote de quitter l’UE en s’appuyant sur la « réaffirmation » de la « souveraineté » du parlement britannique, les forces « pro-Brexit » les plus stridentes sont les plus fortes pour protester contre la décision de la Haute Cour.

Se posant en tant que champion de la « volonté populaire » contre une « élite judiciaire », Nigel Farage, le dirigeant par intérim de l’UKIP, a déclaré : « Je crains que la trahison ne soit à portée de main… Je crains maintenant qu’on tente tout pour bloquer ou retarder le déclenchement de l’Article 50. Si tel est le cas, ils n’ont aucune idée du niveau de colère publique qu’ils provoqueront ».

Le dirigeant travailliste Jeremy Corbyn a déclaré que son parti « respecte la décision du peuple britannique de quitter l’Union européenne ». Cependant, il a été l’objet d’une tentative de putsch par la faction la plus « pro-UE » de son parti et ne reçoit pas le soutien de la plupart de ses députés. Rien ne garantit que la majorité ne voterait pas contre le déclenchement de l’Article 50 lors d’un vote parlementaire.

L’aile droite du parti travailliste, dirigé par Tony Blair, a clairement fait savoir qu’elle est favorable à la formation d’une alliance dite progressiste pour bloquer ou pour limiter un « Brexit dur ». Cette position est partagée par les Démocrates libéraux, dont le dirigeant, Tim Farron, a salué la décision de la Haute Cour, en déclarant : « En fin de compte, les Britanniques ont voté pour un départ, mais pas pour une destination […] ».

Julie Hyland

Article paru d’abord en anglais le 3 novembre 2016

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Le verdict de la Haute Cour sur le Brexit plonge le Royaume-Uni en crise

S’exprimant devant le Comité de la Défense de la Chambre des Communes, le ministre conservateur de la Défense, Michael Fallon, a déclaré que les forces armées britanniques seraient prêtes dès 2018 à un conflit armé avec la Russie.

Le témoignage de Fallon devant le comité avait lieu dans le cadre de l’examen fait par ce dernier des répercussions qu’eut la Revue stratégique de défense et de sécurité (Strategic Defence and Security Review) de 2015 sur l’armée. Son témoignage fut initié par une remarque faite par le membre conservateur du Comité de la défense, James Gray, qui avait souligné que le livre publié en début d’année par le général britannique à la retraite Sir Richard Shirreff, avait prédit une éventuelle guerre contre la Russie en 2017. Shirreff avait été commandant en chef adjoint de l’OTAN pour l’Europe entre 2011 et 2014.

Gray a aussi signalé une lettre de Shirreff publiée dans le Times de lundi et dans laquelle il avertit que l’encerclement de la Russie devait avoir lieu plus rapidement. « Lors de la réunion des ministres de la Défense de la semaine passée à Bruxelles, d’autres déclarations furent faites quant à la composition de la présence militaire avancée [dans les États baltes et en Pologne orientale], la réalité étant toutefois qu’il n’y aura pas de troupes au sol jusqu’à la fin du printemps, près d’un an après que l’annonce ait été faite », a écrit Shirreff. « Ce qui importe désormais c’est de mettre en place, aussi rapidement que possible, une capacité de défense susceptible de combattre et donc de dissuader tout aventurisme russe ; une tâche réservée à l’un des nombreux corps de déploiement rapide de l’OTAN ».

Tout en disant que le livre de Shirreff était « très bon », Fallon répondit, « Je ne pense pas que la guerre avec la Russie est probable l’année prochaine. Je pense que c’est trop extrême ».

Fallon a ajouté, « Nous avons connu cette année une agression russe bien plus ample et, les années précédentes, sous forme d’aviation longue portée, sous forme d’activité de sous-marins et du groupe aéronaval qui a navigué dans nos eaux, sous la forme du rôle de la Russie en Syrie, et ailleurs. Mais, je ne pense pas que cela présage d’un conflit ouvert pour l’année prochaine ».

Après avoir mis un bémol au scénario de Shirreff d’une guerre imminente, Fallon a pourtant déclaré que les forces armées britanniques seraient bientôt entièrement préparées à participer à un conflit militaire avec la Russie. Contraint de répondre à la question de savoir si le Royaume-Uni serait prêt à une guerre avec la Russie en 2018 ou en 2019, Fallon a répondu, « Oui, nous serions prêts à augmenter le rythme dans un tel cas de figure, que je ne prévois pas immédiatement ».

Il a ajouté, « Et bien sûr, nous ne serions pas seuls à le faire. Nous le ferions an tant que membre actif de l’OTAN et probablement selon une forme de scénario de l’OTAN ».

Auparavant, Fallon avait insisté que les forces armée britanniques étaient cruciales à l’encerclement en cours de la Russie. À la question concernant « les perspectives réalistes de pouvoir déployer en cas de crise une division vers un État de front de l’OTAN », il a répondu que le R-U « déploie d’ores et déjà des troupes à la frontière orientale de l’OTAN. La RAF [Royal Air Force] y a déjà été trois étés de suite. L’année prochaine, nous stationnerons des troupes en Estonie, nous enverrons des troupes en Pologne et nous déploierons la RAF en Roumanie ».

En apportant des détails supplémentaires sur le déploiement de 800 soldats en Estonie, Fallon a dit, « L’enjeu d’un déploiement avancé en Estonie est de mettre en place […] un fil déclencheur précoce de façon à ce que l’armée sur place n’ait pas à attendre que la tension augmente. L’armée sera en tout cas présente dans les trois États baltes dès le printemps prochain ».

Fallon a averti que « C’est en partie une réassurance mais aussi une dissuasion – pour indiquer clairement à tout agresseur éventuel que l’OTAN est prête à réagir ».

Le jour où le ministre de la Défense a fait son témoignage, le Guardian avait interrogé Andrew Parker, le directeur général du service de renseignement intérieur britannique, MI5. L’entretien fut le premier accordé à un journal par un chef des services secrets en fonction.

Parker a dit que la Russie « se servait de toute la panoplie des organes d’État et de tout son pouvoir pour faire valoir sa politique étrangère de manière de plus en plus agressive – en impliquant la propagande, l’espionnage, la subversion et des cyberattaques. La Russie est actuellement à l’œuvre partout en Europe et au Royaume-Uni. C’est la mission du MI5 de faire obstacle à tout cela ».

Il a ajouté ; « La Russie semble de plus en plus souvent se définir en opposition à l’Occident en paraissant agir en conséquence […] Vous pouvez vous en rendre compte au vu des activités de la Russie en Ukraine et en Syrie. Mais, il existe un fort volume d’activité hors de vue avec une menace cybernétique. La Russie est une menace secrète depuis des décennies. Ce qui diffère de nos jours c’est que de plus en plus de méthodes sont disponibles ».

Le gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, les forces armées et les services secrets ne cessent d’intensifier leur discours anti-russe, point même où Fallon s’est senti obligé de nier que la guerre aurait lieu l’année prochaine ! Les calculs téméraires et dangereux semblent faire croire que soit le gouvernement de Vladimir Poutine fera une reculade face aux menaces de l’OTAN, soit il sera limogé par des forces internes dans le but d’accepter la subordination aux États-Unis et leurs droits d’exploiter les ressources stratégiques et les marchés de la Fédération russe et même le partage de son territoire – le but ultime de Washington.

Mais un scénario totalement différent semble de plus en plus vraisemblable lors duquel un renforcement militaire sans égal à ses frontières serait susceptible d’engendrer des mesures de rétorsions de la part de Moscou.

Le fait que Fallon, Parker et Shirreff s’expriment dans des termes aussi belligérants quant à une éventuelle guerre contre la Russie indique que l’impérialisme britannique est actuellement confronté à une crise existentielle suite au référendum en juin sur le vote pour quitter l’Union européenne (UE). Le vote a reflété l’accentuation des tensions nationales au sein de l’Europe dans un contexte de crise générale du capitalisme mondial – contraignant ainsi le Royaume-Uni à revendiquer son importance pour les États-Unis signalée par sa volonté de s’engager dans les opérations anti-russes de l’OTAN et de s’opposer aux projets en faveur d’une armée communautaire dirigée par l’Allemagne.

Parker a choisi le journal The Guardian pour faire ses déclarations parce que ce journal sert depuis longtemps de principal propagandiste pour justifier le renforcement sans précédent de l’OTAN aux frontières occidentales de la Russie. Sa chroniqueuse Mary Dejevsky s’est toutefois sentie obligée d’exprimer une mise en garde comme quoi la propagande anti-russe et l’incitation à la guerre ne jouissent guère d’un soutien populaire. Mardi, dans une rubrique intitulée, « Pourquoi le MI5 fait un tel remue-ménage au sujet de la Russie ? », elle a remarqué, « qu’il commence à devenir de plus en plus difficile de diaboliser la Russie », en conseillant à ses employeurs, « Regardez les commentaires relatifs à ce que Parker avait à dire ; il existe une certaine dissidence qui ne peut provenir exclusivement des prétendus ’’lutins’’ du Kremlin. Vous entendez dire des choses identiques lors d’interventions téléphoniques concernant des sujets russes où un public sceptique parle haut et fort ».

Ce que Dejevsky est en train de reconnaître, c’est un profond sentiment anti-guerre parmi la population britannique qui rejette une implication criminelle de la Grande-Bretagne dans des guerres impérialistes en Afghanistan, en Irak et dans d’autres pays au cours de ces trois dernières décennies. Cette opposition à la guerre est cependant incapable de trouver une quelconque expression politique – grâce avant tout au Parti travailliste, sous la direction de son soi-disant « dirigeant anti-guerre », Jeremy Corbyn.

Depuis son élection, Corbyn a opéré une reculade après l’autre face aux fauteurs de guerre au sein de son parti, au point où la membre de son cabinet fantôme tout récemment chargée de la Défense, Nia Griffith, a dit la semaine passée à Sky News, « Nous faisons maintenant partie de l’un des quatre bataillons positionnées là-bas en Europe de l’Est et il est important d’indiquer clairement qu’au Parti travailliste nous sommes sérieusement engagés envers l’OTAN et la préparation de l’OTAN […] Il est très important que nous signalions aux Russes que nous disposons de cette capacité et que nous sommes prêts à y recourir ».

Robert Stevens

Article original, WSWS, paru le 3 novembre 2016

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Le ministre de la Défense britannique déclare que le R-U serait prêt à entrer en guerre contre la Russie

Secrets of the US Election

novembre 5th, 2016 by Julian Assange

This interview was filmed in the Embassy of Ecuador in London – where Julian Assange is a political refugee –  and broadcast on November 5, 2016

(transcript)

John Pilger: 

What’s the significance of the FBI’s intervention in these last days of the U.S. election campaign, in the case against Hillary Clinton?

Julian Assange:

If you look at the history of the FBI, it has become effectively America’s political police. The FBI demonstrated this by taking down the former head of the CIA [General David Petraeus] over classified information given to his mistress. Almost no-one is untouchable.  The FBI is always trying to demonstrate that no-one can resist us.  But Hillary Clinton very conspicuously resisted the FBI’s investigation, so there’s anger within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak.  We’ve published about 33,000 of Clinton’s emails when she was Secretary of State.  They come from a batch of just over 60,000 emails, [of which] Clinton has kept about half – 30,000 — to herself, and we’ve published about half.

Then there are the Podesta emails we’ve been publishing.  [John] Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign manager, so there’s a thread that runs through all these emails; there are quite a lot of pay-for-play, as they call it, giving access in exchange for money to states, individuals and corporations. [These emails are] combined with the cover up of the Hillary Clinton emails when she was Secretary of State, [which] has led to an environment where the pressure on the FBI increases.

John Pilger:

The Clinton campaign has said that Russia is behind all of this, that Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for WikiLeaks and its emails.

Julian Assange:

The Clinton camp has been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria: that Russia is responsible for everything.  Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That is false; we can say that the Russian government is not the source.

WikiLeaks has been publishing for ten years, and in those ten years, we have published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong.

 
John Pilger:

The emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton herself benefited from this and how she is benefitting politically, are quite extraordinary. I’m thinking of  when the Qatari representative was given five minutes with Bill Clinton for a million dollar cheque.

Julian Assange:

And twelve million dollars from Morocco …

John Pilger:

Twelve million from Morocco yeah.

Julian Assange:

For Hillary Clinton to attend [a party].

John Pilger:

In terms of the foreign policy of the United States, that’s where the emails are most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the foundation of jihadism, of ISIL, in the Middle East.  Can you talk about how the emails demonstrate the connection between those who are meant to be fighting the jihadists of ISIL, are actually those who have helped create it.

Julian Assange:

There’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  Now this is the most significant email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation.  Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS. But the dodge has always been that, well it’s just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves.

But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and  Qatar that have been funding ISIS.

 John Pilger:

The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the Saudis and the Qataris, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.

Julian Assange:

Under Hillary Clinton, the world’s largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion.  In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar value, doubled.

John Pilger:

Of course the consequence of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIl or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.

Julian Assange:

Yes.

 John Pilger:

That’s extraordinary.

Julian Assange:

I actually feel quite sorry for Hillary Clinton as a person because I see someone who is eaten alive by their ambitions,  tormented literally to the point where they become sick; they faint as a result of [the reaction] to their ambitions. She represents a whole network of people and a network of relationships with particular states.  The question is how does Hilary Clinton fit in this broader network?  She’s a centralising cog. You’ve got a lot of different gears in operation from the big banks like Goldman Sachs and major elements of Wall Street, and Intelligence and people in the State Department and the Saudis.

She’s the centraliser that inter-connects all these different cogs.  She’s the smooth central representation of all that, and ‘all that’ is more or less what is in power now in the United States. It’s what we call the establishment or the DC consensus. One of the more significant Podesta emails that we released was about how the Obama cabinet was formed and how half the Obama cabinet was basically nominated by a representative from City Bank. This is quite amazing.

John Pilger:

Didn’t Citybank supply a list …. ?

Julian Assange:

Yes.

John Pilger:

 … which turned out to be most of the Obama cabinet.

Julian Assange:

Yes.

John Pilger:

So Wall Street decides the cabinet of the President of the United States?

Julian Assange:

If you were following the Obama campaign back then, closely, you could see it had become very close to banking interests.

Julian Assange:

So I think you can’t properly understand Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy without understanding Saudi Arabia.  The connections with Saudi Arabia are so intimate.

John Pilger:

Why was she so demonstrably enthusiastic about the destruction of Libya?  Can you talk a little about just what the emails have told us, told you about what happened there, because Libya is such a source for so much of the mayhem now in Syria, the ISIL jihadism and so on, and it was almost Hillary Clinton’s invasion.  What do the emails tell us about that?

Julian Assange:

Libya, more than anyone else’s war, was Hillary Clinton’s war. Barak Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it?  Hillary Clinton.  That’s documented throughout her emails. She had put her favoured agent, Sidney Blumenthal, on to that; there’s more than 1700 emails out of the thirty three thousand Hillary Clinton emails that we’ve published, just about Libya. It’s not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state — something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for President.

So in late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it’s the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.

Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilisation of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself err was no longer able to control the movement of people through it. Libya faces along to the Mediterranean and had been effectively the cork in the bottle of Africa. So all problems, economic problems and civil war in Africa — previously people fleeing those problems didn’t end up in Europe because Libya policed the Mediterranean. That was said explicitly at the time, back in early 2011 by Gaddafi:  ‘What do these Europeans think they’re doing, trying to bomb and destroy the Libyan State? There’s going to be floods of migrants out of Africa and jihadists into Europe, and this is exactly what happened.

John Pilger:

You get complaints from people saying, ‘What is WikiLeaks doing?  Are they trying to put Trump in the Whitehouse?’

Julian Assange:

My answer is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that?  Because he’s had every establishment off side; Trump doesn’t have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment, but banks, intelligence [agencies], arms companies… big foreign money … are all united behind Hillary Clinton, and the media as well, media owners and even journalists themselves.

John Pilger:

There is the accusation that WikiLeaks is in league with the Russians. Some people say, ‘Well, why doesn’t WikiLeaks investigate and publish emails on Russia?’

Julian Assange:

We have published about 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to Russia. Most of those are critical; and a great many books have come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are critical. Our [Russia]documents have gone on to be used in quite a number of court cases: refugee cases of people fleeing some kind of claimed political persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up.

John Pilger:

Do you yourself take a view of the U.S. election?  Do you have a preference for Clinton or Trump?

Julian Assange:

[Let’s talk about] Donald Trump. What does he represent in the American mind and in the European mind?  He represents American white trash, [which Hillary Clinton called] ‘deplorable and irredeemable’.  It means from an establishment or educated cosmopolitan, urbane perspective, these people are like the red necks, and you can never deal with them.  Because he so clearly — through his words and actions and the type of people that turn up at his rallies — represents people who are not the middle, not the upper middle educated class, there is a fear of seeming to be associated in any way with them, a social fear that lowers the class status of anyone who can be accused of somehow assisting Trump in any way, including any criticism of Hillary Clinton. If you look at how the middle class gains its economic and social power, that makes absolute sense.

John Pilger:

I’d like to talk about Ecuador, the small country that has given you refuge and [political asylum] in this embassy in London.  Now Ecuador has cut off the internet from here where we’re doing this interview, in the Embassy, for the clearly obvious reason that they are concerned about appearing to intervene in the U.S. election campaign.  Can you talk about why they would take that action and your own views on Ecuador’s support for you?

Julian Assange:

Let’s let go back four years.  I made an asylum application to Ecuador in this embassy, because of the U.S. extradition case, and the result was that after a month, I was successful in my asylum application. The embassy since then has been surrounded by police: quite an expensive police operation which the British government admits to spending more than £12.6 million. They admitted that over a year ago.  Now there’s undercover police and there are robot surveillance cameras of various kinds — so that there has been quite a serious conflict right here in the heart of London between Ecuador, a country of sixteen million people, and the United Kingdom, and the Americans who have been helping on the side.  So that was a brave and principled thing for Ecuador to do. Now we have the U.S. election [campaign], the Ecuadorian election is in February next year, and you have the White House feeling the political heat as a result of the true information that we have been publishing.

WikiLeaks does not publish from the jurisdiction of Ecuador, from this embassy or in the territory of Ecuador; we publish from France, we publish from, from Germany, we publish from The Netherlands and from a number of other countries, so that the attempted squeeze on WikiLeaks is through my refugee status; and this is, this is really intolerable. [It means] that [they] are trying to get at a publishing organisation; [they] try and prevent it from publishing true information that is of intense interest to the American people and others about an election.

John Pilger:

Tell us what would happen if you walked out of this embassy.

Julian Assange:

I would be immediately arrested by the British police and I would then be extradited either immediately to the United States or to Sweden. In Sweden I am not charged, I have already been previously cleared [by the Senior Stockholm Prosecutor Eva Finne]. We were not certain exactly what would happen there, but then we know that the Swedish government has refused to say that they will not extradite me to the United States we know they have extradited 100 per cent of people whom the U.S. has requested since at least 2000.  So over the last fifteen years, every single person the U.S. has tried to extradite from Sweden has been extradited, and they refuse to provide a guarantee [that won’t happen].

John Pilger:

People often ask me how you cope with the isolation in here.

Julian Assange:

Look, one of the best attributes of human beings is that they’re adaptable; one of the worst attributes of human beings is they are adaptable.  They adapt and start to tolerate abuses, they adapt to being involved themselves in abuses, they adapt to adversity and they continue on. So in my situation, frankly, I’m a bit institutionalised — this [the embassy] is the world .. it’s visually the world [for me].

John Pilger:

It’s the world without sunlight, for one thing, isn’t it?

Julian Assange:

It’s the world without sunlight, but I haven’t seen sunlight in so long, I don’t remember it.

John Pilger:

Yes.

Julian Assange:

So , yes, you adapt.  The one real irritant is that my young children — they also adapt. They adapt to being without their father. That’s a hard, hard adaption which they didn’t ask for.

 John Pilger:

Do you worry about them?

Julian Assange:

Yes, I worry about them; I worry about their mother.

John Pilger:

Some people would say, ‘Well, why don’t you end it and simply walk out the door and allow yourself to be extradited to Sweden?’

Julian Assange:

The U.N. [the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention] has looked into this whole situation. They spent eighteen months in formal, adversarial litigation. [So it’s] me and the U.N. verses Sweden and the U.K.  Who’s right?  The U.N. made a conclusion that I am being arbitrarily detained illegally, deprived of my freedom and that what has occurred has not occurred within the laws that the United Kingdom and Sweden, and that [those countries] must obey. It is an illegal abuse.  It is the United Nations formally asking, ‘What’s going on here?  What is your legal explanation for this? [Assange] says that you should recognise his asylum.’ [And here is]

Sweden formally writing back to the United Nations to say, ‘No, we’re not going to [recognise the UN ruling], so leaving open their ability to extradite.

I just find it absolutely amazing that the narrative about this situation is not put out publically in the press, because it doesn’t suit the Western establishment narrative — that yes, the West has political prisoners, it’s a reality, it’s not just me, there’s a bunch of other people as well.  The West has political prisoners. Of course, no state accepts [that it should call] the people it is imprisoning or detaining for political reasons, political prisoners. They don’t call them political prisoners in China, they don’t call them political prisoners in Azerbaijan and they don’t call them political prisoners in the United States, U.K. or Sweden; it is absolutely intolerable to have that kind of self-perception.

Julian Assange:

Here we have a case, the Swedish case, where I have never been charged with a crime, where I have already been cleared [by the Stockholm prosecutor] and found to be innocent, where the woman herself said that the police made it up, where the United Nations formally said the whole thing is illegal, where the State of Ecuador also investigated and found that I should be given asylum.  Those are the facts, but what is the rhetoric?

John Pilger:

Yes, it’s different.

Julian Assange:

The rhetoric is pretending, constantly pretending that I have been charged with a crime, and never mentioning that I have been already previously cleared, never mentioning that the woman herself says that the police made it up.

[The rhetoric] is trying to avoid [the truth that ] the U.N. formally found that the whole thing is illegal, never even mentioning that Ecuador made a formal assessment through its formal processes and found that yes, I am subject to persecution by the United States. 

To support Julian Assange, go to: https://justice4assange.com/donate.html

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Secrets of the US Election

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the State Department’s release of 74 additional emails recovered by the FBI in its investigation of former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a non-state.gov email system. Included in the new documents was an email in which Clinton forwarded classified information to her daughter, Chelsea, at the unsecure email address [email protected]. Before releasing the heavily redacted email to Judicial Watch, the State Department marked it “B1.4(b)” and “B1.4(d),” indicating that it contained “Foreign Government Information’ and “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US including confidential sources.” The State Department also misleadingly labeled the email with the term “near duplicate.”

No wonder Hillary Clinton deleted this email. Her sharing classified information with her daughter shows criminal disregard for national security.

The State Department has been producing documents in accordance with a September 23, 2016, court order issued by Judge Boasberg, who ordered the Department of State to begin processing at least 1,050 pages of Hillary Clinton emails recovered by the FBI and provide Judicial Watch all non-exempt documents before November 4.  State Department confirmed in September that the FBI had discovered nearly 15,000 new Clinton emails as a result of Judicial Watch’s litigation seeking all of Clinton’s work-related emails (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)).

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails.  In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”  This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement suggesting all “work or potentially work-related emails” were provided to the State Department.

A hearing will be held Monday, November 7, 2016, regarding Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking emails sent or received by Clinton in her official capacity during her tenure as Secretary of State. The timeframe for this request is February 2, 2009, to January 31, 2013.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Clinton Sent Classified Document to Daughter That State Department Has Identified as “Foreign Relations Activities… Including Confidential Sources”

« Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game? » is discussed;

Who is behind Wikileaks;

FBI Director James Comey responding to a crisis;

WSJ reports Clinton bribery of number two man at the FBI; dissent within ruling powers including the armed forces and intelligence agencies;

Next US presidency will be a dysfunctional one which might lead eventually to a situation of martial law; 

Unfolding political impasse;  rising geopolitical tensions abroad;

The possibility of nuclear WWIII;

Potential suspension of constitutional governance; Hillary Clinton’s extensive criminal record will haunt her. 

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Political Crisis in the United States. « Clinton is a Very Dangerous Person ». Rising Geopolitical Tensions with Russia

The power above the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the US Attorney General, and, above that person, the US President.

That’s whom the FBI actually serves — not the US public.

This is the reason why the FBI is having such internal tensions and dissensions over the investigation of Hillary Clinton: Not only is she the current President’s ardently preferred and designated successor — and overwhelmingly supported also by America’s aristocracy and endorsed by the aristocracy’s press — but the top leadership of the FBI have terms-in-office that (unlike, for example, the term of the US Attorney General) do not end with the installation of the next President; and these people will therefore be serving, quite possibly, the very same person whom they are now ‘investigating’.

This is the reason why James Comey, the FBI’s Director, let Clinton totally off the hook on July 5th, when he declined to present the case to a grand jury: he and the rest of the FBI’s top management violated three basic principles of trying white-collar-crime cases when a prosecutor is serious about wanting to prosecute and obtain a conviction against a person — he (and they) wanted to keep their jobs, not be fighting their boss and their likely future boss.

If America were an authentic democracy, there would be a way for the FBI to serve the public even when the US President doesn’t want it to. According to the only scientific study that has ever been done of the matter, the US federal government is a dictatorship not a democracy. This was reluctantly reported by the researchers, whose own careers are dependent upon the aristocracy which they were finding actually controls that government. They found that the US, at the federal level, is not a democracy but an «oligarchy», by which the researchers were referring to an «economic elite», America’s billionaires and centi-millionaires who control America’s international corporations and the ‘charities’ (such as think tanks) that are dependent upon them — including many that directly affect US politics, such as the think tanks or other way-stations for former US government employees to become hired by private firms.

The FBI Can’t Actually Investigate a Candidate Such as Hillary Clinton

The authors of the only empirical scientific research-study that has been done of whether the United States is a democracy, or instead a dictatorship, excluded the very term «aristocracy» (or «collective dictatorship» such as an «economic elite» is if that «elite» actually is in control of the given nation’s government) from their article. They did this so as for the meaning not to be clear to the US public. In any country in the modern world where an aristocracy exists, aristocrats nowadays try to hide their power, not (like in former eras) display their power by crowns and other public symbols of ‘the nobility’. The closest the study’s authors came to using that term, «aristocracy», was their only sentence that employed the pejorative term for an aristocracy, «oligarchy». That obscure lone sentence was: «Jeffrey Winters has posited a comparative theory of ‘Oligarchy,’ in which the wealthiest citizens — even in a ‘civil oligarchy’ like the United States — dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth and income protection.11″

Their 11th footnote made clear that they were referring here to the book Oligarchy, by Jeffrey A. Winters, which stated the ‘theory’ that this article had actually just confirmed in the American case. Their article mentioned the book — and the «oligarchy» — only in this one footnote, so that the authors of the article (whose own careers are dependent upon America’s ‘oligarchs’) won’t be able to be accused by oligarchs (or in any way thought by their own financial benefactors — America’s aristocrats) to have called the US an «oligarchy» (a collective dictatorship by the few super-rich and their agents). To apply either term — «aristocracy» or «oligarchy» — to one’s own country, is now viewed as negative, an insult to the country’s controlling elite. Neither scholars nor scholarly publishers wish to insult the people who ultimately are their top funders.

This article was written in the standard unnecessarily obscurantist style of social ‘scientists’ who want to be comprehensible only to their peers and not to the general public. Doing it this way is safer for them, because it makes extremely unlikely that their own benefactors would retaliate, against them or else against the institutions that hire them, by withdrawing their continued financial and promotional support (such as by no longer having them invited onto CNN as an «expert»). (This type of fear prevents theory in the social ‘sciences’ from being strictly based upon the given field’s empirical findings: it’s not authentically scientific. The physical sciences are far less corrupt, far more scientific. The biological sciences are in-between.)

One particular reason why the authors never called the people who control the US government an «aristocracy», is that everyone knows that the Founders of the US were opposed to, and were engaged in overthrowing, the existing aristocracy, which happened to be British, and that they even banned forever in the US the use of aristocratic titles, such as «Lord» or «Sir.» Consequently, within the US, the only term that the aristocrats consider acceptable to refer to aristocrats, is «oligarchs», which always refers only to aristocrats in foreign countries, and so is considered safe by the aristocrats’ writers (including scholars and political pundits) to use.

Everyone knows: in accord with the clear intention of America’s Founders, the US should eliminate from its citizenry any aristocrat (any self-enclosed and legally immune group that holds power over the government), but Americans naturally accept the existence of «oligarchs» in other countries (and «good-riddance to them there»), typically the ones in countries US foreign policy opposes and often overthrows by means of coup or outright military invasion (any form of conquest, such as in 2003 Iraq, or 2011 Libya). It’s fine to refer to other countries’ aristocracies as ‘oligarchies’, because any such foreign aristocracy can therefore be declared to be bad and ‘deserving’ of overthrow.

Thus, any aristocracy that is opposed to America’s aristocracy (especially one that’s opposed to being controlled by the US aristocracy), and which wants to be controlling instead their own independent nation, can acceptably be overthrown by coup (such as Ukraine 2014 was) or invasion (such as Libya 2011 was). Thus, calling a foreign aristocracy an «oligarchy» is supportive of, not opposed to, the US aristocracy — and, so, «oligarchy» is the term the authors used (on that one occasion, and they never used the prohibited term «aristocracy»).

Nonetheless, despite the cultural ban on describing the US as an «aristocracy», the authors were — as obscurely as they were able — proving that the US is an aristocracy, no authentic democracy at all. Or, again, as they said it in their least-obscurantist phrasing of it:

Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans — though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases — is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater.

‘Greater’ than what? They didn’t say. That’s because what they were saying (as obscurely as possible) is that it’s probably ‘greater’ than is shown in the data that was publicly available to them, and upon which data their clear finding is that the US is an aristocracy, no democracy at all. Or, as they also put it: « Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis.» But, actually, «Economic Elite Domination theories» (virtually all of which come down to positing an aristocracy that consists of the billionaires — and centi-millionaires — and their corporations, and their think tanks, and their lobbyists, etc.) did phenomenally well, in their findings, not just ‘rather well’ — they simply can’t safely say this. Saying it is samizdat, in the US dictatorship.

They were allowed to prove it, but not to say it. So, that’s what they did. They didn’t want to «upset the applecart» from which they themselves are feeding.

The simplest (but no less accurate) way of stating their finding is: the US, at least during the period the researchers probed, which was 1981-2002, was an aristocracy, no democracy at all. The US, in other words, was (even prior to the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which is making the aristocracy even more concentrated among even fewer people) a country of men (and women — that’s to say, of individuals) not of laws; it’s a dictatorship, in short; it is not a country «of laws, not of men». America’s Founders have finally lost. The country has been taken over by an aristocracy.

And one of those «men» now, is actually Hillary Clinton, even though she is no longer officially holding governmental power. They know she soon might be. That’s why, the FBI cannot really, and seriously, investigate her.

It’s not for legal reasons at all. It’s because of whom she is. In fact, purely on the basis of US laws, she clearly ought to be in prison. Any honest lawyer, inside or outside the FBI, has long known this, because the actual case against her is ‘slam-dunk’, even though the FBI has refused to investigate it and has limited its ‘investigation’ only to peripheral ‘national security’ issues. (The #2 person at FBI, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, right below Director James Comey, specified this limitation to his ‘investigators’. They simply weren’t allowed to investigate her, except on the hardest-to-prove crimes that she probably but not definitely did also do. The slam-dunks were just off-limits to them. McCabe’s wife’s political campaign had received $675,000 from the PAC of Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of the Clintons, who chaired Hillary’s 2008 Presidential campaign. And, even on the harder-to-prove matters, which FBI Director Comey declined on July 5th to pursue, they stood a strong chance of winning, if only Comey hadn’t prevented their moving forward to try — but those issues are tangential to the basic case against her, anyway.)

There are at least six federal criminal laws which accurately and unquestionably describe even what Ms. Clinton has now publicly admitted having done by her privatized email system, and intent isn’t even mentioned in most of them nor necessary in order for her to be convicted — the actions themselves convict her, and the only relevance that intent might have, regarding any of these laws, would be in determining how long her prison sentence would be.

I have already presented the texts of these six laws (and you can see the sentences for each one, right there), and any reader can easily recognize that each one of them describes, unambiguously without any doubt, what she now admits having done. Most of these crimes don’t require any intent in order to convict (and the ones that do require intent are only «knowingly … conceals», or else «with the intent to impair the object’s … use in an official proceeding», both of which «intents» would be easy to prove on the basis of what has already been made public — but others of these laws don’t require even that); and none of them requires any classified information to have been involved, at all. It’s just not an issue in these laws. Thus, conviction under them is far easier. If a prosecutor is really seeking to convict someone, he’ll be aiming to get indictments on the easiest-to-prove charges, first. That also presents for the prosecutor the strongest position in the event of an eventual plea-bargain. As Alan Dershowitz said, commenting on one famous prosecution: «They also wanted a slam-dunk case. They wanted the strongest possible case.» Comey simply didn’t; he wanted the hardest-to-convict case. His presentation was a brazen hoax. That’s all.

That’s the real scandal, and nobody (other than I) has been writing about it as what it is — a hoax. But what it shows is that maybe the only way that Clinton will be able to avoid going to prison is by her going to the White House. Either she gets a term in the White House, or else she gets a (much longer) term in prison — or else our government is so thoroughly corrupt that she remains free as a private citizen and still above the law, even though not serving as a federal official.

Even if she is convicted only on these six slam-dunk statutes (and on none other, including not on the ones that Comey was referring to when he said on July 5th that, «Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case»), she could be sentenced to a maximum of 73 years in prison (73 = 5 + 5 + 20 + 20 + 3 + 10 + 10). Adding on others she might also have committed (such as the ones that Comey was referring to, all of which pertain only to the handling of classified information), would mean that her term in prison might be lengthier still, but what’s important in the email case isn’t that; it’s to convict her on, essentially, theft and/or destruction of US government documents by means of transferring them into her private email and/or smashing hard drives. No one, not even a US federal official, can legally do that, and those six laws are specifically against it.

Motive is important in Ms. Clinton’s email case, because motive tells us why she was trying to hide from historians and from the public her operations as the US Secretary of State: was it because she didn’t want them to know that she was selling to the Sauds and her other friends the US State Department’s policies in return for their million-dollar-plus donations to the Clinton Foundation, and maybe even selling to them (and/or their cronies) US government contracts, or why? However, those are questions regarding other crimes that she might have been perpetrating while in public office, not the crimes of her privatized email operation itself; and those other crimes (whatever they might have been) would have been explored only after an indictment on the slam-dunks, and for further possible prosecutions, if President Obama’s people were serious about investigating her. They weren’t. Clearly, this is selective ‘justice’. That’s the type of ‘justice’ an aristocracy imposes.

Why, then, did Comey finally switch to re-open the Clinton case?

It wasn’t merely the discovery of some of her previously unknown emails on the computer of Anthony Wiener, husband to Hillary’s closest aide Huma Abedin. As Politico on October 28th reported, «Another former Justice official said Comey’s letter [announcing the re-opening of Hillary’s case] could be part of an effort on his part to quiet internal FBI critics who viewed him as burying the Clinton probe for political reasons. ‘He’s come under a lot of criticism from his own people for how he’s handled this. He’s trying to gain back some of their respect,’ former Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said. ‘His ability to do what he does largely depends on the respect within his own ranks.’»

Joachim Hagopian at Global Research headlined on October 30th, «The Real Reasons Why FBI Director James Comey Reopened the Hillary Email Investigation», and reported:

Former federal attorney for the District of Columbia Joe diGenova spelled it all out in a WMAL radio interview last Friday just hours after the news was released that Comey had sent a letter informing Congress that the case is being reopened. DiGenova said that with an open revolt brewing inside the FBI, Comey was forced to go public on Friday with reopening the investigation. … Finally, diGenova dropped one more bombshell in Friday’s interview. An inside source has revealed to him that the laptops belonging to key Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, both wrongly granted immunity, were not destroyed after all as previously reported, but have been secretly kept intact by investigating FBI agents refusing to destroy incriminating evidence as part of the in-house whitewash.

In other words: Comey was between a rock (the resignation-letters piling up on his desk from subordinates who felt that no person should be above the law) and a hard place (his ability to stay on at the FBI and not have a scandal against himself bleed out to the public from down below). The US wasn’t yet that kind of dictatorship — one which could withstand such a public disclosure. In order for it to become one, the aristocracy’s control would have needed to be even stronger than it yet is.

Also on the 30th, Ed Klein in Britain’s Daily Mail bannered:

EXCLUSIVE: Resignation letters piling up from disaffected FBI agents, his wife urging him to admit he was wrong: Why Director Comey jumped at the chance to reopen Hillary investigation

James Comey revived the investigation of Clinton’s email server as he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents, sources say

The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim [Comey] announced last July that he wouldn’t recommend an indictment against Hillary

He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents.

So, does this now mean that, finally, the FBI will bring before a grand jury the evidence that Hillary Clinton blatantly violated those six federal criminal laws against stealing and/or trying to destroy federal documents?

There has never — at least since 1981 — been so severe a test of the extent to which this nation is (as those researches found it to have unquestionably been between 1981 and 2002) an «oligarchy». However, a serious criminal prosecution of Ms. Clinton would potentially start an unwinding of this dictatorship.

The present writer will make no prediction. However, obviously, the results of the election on November 8th will certainly have an enormous impact upon the outcome. Since I think that anyone but a complete fool can recognize this much, I’m confident enough to assert it — a conditional about the future.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The FBI Can’t Actually Investigate a Candidate Such as Hillary Clinton

This is an unabridged English version of an interview with author Arnold August with Punto Final (Chile) in Spanish.  

Let us talk about Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion (the most important aspects and/or conclusions of the book, and how did the idea emerge to write it, etc.).

THE GENESIS OF THE BOOK

The idea for this book arose from my previous experience writing Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections (1999), which concentrated on the electoral process in Cuba. The goal at the time was to respond to the disinformation that there are no elections on the island. In order to write the text, I carried out my research on the spot. I attended every step of the electoral process, from the municipalities to the national Parliament. For the most part of this more than one-and-a-half-year investigation, I lived in the family home of a municipal delegate to the People’s Power. Being embedded in this way vastly deepened my approach to understanding the process from within and, along with my photos, allowed me to provide readers with a lively narrative. This work in Havana and in a rural area took place from September 1997 to February 1998. I was only one of two non-Cubans to have had access to the entire electoral process. This unforgettable professional experience resulted in the first book, in 1999. It was published in English and subsequently very well received through my conferences in the U.S., Canada and the U.K. You can imagine that, especially in the U.S., it raised many eyebrows. In that country, the preconceived view that there are simply no elections in Cuba is very ingrained. Nonetheless, in general, the book developed a following while also providing me with crucial input to further evaluate my analysis. Today, people in the U.S. still comment to me about that publication. However, despite the positive reception, I did notice that the U.S.-centric notion of democracy and elections lingers on, even with some people on the left.

Thus, the idea to write another book began to emerge. In the following years, I further studied democracy and elections in other countries (especially in the U.S. and Venezuela). This was interrupted by the need to study what I call “democracy in motion from the bottom up” in the U.S. (the Occupy movement), the Egyptian Revolution against the U.S.-backed military regime and the Indignados (outraged) in Spain against the two-party system domination. With these unexpected, but welcomed, new events (despite their drawbacks and weaknesses) and with input from readers in the U.S. on the first book, I began to orient myself toward a new approach. It would include an analysis of democracy as a concept, taking into account the above-mentioned experiences, evaluated by critically analyzing U.S.-centrism, especially as it pertains to democracy. The goal was to strongly put forward the view that the U.S. approach to “democracy” is not the only one.

I am certain that Punto Final readers can appreciate a profound critique of U.S.-centric notions on democracy because of the bitter 1973 experience in Chile and other bloody U.S. interventions in the region in the name of, among other pretexts, “democracy.” Furthermore, there was a need to analyze in detail the real inner workings of elections and “democracy” in the U.S. based on an approach that is unique and therefore necessary. To deepen the concept, democracy is explored with a review of the participatory democracy experiences in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. In addition, there was a need for the Cuban approach to be illuminated through a more critical approach, in contrast to the previous book, so as not to idealize the Cuban political system. I also decided to investigate the actual functioning of the state in Cuba at the municipal and parliamentary levels after the elections, something that I did not do in the previous book.

To conclude my response to your question as to how the idea came about to write my latest book, I consider the publication to be a culmination of my active struggle and political thinking since my university days in Montreal in the 1960s. This involved a loathing of U.S. imperialism while fully supporting the peoples of the Third World against colonialism and imperialism. Thus, the plan for the book was emerging as my virtual political testament. It was published in English in 2013 and in Spanish in 2015.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: NEITHER THE MODEL NOR A “BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY”

“Not a bourgeois democracy?” readers may ask – and rightly so. Of course, it is a “bourgeois democracy”; however, the first important aspect of my book is the analysis of how democracy and elections in Cuba’s neighbour, the U.S., really works. Thus, I am not in favour of the popular yet superficial conception that dismisses American “democracy” as bourgeois and the election campaigns as being a farce or a show. It is the easy way out. This approach avoids scientifically and painstakingly analyzing the inner workings of the system. How the system really operates from the point of view of the grass roots, rather than the stifling straitjacketed vision delimited by the spectacular rivalry of two parties, is bypassed. As will be discussed below, some commentators who relieve their conscience by accusing the U.S. of being a “bourgeois democracy” and a “show” have ended up supporting Clinton against Trump while remaining, consciously or not, oblivious to what is actually happening at the base in the U.S.

My approach is based on an original case study of the Obama phenomenon as a natural outgrowth of the American political system since the seventeenth century. How can one analyze the political process? The role of money in U.S. politics is well known to the extent that this phenomenon has taken its place in the American international public domain. It is no secret to anyone. The same applies to the notorious corruption in the political system and the cut-throat unprincipled competition between the two main parties. To concentrate on these features is to fall victim to the U.S.’s very own concept of their process. Harping on the issues presents no real challenge to the status quo. The money, corruption and competition are not the main characteristics. Thus, to be attracted to these attributes is to fall into the trap of the U.S.-centric view of their elections as its concept remains within the box delimited by the U.S. establishment. In contrast, I examine the process from the point of view of the base, rather than from the top. The only real issue at this time is the dead end of the “lesser of two evils” option or, rather, the non-option of having to choose one of two evils.

CONCLUSION: POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM AND CO-OPTATION

The first aspect of the book that I want to highlight, “American democracy,” one conclusion reached through my Obama case study is that all presidential elections, including the current one, are based on two features.

First, there is the insatiable individual political opportunism of a presidential hopeful. Second, as a precondition to being nominated and eventually elected, this person must firmly have demonstrated the capacity to co-opt sections of the electorate. This talent, linked to being endowed with personal characteristics (e.g., being black or a woman) must be sufficiently evident to the ruling circles not only to win enough votes, but to also effectively co-opt after the elections. The overall goal of the establishment is to avoid a revolt against the system by the people, first and foremost by African-Americans, who are traditionally the most left-wing and revolutionary force in that country. During the course of the electoral campaign, based supposedly on the capitalist motto of the “invisible hand of the free market” as applied to politics, at a certain moment the majority of the U.S. ruling class makes their choice. Following this, the “invisible fist” interferes in the “invisible hand of the free market” by taking action to assure the victory of their preferred candidate. In the case of Obama, at the point when Obama fully reassured the ruling circles (as fully documented in my book) that he was their man, immense funds flowed into the Obama coffers from the military, health insurance corporations and pharmaceutical companies, not to mention Wall Street. This support was fully backed by the majority of the main printed news media (in reality, part of that same corporate elite) as well as university student publications endorsing Obama.

In the 2006–08 period, the U.S. ruling circles were facing a major credibility gap domestically in the face of African-American resentment and anger as well as internationally in the wake of the Bush era. In terms of foreign affairs, Latin America’s growing left-wing movement, fomented by the Bolivarian Revolution, was of particular concern to important political figures who supported Obama in the 2006–08 period. The concern about all of the domestic and international credibility gaps indicated that Obama came in handy. He was not an innocent bystander, since he consciously flashed the right signals to the ruling elite. The decision to support Obama was surely the correct decision carried out by the ruling circle, as one can easily imagine how woeful the situation would have been for U.S. interests if John McCain/Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan would have won.

CONCLUSION: REJECTION OF THE “LESSER OF TWO EVILS” IS ALWAYS THE MAIN ISSUE

This brings us to the second conclusion in this section. The corporate media and their two main parties use the election campaign to promote the two-party system as the only choice. This goal is sacred, since its objective is to suffocate any burgeoning struggle for a left-wing progressive alternative. As a corollary, the U.S. implicitly or explicitly promotes “lesser evilism,” as it is very well known in U.S. progressive circles. The logic is that even if electors hate both parties and their respective candidates, they should vote for the “lesser evil.” As I was writing my book, I came across an analysis by Black Agenda Report, a website based in the U.S. They wrote that Obama is not the “lesser of two evils,” but the more effective of two evils in administrating the program of the U.S. ruling circles.

Let us take foreign policy to elaborate how “lesser evilism” operates. In the text, I provide the example of Honduras: Obama, the new face of imperialism, successfully carried out the coup d’état in 2009 soon after being elected for his first term in 2008. He was directly involved with Hillary Clinton in executing it, profiting from the illusion being propagated about a new U.S. diplomatic foreign policy combined with Obama deftly using verbal subterfuge as no McCain/Palin team in the White House could have done. The Honduran resistance was, of course, in a very difficult position from the beginning. However, the White House bought valuable time for itself in the international arena. It drew out the suspense by falsely claiming that Washington opposed the coup. Some governments in Latin America were also infected by illusions about Obama, thus depriving the heroic Honduran resistance with the regional support it so badly needed. Then came the Paraguay parliamentary coup. The book also shows the hand of Obama immediately after the April 14, 2013 Venezuelan Presidential elections in order to destabilize the country. Obama was interfering in Venezuela right up to 2015, when the Spanish edition of the book was published. There was resistance in the region, but it perhaps would have been far stronger if it had not been contained to a certain extent by U.S. imperialism’s new Obama approach.

DOMESTIC SCENE: CO-OPTING AND PACIFYING AFRICAN-AMERICANS

The most important of Obama’s legacies has been his relative capacity to co-opt some sympathy from African-Americans, who were feeling assured with a black person in the White House. As documented in my publication, his overture to blacks was skilfully written into both of his books (2004 and 2006) and two important 2012 campaign speeches dedicated to the race issue. While feigning empathy for blacks, he also sent the appropriate buzzwords to assure the ruling elite what they wanted to hear: the U.S. is a “post-racial society,” that there is not a white America, a black America or a Latino America, but the United States of America. This startling illusion could only be uttered by the first African-American president as “proof” that the American Dream is more alive than ever. It is as if to say, “Look at me, I made it!” – conveniently overlooking the fact that his relatively privileged upbringing leaves the vast majority of African-Americans in the dust, to deal with poverty, discrimination and the racist violent state. Obama jumped into the White House on the trampoline of unbridled individual opportunism. His image, as documented in my book, was carefully groomed by a white Chicago political consultant who specialized in getting blacks elected to positions with already five victories to his credit at the time. Obama sat on the hairdresser’s chair gleefully allowing the master to shape and camouflage his image to satisfy the needs of the ruling circles. This came in handy, for example, at the very beginning of the second Obama mandate in 2012, when young Trayvon Martin was assassinated by an armed vigilante in Florida. Obama went on TV to openly use the race card to try and co-opt the outrage among blacks and pacify them and their many allies.

This approach was combined with the subtle pursuit of impunity. For example, since the publication of the book, Obama’s Department of Justice cleared the killer of Trayvon Martin and let him free. This de facto institutionalized impunity gave the green light to more police killings, as the world is aware. Obama is the worst phenomenon to ever happen to African-Americans. For example, he and Hillary Clinton used the outrage of black mothers whose sons or daughter were killed by police to speak at the July democratic convention in support of Obama’s heir Hillary Clinton rather than supporting the Black Lives Matter in the streets in front of the convention venue. One of the mothers was Trayvon Martin’s. We can thus ask the question: would this have happened if the president were a Republican? No. This seemingly paradoxical situation goes to the very heart of the dead-end nature of “lesser evilism.”

The U.S. oligarchy repeats the refrain of U.S. exceptionalism. Well, I agree with them on one aspect only: the U.S. is the only country in the West (i.e., North America and Europe) that is based today on a racist violent state as a vestige of slavery. Thus, the U.S. is indeed an exception in this sense. No analyst or political force in the U.S., or internationally, can ignore this historical fact. The Obama legacy of co-opting and pacifying African-Americans, combined with impunity to police violence, is now carrying on into the Clinton campaign. She will win the presidency for one of the same reasons that catapulted Obama into power: Obama was called upon by the majority in the ruling circles to co-opt – or at least neutralize – African-Americans.

Therefore, the most important repercussion of “lesser evilism” consists of feverishly delaying forever the struggle at the base by boxing people into the dead-end of voting for one of the lesser of two evils. This perpetual postponement thus blinds the people to the need for revolutionary struggle with the goal of people’s power combined with voting for an alternative on the left of the two-party system.

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN MUCH OF THE LATIN AMERICAN PRESS?

To answer this question, allow me to fast-forward to the current situation in the presidential election campaign, as I feel that readers should be aware of one regrettable phenomenon. As I work on this interview, I observe that in the U.S. there is very wide opposition from the left-wing and progressives. I am referring to the Green Party ticket, whichhas managed to take off after Bernie Sanders supported Clinton’s Democratic presidential nomination. The ticket is now composed of presidential nominee Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka for Vice President. The latter is a regular contributor to Black Agenda Report, mentioned above, as well as to Counter Punch, one of the most important alternative websites in the U.S. that stands against the two-party system. As recently as August 18, 2016, Baraka said in an interview that he aims to continue the legacy of W.E.B. Du Bois and Malcolm X, two of the most important historic revolutionaries among progressive Afro-Americans.

This growing coalition also includes the Black Lives Matter movement, which some commentators in the U.S. say is becoming increasingly socialist. The flow can be observed on the streets via the many thousands of Twitter accounts, hundreds of serious alternative websites in turn supported by thousands of journalists, and self-financed alternative TV and radio programs.

The argument that voting for the Green Party ticket is futile because it cannot win in 2016 does not take into the account the current movement at the base and its future. Once the 2016 elections are over, will the grass-roots motion continue in the streets to put forward its demands, expose the two-party system for what it is and elevate the slogan of People’s Power to a prominent position? Will this groundswell and the further imploding of the two-party system open the path for the left-wing alternative possible gaining more headway? These and other questions should be available to all peoples who are interested in what is unfolding in the U.S.

Unfortunately, in much of the progressive or left-wing press in Latin America and the Caribbean, there are virtually no reports or analysis from this point of view of progressive opposition at the grass roots to the lesser of two evils. It seems that the few exceptions consist of revolutionary blogs, such as in Cuba. I am familiar with these blogs on the island; however, there are surely other progressive blogs in other Latin American countries. Thus, an important part of the mainstream progressive press deals with the situation within the confines of the two competing parties. They more often than not provide a slightly modified version of the U.S. establishment’s views but rendered in Spanish or Portuguese. In this context, the balance is often tipped in favour of Clinton. However, this optic is also to the detriment of the opposition from the left and progressive forces in the U.S. I am in no way suggesting that the foreign press take a stand on the U.S. elections. However, the way the trend is presently developing is de facto taking a stand in favour of the two-party system status quo. Morphing into the U.S. narrative is detrimental to the opposition that is developing at this time as never before. Yet, this censorship is keeping much of the Latin American population in the dark.

The alternative reporting and analysis in the U.S. is almost exclusively in English, but this is no excuse. In contrast, in my case and that of others, in order to investigate the Cuban political system, I do so in Spanish, in Cuba at both the official local and national levels and especially at the grass-roots level. For those Latin American journalists who cannot go to the U.S., this is no reason for not capturing what is really happening in the U.S. beyond the superficial reports and analyses that censor opposition to the two-party system. I personally do not travel to the U.S. very often either, but the many thousands of daily tweets and hundreds of stories in the alternative media and TV at the base tell the whole story to anyone who masters the English language. There have been so many decades of opposing U.S. imperialism in the south. Encouragingly, for the first time in decades, there is presently an awakening in the U.S. itself against the interventionist American Eagle that coincides with the electoral process. While this just and burgeoning antithesis to U.S. official domestic and foreign policy is not as radical as some (myself included) might hope for, it is opposed to the deadly U.S. imperialist war machine, the absolute rule of the oligarchy, the racist state violence, Trans-Pacific Partnership (or TPP, whose opposition to which Hillary Clinton plays lip service while everyone knows that she will push it through) and the violation of the Palestinian people’s human rights – all of which both Clinton and Trump are part.

Many other examples highlight the contradiction between the status quo parties and the opposition. Allow me to provide you with one that could not be more vivid for the peoples south of the Rio Bravo. As all readers are aware, Obama and Hillary Clinton were responsible for the coup d’état in Honduras, the resulting regime and thus the assassination of activist Berta Cáceres. Berta was in the streets of Philadelphia in July in the company of the progressive opposition protesting the Democratic convention. In stark contrast, Obama, Clinton and their seemingly endless line of military spokespeople and sycophants were busy further consolidating the Democratic party of war and foreign interference. This was carried out through an almost unprecedented four-day spectacle, beating the war drums for stepped-up militarization, aggression, wars and international interference. This dangerous direction serves to pave the way for increased interference in Latin America. All this was staged live in almost 24 hours of TV coverage during four days on CNN to the frightening tune of American chauvinism, which paled in comparison to the Trump Republican convention the previous week. It seems to me that any effective progressive contention of this two-party oligarchy deserves the full attention of the left-wing media in the south.

*Arnold August, a Canadian journalist and lecturer, is the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections and, more recently, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion. Cuba’s neighbours under consideration are, on the one hand the U.S. and on the other hand, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August and FaceBook

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur American Elections: Rejection of The « Lesser of Two Evils » Is Always the Main Issue

At first sight, compassion appears to loom large in ‘mainstream’ politics and media. When the American and British governments target countries like Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, ‘compassion’ is always at or near the top of the agenda.

Time and again, the cry from the political system is: ‘We Must Do Something!’ ‘We’ must save Afghan women from the ‘Medieval’ Taliban. ‘We’ must save Kuwaiti new-borns flung from their incubators by Iraqi stormtroopers. ‘We’ must save Iraqi civilians from Saddam’s shredding machines. ‘We’ must save civilians in Kosovo from Milosevic’s ‘final solution’.

As for the suffering civilians of Aleppo in Syria, hard-right MPs like Andrew Mitchell demand, not merely that ‘we’ save them, not merely that ‘we’ engage in war to save them, but that ‘we’ must confront Russia, shoot down their planes if necessary, and risk actual thermonuclear war – complete self-destruction – to save them:

‘If that means confronting Russian air power defensively, on behalf of the innocent people on the ground who we are trying to protect, then we should do that.’

State-corporate propaganda is full of ‘shoulds’, all rooted in ‘our’ alleged ‘responsibility to protect’. Why ‘us’? Why not Sweden or Iceland? Because ‘we’ care. ‘We’ just care more.

A key task of the corporate media is to pretend this is something more than a charade. The truth is hinted at in BBC political programmes that open with jovial, bombastic, comical music, as if introducing some kind of music hall farce. The cast is currently led by foreign secretary Boris Johnson, a P.G. Wodehouse character reimagined by Stephen King. After chuckling about how ‘There is no other country that comes close to [Britain’s] record of beligerence’ in invading or conquering 178 out of 200 countries existing today, Johnson opined:

‘As our American friends instinctively understand, it is the existence of strong and well-resourced British Armed Forces that gives this country the ability to express and affirm our values overseas: of freedom, democracy, tolerance, pluralism.’

As Johnson doubtless understands, this was a near-exact reversal of the truth. He noted in 2014 of the 2003 Iraq invasion:

‘It looks to me as though the Americans were motivated by a general strategic desire to control one of the biggest oil exporters in the world…’

If politicians are clearly bluffers, corporate journalists are selected because they powerfully echo and enhance the alleged need for compassionate ‘intervention’. The likes of David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, John Rentoul, Jonathan Freedland and Oliver Kamm earn their salaries by appearing to tear their hair out in outrage at the crimes of official enemies and at the ‘useful idiocy’ of the perennial, naysaying ‘leftists’. Aaronovitch of The Times has supported just about every opportunity to wage war, whether under Labour or the Tories, for decades. In March 1999, in an article titled, ‘It’s because we’re rich that we must impose peace for others,’ Aaronovitch commented:

‘Given a choice, do we really think that the suffering civilians of Sierra Leone would object to a military presence by the British?’ (Aaronovitch, The Independent, March 25, 1999)

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the United States, he wrote of Afghanistan:

‘For a fair-minded progressive the call should not be Stop the War. That slogan is now irrelevant and harmful. The requirement is surely to win the peace…

‘So on Sunday, instead of listening to the same old tired stuff about cowboys with rockets and selective horror stories from Mazar; instead of marching along with mouth open and ears closed (however comforting that can be); instead of indulging yourself in a cosmic whinge, why not do something that might help the people of Afghanistan?’ (Aaronovitch, ‘Stop trying to stop the war, Start trying to win the peace,’ The Independent, November 16, 2001)

The message is always the same: we understand you’re sincere, but sometimes you have to drop your reflexive ‘anti-Americanism’, drop your blinkered adherence to ‘principled opposition’ and live in the real world. You can’t just sit on your hands, you can’t just righteously preach – you have to act!

This is the shtick of the corporate warmonger and it is repeated over and over again. It appears to be the key function that determines whether a commentator is granted job-for-life privileges at newspapers like the Guardian, The Times and Telegraph.

But the point is that compassion – the kind rooted in an understanding that all suffering is equal, the kind that feels even more responsibility for suffering caused by our own government – is not partial, it does not defer to power. It doesn’t fall silent when ‘we’ are committing crimes. Quite the reverse.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur « The Responsibility To Protect », Compassion for Civilians: « Engage in War to Protect Them »….

The order also applies to a Trump adviser who has organized poll-watching activities.

In a surprise ruling, a US district judge in Ohio issued a restraining order against Donald Trump’s campaign to prevent anyone working on the campaign from harassing and intimidating voters at the polls on Tuesday.

The order came after a two-hour hearing in which the judge pressed Trump’s lawyer to justify the candidate’s inflammatory rhetoric about voter fraud. It also applies to close Trump adviser Roger Stone, who has organized poll-watching activities, and the « officers, agents, servants, and employees » of Trump and Stone.

Voter fraud has been a popular theme among Republicans this year, from Trump to state Republican leaders who cite fraud as a reason to make it more difficult to vote. But as Friday’s ruling shows, it’s a lot easier to warn about fraud on the campaign trail than in front of a judge.

The restraining order is the result of a lawsuit filed by the Ohio Democratic Party against Trump, Stone, and the Ohio Republican Party. The suit asked the court to declare it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls. Similar suits have been filed in Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan. The Ohio complaintlaid out a long history of remarks by Trump and his running mate, Mike Pence, encouraging supporters to watch the polls. (For example, Trump told a crowd in Akron, Ohio, « And when I say ‘watch,’ you know what I’m talking about right? You know what I’m talking about. ») The order also covers Stone, after the complaint detailed efforts by his group, Stop the Steal, to recruit poll watchers and conduct exit polls on Election Day, among other activities. The complaint cited provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 that prohibit voter intimidation.

Here’s the order:

«

Page 1 of  4

»

Civil rights lawyer Subodh Chandra was in the courtroom and tweeted throughout the hearing. Here’s what he observed:

Later Friday afternoon, the Trump campaign appealed the ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This story has been updated to include the judge’s order and Trump’s appeal.

Pema Levy is a reporter at Mother Jones. Reach her at plevy [at] motherjones [dot] com.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Judge Issues Restraining Order against Trump Campaign to Prevent Voter Intimidation

 A few weeks ago, the US government agreed to give Israel $38 billion dollars, the largest military funding package the U.S. has given any nation.  This $38 billion in military and other type of Aid will be used to imprison the Palestinians of Gaza, and continue Israel’s military occupation, and imposition of an apartheid state, upon the Palestinian people.

This money will be used in the training fields of Israeli military, which are in Gaza, where military experiments are done, using US military weaponry, by the Israeli Occupation Forces.  The U.S. military and government is complicit in the crimes against the people of Gaza and the Palestinian occupied territory by the use of military hardware given by USA and by the training that Israelis give to Americans and USA gives to Israel.  It is also estimated that some 70% of European humanitarian aid to Palestine ends up in Israeli pockets.

Gaza continues to suffer from the continuing Israeli blockade, naval and land, and this 25-mile-long tiny strip, 5 miles wide, with l.9 million people, living in it, is a brutal blockade and Israel controls everything including electricity, food, etc.

Indeed, everything that comes into Gaza comes through Israeli hands.  Gaza’s only airport was completely destroyed in 2002 by Israeli jets and ground forces.  Egypt continues to be a part of this blockade as they have blocked Gaza’s southern border; and Egypt continues to receive USA military funding.  Medical authorities have reported that the time for operations in Gaza now goes up to 2025 as so many are awaiting health care, and the increasing issues around food, water, sewage, electricity, all of these mounting problems have led the U.N. to declare in their latest Report, that by the year 2020 Gaza will be uninhabitable.  What hope is there for the Palestinians of Gaza, the vast majority of whom are young people?

In order to give hope to the people of Gaza by showing solidarity and support the Women’s Boat to Gaza sailed in September 2016. Also we sailed in order to challenge this illegal and immoral blockade and occupation of Palestine by Israel, and draw international attention to the fact that under Geneva Conventions it is illegal to punish civilians, which is what Israeli government policies continues to do.

The Women’s Boat to Gaza set sail from the Spanish Port city of Barcelona (Barcelona is twinned with Gaza) in mid- September 2016.  The three legs of the trip were 1715 miles from Barcelona to Ajaccio, Corsica, France and then down to Messina in Sicily, Italy.  It was hoped to have two boats but when one developed engine trouble in Barcelona, the other 50’ sailing boat, Zaytouna-Oliva, continued alone.  At all Ports the women were greeted and hosted by mayors, officials, and supporters of the Free Palestine Movement.   Over 40 women from around the world flew to Messina in hopes of being able to sail to Gaza.

I joined the boat in Messina, and was grateful to be chosen as one of the 13 women from thirteen countries, being finally chosen to sail to Gaza.   It was sad for those of us sailing to leave behind so many wonderful women due to not enough boats to sail, but it is hoped the Palestinian Coalition will be able to get more sailings to accommodate those wishing to go on a future occasion.   The 13 chosen participants included Ann Wright, (boat leader) the captain and two crew, two Al Jazeera journalists, and women from USA, Ireland, Russia, UK, Spain, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden/Chile, Malaysia, South Africa, Australia, and Algeria.

The third leg of the journey from Messina to Gaza was almost 1000 miles and a nine-day journey.  On 29th September 2016, we set sail from Messina, Sicily, after a wonderful reception from the mayor, the Muslim community, and many Palestinian friends in Messina.

The first few days sailing the weather was rough and many of us were seasick, but several days into the journey we had got our sea-legs and busied ourselves helping with the tasks to be done such as cooking, reporting, night watches with the crew, etc.  We shared our stories and held nonviolence training.   It was a wonderful experience getting to know the women whose courage was inspiring. Their love for the Palestinian people and their freedom was very deep.  Unfortunately, some 400 miles from Messina, with some 600 miles to go, we had problems with the boats rigging.  An appeal to friends in Crete resulted in a boatful of people coming out to meet us, bringing many gifts of food, and four men to fix the rigging!  This was for me one of the most moving experiences of the journey, and it proved yet again, the magnificence of the human spirit. Around 20 men and women answered our call for help and came to our aid, and all for the people of Gaza.  After the men fixed our boat rigging, we passed greetings to our rescuers from Crete and sailed in a happy and hope filled mood towards Gaza.

On Wednesday 5th October, we were contacted by the Israeli navy by phone.  A few hours earlier all communications via our own phones were cut off.  The Israeli navy communicator told Captain Madeleine that we were nearing the 20-mile military Israeli security zone and were breaking Israeli law.  They said if we did not turn back or agree to be escorted to Ashdod, they would confiscate our boat and take us to Israel.

However, we kept sailing towards Gaza.   We saw several Navy military ships on the horizon.  At 6 p.m., a Zodiac boat came alongside our boat.  There were 30 Israeli sailors including Israeli women sailors who were the first to come on board our boat.  They were not in combat gear.  They wore baseball caps, and long sleeved jerseys.  In 2010,   I had been on the Rachel Corrie Irish/Malaysian boat, which was part of the Freedom Flotilla and when we were boarded by Israeli sailors, they were in combat gear, with rifles, and sniffer dogs, and we were handcuffed and forcibly taken to Israel.  I was surprised when this different approach was used to confiscate our boat ,the Zaytouna.  In 2010, on the Mavi Marmara, the Israelis murdered nine people, and subsequently a 10th person died as 50 people were wounded.  Therefore, the treatment of our women’s boat to Gaza participants was very different from what happened on previous ones where I had travelled.

On the Zaytouna, when the Israeli navy sailors confiscated our boat, took us under protest against our will to Israel, arrested, held us for several days without contact with our families, and deported us for ten years, it was all completely illegal under international law. However, it is sad to report that no governments or international bodies have taken up our case for being hijacked, and again the Israeli government has been allowed to break international laws.

All the women were deeply saddened as we knew many people in Gaza were preparing for our visit, and yet again Israel was denying our entry into Gaza. So as we watched the coastline of Gaza in complete darkness and then the coastline of Israel fully lit up against the night sky, we were again witnessing the injustice and unfairness of the Israeli policies against the Palestinians.  With this experience, many of us committed in our hearts to continue our support for the Palestinian people’s ongoing work to break the blockade and end the occupation. We also saw just off the coast of Gaza two huge gas rigs fully lit up and whose gas is piped to Israel. Yet Gaza has only a few hours of light, as Israeli bombings have destroyed most of its electricity and sewage infrastructures.

When we reached Ashdod, Israel, after six hours sailing, we were processed by Israeli security and searched, taken to Prison and released two days later.   All the women on board the Zaytouna, now have a ten-year deportation order. As this is my 4th time being given a 10-year deportation order, it will be 40 years before I can return to Israel or get into Palestine.  This thought reminds me that there are over 7 million Palestinian people who cannot return to their country, and this is why it is so important to campaign for the right to return for the Palestinian people.

I would like to thank the Freedom Flotilla Coalition who gave us the opportunity to participate on the journey to Gaza.  Their work of joining in solidarity with the people of Gaza is so important and I thank them for all they do.

To the Palestinian people of Gaza, please keep your hopes high and believe that freedom and peace will come. Thank you for your perseverance and ongoing inspiration to us all.

Mairead Corrigan Maguire, co-founder of Peace People, is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace, Development and Environment. She won the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize for her work for peace in Northern Ireland. Her book The Vision of Peace (edited by John Dear, with a foreword by Desmond Tutu and a preface by the Dalai Lama) is available from www.wipfandstock.com. She lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland. See: www.peacepeople.com.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur International Women’s Boat to Gaza: U.S. Military Aid Used to « Imprison the Palestinians of Gaza »

The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF) advanced along the Aleppo-Hama highway and seized the two hills – Tell Bazam and Tell Masin – north of the recently liberated town of Souran. S

trategically, this offensive may allow the army and the NDF to flank the militant-controlled areas with the center in Latamanah.

This strategy could lead to a success if the government forces are able to advance further to the north and to take control of Morek.

The government forces continued military operations in Western Ghouta, targeting Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian al-Qaeda branch) and its allies in the town of Khan al-Sheih. Earlier this week, the government forces made an attempt to make an agreement with the militants to allow them to withdraw from the city to the province of Idlib. However, this idea resulted in a failure and led to further escalation in the area. Yesterday, the army and the NDF seized a key farms northeast of Khan al-Sheih and deployed in a striking distance from the militant stronghold.

The army’s Tiger Forces, the Desert Hawks Brigade and Hezbollah successfully repelled a fiercest attack by the al-Nusra-led militant alliance, Jaish al-Fatah, in western Aleppo on November 3. Both sides suffered some casualties and Jaish al-Fatah used at least 2 car bombs in an attepmt to break the government forces’ defenses. Pro-militant sources report that the ‘opposition’ has destroyed some 4 units of military equipment belonging to the army. At least 1 infantry fighting vehicle and 1 battle tank belonging to Jaish al-Fatah weredestroyed. On November 4, the humanitarian took place in the city. However, firefights are ongoing.

The ISIS-linked media outlet Amaq released a footage of an explosion of Russian Mi-35 multi-role combat helicopter near the village of Huwaysis, northwest of Palmyra. the Mi-35 was delivering a humanitarian aid in the area when it was downed because of a technical failure. ISIS militants targeted the landing site with an anti-tank guided missile. The incident took place on November 3. The Mi-35’s crew (2 men) survived the incident and returned safely to the Russian Khmeimim Airbase in the province of Latakia.

Russia’s state-of-the-art frigate Admiral Grigorovich, armed with Caliber missiles, set off to the Mediterranean Sea from the port of Sevastopol on November 3. The frigate will join the Russian naval task force off the coast of Syria.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Video: Syrian Government Forces Repel Fierce Al Nusra Attack in Aleppo

America hasn’t experienced a terrorist attack in modern memory. Innocent patsies were wrongfully blamed for officially announced ones, and others allegedly foiled – 9/11 the mother of all false flags.

Would Hillary or Trump benefit from a pre-election incident, proclaimed a terrorist attack? CBS News cited unnamed sources, saying “US intelligence has alerted joint terrorism task forces (about) al Qaeda (perhaps) planning attacks in three states (believed to be New York, Texas and Virginia) for” November 7 – the day before US elections.

According to an unnamed senior FBI official, “(t)he counterterrorism and homeland security communities remain vigilant and well-postured to defend against attacks here in the United States.”

The FBI, working with our federal, state and local counterparts, shares and assesses intelligence on a daily basis and will continue to work closely with law enforcement and intelligence community partners to identify and disrupt any potential threat to public safety.

Fact: Al Qaeda is a US creation, supported in Syria and other countries where its fighters are deployed – unlikely to bite the hand feeding it.

CBS reported phony scare-tactic information supplied by Washington sources. If an incident occurs, it’ll be state-sponsored, an American tradition.

In the wake of last June’s Orlando false flag, followed by incidents in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota, Trump blamed Obama, saying:

“We’ve been weak. Our country’s been weak. We’re letting people in by the thousands, the tens of thousands. I’ve been saying we’ve gotta stop it. Hillary Clinton wants to increase” the refugee numbers Obama let in.

Hillary said

“I’m the only candidate in this race who’s been part of the hard decisions to take terrorists off the battlefield. The kinds of rhetoric and language that Mr. Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries.”

So who’ll benefit or be disadvantaged by a pre-election false flag [alleged threat or actual event] hours before polls open?

Neither most likely, unless power brokers, at the 11th hour, decided they erred in choosing Hillary, cut a deal with Trump assuring he’ll support their agenda, and intend anointing him Obama’s successor by electoral-rigging if necessary.

It’s unlikely to go this way. But given America’s deplorable state, anything is possible with an important reminder. So-called US democracy serves its privileged few alone.

No matter who holds top executive, congressional and judicial posts, the dirty system continues – each administration and its supporting caste exceeding the ruthlessness of its predecessors since the neoliberal 90s during the two-term Bill and Hillary co-presidency, America’s most notorious crime family.

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

His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. »

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

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

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Phony Scare Tactics? Would a Pre-Election Homeland Terrorist Attack Help or Hurt Hillary?

Hillary Clinton – Mrs. Strangelove?

novembre 5th, 2016 by Leif Elinder

A queen of chaos should not throw stones in a glass house

Hillary Clinton’s fears concerning her rival candidate appear to be justified. At present she seems to be the most likely future president, and there is good reason for asking the question – Is Mrs. Clinton throwing stones in a glass house when she viciously attacks Donald Trump? Her efforts as Secretary of State are among the most warmongering in America’s modern history. Should she become president, it seems highly unlikely that we would ever see the dawn of world peace.

Should Hillary Clinton become the next U.S. president, the possibility of continuing wars in the world appears to be dangerously real. We must closely examine the candidates’ willingness and ability to create a better world. Under which one of the two candidates does world peace seem to be the most likely outcome?

Last year, political analyst, Diana Johnstone, published her book « Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ».  The purpose of the book was to warn the world of the consequences if Clinton were to be elected president.

Four months ago (June, 2016) Hillary Clinton gave an important speech on U.S. national security. In this speech, she warned us of Donald Trump as being – « the most dangerous candidate for US presidency ever seen ». She portrayed Trump as a liar with bizarre and dangerous ideas, a person who very easily (by mistake?) could start a nuclear war. Electing Trump for president would, according to Hillary Clinton, be like « playing roulette » with our future.

Hillary Clinton’s fears appear to be justified. As in the current situation she seems to be the most likely presidential candidate, the following question must be asked:  Is Clinton throwing stones in a glass house when she attacks Donald Trump as a warmonger? Judge for yourselves.

Her deals and efforts as Secretary of State of the US government have been among the most militaristic in U.S. modern history. During her term in office when Hillary Clinton was politically active, there was hardly a single war in which she was not eager to participate. During the past two decades she has actively supported all the U.S. war adventures – e.g. her husband’s bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo in the late 1990s, the illegal war against Iraq (2003) and supporting Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006.

During the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton threatened Iran (80 million people) with a « total obliteration » should Iran attack Israel.

During Obama’s presidency, she unreservedly supported the U.S. bombing of seven mostly Muslim countries – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Syria.

Mrs. Clinton managed to convince President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to enter into war with Libya – a war that ultimately led to the devastation of that country, including the cruel execution of Muammar Gaddafi after brutal torture. Hillary Clinton  commented on this occasion with a laugh – « We came, we saw, he died! »

Clinton fully supported the coup in Honduras (2009); she further supported Israel during the Gaza wars of 2009 and 2014 and the illegal coup in Ukraine in 2014.

Violation of the US Constitution:

Hillary Clinton always unreservedly supported Obama in the U.S. drone warfare.

Hillary Clinton has supported Obama’s policy of impunity for torturers during GW Bush’s presidency.

Hillary Clinton has used her own private emailer in her correspondence with foreign politicians and military and in exchange for services.

Hillary Clinton has used the family’s private foundation (the Clinton Foundation) for the Pay for Play scheme that rendered political favors to highly dubious dictators and business dealers in exchange for huge sums of money to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton supports U.S. emergency legislation – such as « The Patriot Act », which was rushed into law in the wake of 9/11.  It allows widespread indiscriminate eavesdropping and the support of military tribunals and indefinite detention of « terrorist » suspects, even for life.

Hillary Clinton has supported mass surveillance of ordinary people, including UN officials and politicians of friendly countries. This amounts to constitutional violations which were disclosed by Edward Snowden.

Questionable financial links and support:

Hillary Clinton is the prime Candidate for the military-industrial complex. She enjoys full support from the Republican Party’s most hawkish representatives – such as former Vice President Dick Cheney and Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Victoria Nuland.

Let us take a look at the Clinton Foundation. Where do the 2 billion $ emanate from? Contributions in abundance come from various corporate and financial sources, from « dictatorships » in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia. Henry Kissinger, who engineered the military coup in Chile on President Nixon’s direct orders, supported the military coup in Argentina and Indonesia’s invasion of Timor, now works as her close friend and mentor.

War creates chaos and chaos creates refugees. 

A large number of countries have been devastated. We are facing a refugee situation which the West can no longer handle. The risks of a major war between NATO countries and Russia have increased dramatically. The probability of Sweden becoming a primary target in such a conflict has also increased (by the host country agreement, etc.).

US  being armed to the teeth, especially in nuclear weapons, NATO military bases encircling Russia and repeatedly organizing coups d’état on Russia’s doorstep, provocative military exercises and the demonization of Putin – all this gives Russia a good reason to believe that US / NATO is preparing for war.

The fact that Russia resorts to counter measures should not be difficult to understand. The combination of US and NATO provocation and their non-stop propaganda makes for a small incident easily turning into a major disaster.

The situation today resembles the one which prevailed just before the outbreak of the First World War. The great powers were then too heavily armed and ready to attack following the slightest incident.

The thought of an American president provoking a nuclear war would be the ultimate nightmare. Which one of the presidential candidates do we hope will win – that is now the question!

Written by three Swedish MDs active in the peace movement.

Leif Elinder
Martin Gelin
Anders Romelsjö

Translation by Siv O’Neall

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Hillary Clinton – Mrs. Strangelove?

Hybrid Wars: Strategies against Africa

novembre 5th, 2016 by Andrew Korybko

The most colonized and exploited continent in the history of the world is once more the center of global competition, albeit this time the form of rivalry between the Great Powers has taken on a much more nuanced, though no less intense, form.

The US, France, and their unipolar allies want to retain Africa as their exclusive labor, market, and resource reserve for the foreseeable future, both out of their own material self-interest and with the added strategic benefit of depriving China and others of its economic fruits. Contrarily, China wants to integrate the world’sfastest growing economies and populations into the unfolding multipolar world order and give them a fair chance at succeeding in the global system. The contrast between the West’s neo-colonialism and China’s liberating sovereignty couldn’t be more crisp, and it’s this opposition of diametrically opposed global strategies and development models that sets the stage for the grand proxy battle between the US and China over Africa.

Just as much as China needs Africa in order to maintain its steady growth rates into the foreseeable future and ensure its domestic stability, so too does the US want to ‘poach’ Africa from China in order to offset the structural sustainability of its number one rival’s global leadership. The nature of the African-wide proxy conflict is that China is ardently working to finance, construct, and connect various infrastructural projects to one another in order to create a supraregional web of intermodal transport corridors that could then perfectly complement the maritime portion of the One Belt One Road (“New Silk Road”) global vision, while the US is trying with equal fervor to seize control of key nodes along these transnational routes as well as strategically disrupt crucial portions in order to increase China’s dependence on the unipolar-influenced areas. As the ultimate last resort, however, the US, the “world island” in all the manners that it can be strategically understood as, will pull out all the stops and unleash a ‘scorched earth’ trail of Hybrid War destruction in its wake while it strategically retreats back to its self-sufficient “Fortress North America” as the final coup de grace in the African proxy war against China.

More than likely, it won’t ever get to that dramatic of an absolute point whereby the US fully retreats from Africa or totally destroys the continent with Hybrid War, but realistically speaking, there’ll likely be a blended development of scenarios that takes place in this heated theater of competition over the coming decades that integrates elements of both extremes. China will predictably succeed in spearheading several ultra-strategic New Silk Road development corridors in Africa, while the US will probably sabotage a few others and unleash a handful of Hybrid Wars to keep the existing ways indefinitely at bay from fully actualizing their envisioned geo-economic potential.

There’s no surefire way to know with absolutely certainty what the future will bring, but it’s possible to acquire an educated expectation about the structural and systemic manner in which the identified group of states will be targeted by US-provoked Hybrid Wars. Even accounting for the possibility that some of the forthcoming examined scenarios might be “naturally occurring” in that they require little if any external pressure to instigate, there’s still a strong likelihood that at least some of the investigated possibilities will eventually occur to varying extents and that the geopolitical repercussions will indisputably impact quite negatively on China and the larger multipolar world’s grand position in the New Cold War.

This section of the book is organized in such a manner that Part I will describe Africa’s overall geopolitical situation, highlighting the influence of hegemonic and institutional regionalism (sometimes overlapping, other times not) over the continent’s affairs in order to clearly illustrate the preexisting advantages and obstacles to China’s New Silk Road vision. The subsequent chapters of the African Hybrid War research will then comprehensively examine the five separate categories of states and their pertinent neighbors that the author has already identified as being relevantly incorporated into the immediate thesis. To remind the reader about what was described in Part III of the book’s Introduction and to expand upon the earlier presented paradigmatic map in a more structurally detailed manner, the following cartographic revision will be henceforth used as the point of reference in guiding the research beyond Part I:

africa01

Key

* Green – Horn of Africa

* Yellow – East Africa/East African Federation

* Blue – Central-Southern Africa

* Black – Failed State Belt

* Red – Lake Chad Region

* Hashed/Thatched Lines – countries that will inevitably become involved in the targeted category states’ Hybrid War destabilization, whether as an aggressive actor, a passive victim, or a blended mix thereof.

Schematic Observations

A few comments need to be stated about the above map before commencing Part I of the African Hybrid War research:

Southern African Cone:

Firstly, while it’s conceptually possible for all states in Africa (or anywhere in the world, for that matter) to be afflicted by Hybrid War, keeping in accordance with the axiom that this method of warfare is more often than not applied in disrupting multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects and/or seizing control of them, it can be surmised that the ones which could most radically revolutionize the continent’s geopolitical and geo-economic would be most actively targeted and consequently receive the highest likelihood of some sort of Hybrid War destabilization in the coming future. All of this will be described in detail in Part I, but for now it’s enough to know that the identified states lay along the paths of China’s presently constructed Silk Road routes or most probable forthcoming projects that it could pursue in achieving its grand strategic ends.

It should be clarified at this point that the Southern African Cone was not included in the above model because its economic corridors are relatively well-established and have already been utilized for some time by all sorts of Great Powers, the West obviously included. Furthermore, concerning Namibia and Botswana’s global connectivity via South Africa, and to an extent, even Zimbabwe and Mozambique’s as well, this mostly deals with the one-way transport of natural resources and less so with each respective state’s labor and market potential. While each of these countries have a given role that they play vis-à-vis the Chinese economy, none of them except for South Africa (the hub through which most of their exports, barring Mozambique’s, pass) is integral enough to be targeted by their own Hybrid War.

Theoretically speaking, disruptions in the regional periphery around South Africa could have a strategic effect in putting pressure on the country’s multipolar leadership and pave the way for a regime change scenario, but given the rotten nature of corrupt South African politics, it’s more expected that traditional ‘soft coup’ means such as constitutional technicalities and simple Color Revolutions (i.e. the anti-Rousseff coup in Brazil) would be used in this instance. Additionally, the resources of the population-sparse countries of Namibia and Botswana and the general market and labor potential of South Africa are already pretty much integrated into the larger global economy, so there are many existing unipolar stakeholders that would also be adversely affected by a severe disruption in or around their common point of African access. The same can’t be said so much about Zimbabwe and Mozambique, the former rich in minerals such as diamonds and platinum while the latter is poised to become one of the world’s largest LNG exporters, so it’s entirely possible that they may be targeted sometime in the future. But even so, it would be less in connection with China’s multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects than with their own individual standalone potentials in their respective fields, thus strategically differentiating them from the other countries included in the present study (although that is not to say that Hybrid War techniques would not be used – they probably would to a large extent).

Insular Importance:

In relation to the above, the insular countries of Africa were also not included in the continental overview, although they too play an important role in its evolving geopolitical paradigm. Nevertheless, because they’re island nations, they’re not directly connected to anything else besides the high seas, so although they may have valuable transit node status for China as an integral component of its Sea Lines of Communication, they’re not as directly affected by the region-stretching Hybrid War study that was commenced for the mainland. Nevertheless, because each of them could play a pivotal role in influencing continental affairs if properly utilized by a partnering Great Power, it’s worthwhile to very concisely comment on how they fit into the larger strategic equation that will be described throughout this work:

africa02

* Yellow – Canary Islands (Spain): This legacy holding allows Madrid to exert influence near the coasts of Morocco and Western Sahara, both thought to be rich with fish and possible energy resources.

* Green – Cabo Verde (formerly Cape Verde prior to late-2013): The former Portuguese colony connects the North and South Atlantic and offers a strategic position near the mouth of the Senegal River, as well as being positioned along an important oceanic route that the US and EU must take to access West Africa.

* Blue – São Tomé and Príncipe: Another former Portuguese colony, this one is crucially located in the hydrocarbon-rich waters of the Gulf of Guinea and in close proximity to the shoreline of Africa’s largest economy, Nigeria.

* Violet – Comoros and the French overseas department of Mayotte: These two locations are almost on top of northern Mozambique’s LNG-prospected Rovuma Basin and thus near what will likely become a major energy exporting area in the near future.

* Orange – Seychelles: The former UK-colonized island chain lies along the route of approach that India and China must take in accessing the burgeoning East African marketplace, and it’s for this strategically competitive reason that New Delhi has proactively sought to build a naval base and position some of its military units there in order to “contain” China.

* Unmarked – Mauritius and the French island of Reunion: These two insular areas are not directly relevant to Africa’s mainland geopolitical order, although they do acquire significance vis-à-vis Madagascar and the US-controlled Indian Ocean bastion of Diego Garcia.

Transregional Conflict Overspill:

One of the most striking aspects of the reference map is that it clearly delineates the geopolitical fault lines where Hybrid War conflicts could easily become transregional:

africa03

Out of all of the areas designated by the map, it’s most probable that the uncontrollably violent processes in the Failed State Belt of the Central African Republic (CAR) and South Sudan would be the ones to spread to other parts of Africa, at least as regards the continent’s conflicts that are presently ongoing (and not accounting for those that have yet to possibly erupt). In particular, CAR’s chaos could result in a refugee and militant overspill to Cameroon and Chad, possibly leading to these respective Christian- and Muslim-led governments supporting their own confessional sides in the country’s unresolved civil war. The misleading “Clash of Civilizations” narrative that would assuredly be purposely pushed by the Western mainstream media will be discussed later on when addressing the Failed State Belt, but at this moment it’s useful just to be aware of the transregional “infection” potential that the CAR has in affecting  the Lake Chad region. Additionally, the country’s domestic difficulties could also spread southward into the northern reaches of the Central-Southern state of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), representing a dual destabilization threat emanating from the CAR.

South Sudan can do something similar to the CAR in relation to the northern part of the DRC, but possibly even to the Horn of Africa state of Ethiopia and the East African state of Uganda as well. Tellingly, these latter two states are actively involved in the conflict resolution process in South Sudan and are jostling against one another for influence there in order to carve out defensive buffers (but also markets, of course) to protect themselves from this scenario. It should go without saying that South Sudan was only brought into existence because it was forcibly severed from Sudan proper over a three-decade-long civil war period, and the dynamic of anti-Khartoum action hasn’t stopped since Juba gained its independence in 2011. Therefore, South Sudan represents an even larger asymmetrical regional threat than CAR does, and their combined destabilization potential explains why they’re both categorized together as part of the Failed State Belt.

If their respective conflicts somehow merged into a transnational conflagration, then that would represent a large-scale Hybrid War threat in the geographic heart of Africa, but the closest this has henceforth come has been the over-exaggerated threat of Joseph Kony. With reference to the Failed State Belt’s Hybrid War vulnerabilities and the transregionalization that its internal conflicts pose, it’s little wonder then that the US exploited the mystique around this warlord in order to deploy a limited but very strategic contingent of its special forces to Uganda, South Sudan, DRC, and CAR. Almost as an afterthought but drawing on the tangent of transregional conflict overlap, it’s topically pertinent to recall the Darfur Conflict and how this essentially was a proxy competition between the Lake Chad regional state of Chad and the extended Failed State Belt and somewhat Gulf-influenced state of Sudan. It’s no longer as relevant of a geopolitical item as it once was during the mid-2000s, but it nevertheless still has the potential to re-erupt in the future, especially if the externally directed Sudanese dissolution process speeds up and makes headway in the states of Blue Nile and South Kordofan.

africa04

Lastly, there’s the realistic possibility that the US’ attempts to instigate a Hybrid War in Burundi could set off a chain reaction of destabilization in the eastern DRC, Rwanda (and by extent, possibly up to Uganda), and western Tanzania, thereby making this geographically tiny state a disproportionately large trigger in upsetting the regional balance. Although there’s not yet an active conflict in Burundi anywhere on par with the scale of what’s been raging in the CAR and South Sudan over the past couple of years, this doesn’t mean that one can’t quickly develop if the entire state collapses under Hybrid War pressure, and this disturbing scenario will certainly be explored more at length later on in the work.

africa05

Mapping out the expected transregional conflict overspill zones in Africa, one can unmistakably see that it’s the entire Upper-Central (Failed State Belt) and the eastern portion of the Central-Southern zones of Africa that are most at risk of this destructive process unfolding. Accordingly, this realization leads one to conclude that the DRC and the areas immediately abutting it provide the most fertile ground for the transnationalization of domestic conflicts, which somewhat (but not totally) explains why the Second Congo War eventually came to involve states located far away from the actual battlespace and be nicknamed “Africa’s World War”. To put it another way, the Hybrid War vulnerabilities of the identified area combined with its obvious geostrategic centrality to the African continent makes it doubly capable of sucking countless states into a literal Black Hole of Chaos that could easily become the ultimate proxy war climax between the US and China.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently working for the Sputnik agency. He is the author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.

PREVIOUS CHAPTERS:

Hybrid Wars 1. The Law Of Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid Wars 2. Testing the Theory – Syria & Ukraine

Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid Wars

Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland

Hybrid Wars 5. Breaking the Balkans

Hybrid Wars 6. Trick To Containing China

Hybrid Wars 7. How The US Could Manufacture A Mess In Myanmar

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Hybrid Wars: Strategies against Africa

Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election?

novembre 5th, 2016 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal, and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.

Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.

With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy’s own interests.

Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.

Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy’s interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs.

In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.

A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos.

I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.

Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be “a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we’ve got two years worth of material already lined up.” House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.

If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?

What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that is not good for oligarchs.

Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:

“Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.

“Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.” The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.”

Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for “solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on ‘Orgy Island,’ an estate on Epstein’s 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html 

Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights.

http://truepundit.com/breaking-bombshell-nypd-blows-whistle-on-new-hillary-emails-money-laundering-sex-crimes-with-children-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/

This kind of behavior seems reckless even for Bill and Hillary, who are accustomed to getting away with everything. Nevertheless, if you are an oligarch already worried about the reopened Hillary email case and additional FBI investigations, such as the one into the Clinton Foundation, and concerned about what else might emerge from the 650,000 emails on former US Rep. Weiner’s computer and the NYPD pedophile investigation, putting Hillary in the Oval Office doesn’t look like a good decision.

At this point, I would think that the Oligarchy would prefer to steal the election for Trump, instead of from him, rather than allow insouciant Americans to destroy America’s reputation by choosing a person under felony investigations for president of the United States.

Being the “exceptional nation” takes on new meaning when there is a criminal at the helm.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election?
trump-clinton

U.S. Elections “November Chaos”: What You’re Not Being Told

By James Corbett and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 04 2016

The FBI’s October surprise has thrown the 2016 election into November chaos. But an examination of the trigger mechanism behind this event reveals a deeper layer of manipulation by the media and financial interests behind the election.

FBI clinton

Corrupt Clinton Crime Cartel Along with Hillary’s Presidential Hopes Are Crumbling…

By Joachim Hagopian, November 03 2016

Nearly four months after James Comey announced to the world back in early July that the FBI investigation was closed and that he would not seek an indictment against Hillary Clinton for violating any federal laws, now suddenly a tectonic shift has taken place and for the Clinton crime family, the dirt may finally be hitting the fan. As a result, humanity might be spared from a World War III project which was part of her election campaign, that would virtually be a done deal should Hillary become president.

election-2016-US

U.S. Election 2016: No Matter Who Wins, Everyone Loses. “And Moving to Mars is not a Current Option”

By J. Michael Springmann, November 04 2016

The United States has one party, the Permanent Ruling Party.  Some call one branch the “Democrats”, some call the other branch the “Republicans”.  While there are surface differences, both wings of the Party support the same things:  permanent war; Israel; illegal migration; hatred of Arabs and Muslims.  Neither arm criticizes a huge military budget or the vast sums spent on the various intelligence services, whose main job seems to be spying on American citizens.

Hillary-Clinton-Nukes-Nuclear-War

The Lethal Lie of Hillary Clinton: “Saving Lives” with “No-Fly Zone” in Syria. “Russian Roulette with the Planet”

By Luciana Bohne, November 04 2016

Why are they lying? Because the people don’t want war: they want jobs and bread. They will not agree to murder people who have done them no harm.  They will consent to war if told they are under attack or that the war will save other people from genocide, rape, or other gross violations of human rights. The people are not interested in world domination, but the elite are. The people are, therefore, the enemy within. They must be persuaded to support the elite’s plan by perverting their decency. They must be made to cringe in fear. They must be made to believe that war—any war—will be defensive. This is the tactic of terrorists: terrorizing the population to obtain political ends.

hillarybinladen3

Al Qaeda will Vote for Hillary on November 8 ….

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 04 2016

Al Qaeda rebels, ISIS-Daesh, are unbending supporters of Hillary, because when she becomes President of the United States, “she’ll continue to support us, give us money and weapons, … “ “We’re voting for you, Hillary, on November 8. We’ll cast our absentee ballots from more than twenty countries where the CIA is helping us. We’re not terrorists, we’re the “Moderate Good Guys”. We’re supported by Hillary Clinton, and Hillary is not a terrorist. If she were a terrorist, we wouldn’t vote for her…  ”

Flag-map_of_Syria.svg

President Al-Assad: America, Turkey, Saudi Arabia Support and Protect Al Qaeda-ISIS-Daesh Terrorists

By Bashar al Assad, November 04 2016

In an interview given to the Serbian newspaper Politika, President al-Assad said that Russia is very serious and very determined to continue fighting the terrorists, while the Americans base their politics on a different value as they use the terrorists as a card to play the political game to serve their own interests at the expense of the interests of other countries in the world.

Podesta Clinton

Unprecedented Crisis, Collapse of the Clinton Apparatus? Hacker Whistleblowers, Trump, and the FBI Converge

By Larry Chin, November 01 2016

With one week left in the most chaotic and dangerous presidential contest in American history, the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign is damaged and sinking. Even the propaganda protection of the Clinton-controlled mainstream corporate media is starting to buckle.

wall-street

Wall Street and the Pentagon: Pre-Mature Political and Military Ejaculations

By Prof. James Petras, November 03 2016

Brazil and Argentina, the most powerful and richest countries in South America and the Philippines, Washington’s most strategic military platform in Southeast Asia, were the objects of intense US political operations in the run-up to 2016. In each instance, Wall Street and the Pentagon secured smashing successes leading to premature ejaculations over the ‘new golden era’ of financial pillage and unfettered military adventures.  Unfortunately, the early ecstasy has turned to agony: Wall Street made easy entries and even faster departures once the ‘honeymoon’ gave way to reality.

Goldman Sachs

Partners in Crime: Goldman Sachs, the Clintons and Wall Street

By Shawn Helton, November 04 2016

As the public and most of the mainstream media is still processing the political bombshell concerning the newly reopened FBI probe into the Hillary Clinton’s email server case – the global investment banking firm Goldman Sachs quietly endorsed the Democratic presidential candidate this past week.

hillary bill clinton

Hillary and Bill Clinton: “Pay-to-Play Racketeering”, The “Bonnie and Clyde” of American Politics

By Wayne Madsen, November 04 2016

Whether the information originated from hacked e-mails and computer files or Freedom of Information Act requests, the revelations about the political and business activities of Hillary and Bill Clinton and their cronies hearken back to another era, the Great Depression of the 1930s and the crime spree of another unscrupulous couple: bank robbery desperados Bonnie and Clyde.

Hillary_Clinton_(24338774540)

Video: Corruption, Cooptation, Cronyism: The Hillary Clinton “Takeover”, The “Counter-Coup”, Action of America’s Intelligence Community

By Steve Pieczenik, November 02 2016

The following video presentation is by Dr. Steve Pieczenik, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State who has served as foreign policy expert in several US administrations including Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The analysis and focus presented below must be taken very seriously.  It sheds light on the ongoing political crisis in the US and the opposition which is developing from within the US intelligence community against the Clinton crime cabal.  Steve Piecznick is articulate and outspoken.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur GR Weekend Reader: U.S. Elections “November Chaos”: What You’re Not Being Told

ZeroCash: A Cryptocurrency’s Deep State Ties

novembre 5th, 2016 by James F. Tracy

October 28, 2016 marks the official launch of Zerocash (« Zcash, » « ZEC »), a new cryptocurrency that has received tremendous attention from the Bitcoin community. The technology is named for its zero-identity function of shielding transactions on its blockchain, or digital ledger. « Zerocash is a new protocol that provides a privacy-preserving version of Bitcoin (or a similar currency),” its developers explain. “[I]n Zerocash, users may pay one another directly, via payment transactions that reveal neither the origin, destination, or amount of the payment.”

The enthusiasm surrounding the coin is demonstrated in the recent price for Zerocash futures contracts, representing one unit and valued against the price of one Bitcoin (BTC). Between September 15th and October 26th the price surged almost 1,300%—from a low of $18 (0.027 BTC) to a high of $261 (0.379 BTC).

Upon its October 28 debut the price of one Zcash briefly spiked above $1,000,000 (one million USD) on some exchanges, while eventually settling back to below $6,000 per coin.

screen-shot-2016-10-29-at-12-22-41-am

The high valuation and scarcity is at least partly influenced by the novel way Zcash is being introduced. The cryptocurrency will not be initially available to investors for over-the-counter purchases and can only be obtained in gradually increasing increments over a month-long period through “mining,” or digital production by those with the necessary computer equipment and technological expertise.

An additional reason for the building excitement around Zcash is that its development team consists of notable computer scientists at University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University, Tel Aviv University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

A lesser-acknowledged aspect of the Zerocash phenomenon, however, is how the currency’s development has been financially backed in part by some of the world’s most powerful corporate and government deep state actors, including Amazon, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Naval Research, and the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology. The entire list of funders is as follows:

*Amazon.com 

*Broadcom Foundation

*Tel Aviv University Authentication Initiative

*Center for Science of Information (CSoI), an NSF Science and Technology Center

*Check Point Institute for Information Security

*U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

*Air Force Research Laboratory

*European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme

*Israeli Centers of Research Excellence I-CORE program

*Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology

*The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust

*Office of Naval Research

*Simons Foundation

*Skolkovo Foundation 

Libertarians especially, with their philosophical antipathy toward state monopoly that central banking epitomizes have been among the most vigorous supporters of cryptocurrency development and use. This is accentuated by the fact that traditional markets for “hard money” investment such as precious metals are likewise subject to heavy manipulation by the same or allied central banking outlets.

Yet one would be hard-pressed to come up with a greater illustration of centralized state power than the array of interests listed above. Indeed, the involvement of such actors in developing the “next Bitcoin » should be recognized vis-a-vis the Western financial community’s continued advocacy for the drastic reduction of conventional central bank-issued currency from circulation (i.e. here, here, here, here and here).

In theory Zerocash differs from Bitcion in that it represents a bolstered technology for anonymous transactions veiled from third party scrutiny. According to the mechanics such transactions may be viewed and recorded by the specific parties who obtains proper authorization. What if a Trojan Horse capability could be engineered into the currency that might later be utilized by lettered agencies?

This is the greatest fear of those who rightly question the loss of tangible exchange. Further, such a development would defeat ZeroCash’s desirability and purpose. By dismissing the possibility of such a feature Zcash users implicitly rely on the integrity of the developers themselves, most of whom are junior faculty or graduate students whose research, as noted, is at least partly funded by such deep state actors.

Many Bitcoin enthusiasts regard cryptocurrencies as a sort of deus ex machina against the state. Along these lines, Zerocash’s institutional and scholarly veneer cloaks the more complex grant-generating interests lurking in the shadows.

Recently even strong advocates of Bitcoin have pondered if the financial medium may have been developed with direct or indirect participation of the intelligence community. In the case of Zcash there can be no doubt of such deep state interest and involvement, which is of no small concern as the world moves toward a seemingly inevitable “cashless society. »

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur ZeroCash: A Cryptocurrency’s Deep State Ties
  • Tags: ,

La guerre froide 2.0 a atteint des niveaux hystériques sans précédent. Et pourtant une guerre chaude n’est pas sur le point d’éclater – ni avant ni après l’élection présidentielle américaine du 8 novembre.

Depuis la (cash) machine Clinton – soutenue par un groupe de cercles de réflexion néocons / néolibérauxcons – jusqu’à l’establishment britannique et à ses porte-parole des médias de masse, les – autoproclamés – leaders du monde libre anglo-américains font chauffer la diabolisation de la Russie et du Poutinisme jusqu’à un point d’incandescence pure.

The latest developments in the world indicate an ever-increasing level of confrontation that is even worse than during the Cold War, political analyst Vitaly Zhuravlev told Sputnik

 La situation internationale actuelle est «Plus lugubre» qu’au cours de la guerre froide © SPUTNIK / ALEXEY FILIPPOV 

Et pourtant, une guerre chaude n’est pas sur le point d’éclater – avant ou après l’élection présidentielle américaine du 8 novembre. Tant d’amoncellement de peur et de dégoût ne fait que voiler la réalité d’un bluff.

Commençons par la force d’intervention navale russe en Syrie, dirigée par le navire Amiral Kouznetsov officiellement désigné comme un «croiseur lourd porteur d’aéronefs [en fait un porte-avions, mais cette dénomination n’existe pas dans la marine russe, NdT], qui sera stationné en Méditerranée orientale au moins jusqu’en février 2017, en soutien des opérations contre toutes les espèces du djihadisme salafiste.

L’amiral Kouznetsov est entièrement équipé de systèmes anti-navires, de défense aérienne, d’artillerie et de lutte anti-sous-marine – et peut se défendre contre une vaste gamme de menaces, contrairement aux navires de l’OTAN.

Comme on pouvait s’y attendre, l’OTAN brode avec inquiétude racontant que «toute la Flotte du Nord», avec la flotte de la Baltique, est sur le chemin de la Méditerranée. Faux ! Ce n’est qu’une partie de la Flotte du Nord, et les navires de la flotte de la Baltique ne vont nulle part.

Le cœur de la question est que lorsque les capacités de cette force navale russe sont accouplées avec les systèmes de missiles S-300 / S-400 déjà déployés en Syrie, la Russie rivalisera, de facto, avec la puissance de feu de la Sixième Flotte américaine.

Pour couronner le tout, comme le montre clairement cette analyse militaire exhaustive, la Russie «a, de fait créé, sa propre zone d’exclusion aérienne sur la Syrie». La zone d’exclusion aérienne américaine, viscéralement promue par Hillary Clinton, «est maintenant impossible à réaliser». Cela devrait suffire à mettre en perspective l’impuissance transmuée en colère pure manifestée par le Pentagone et ses vassaux néocons.

Russian tactical group seen at Hmeymim aerodrome in Syria

 Les États-Unis «n’ont pas de meilleure option que de continuer à essayer de travailler avec la Russie» en Syrie © SPUTNIK / DMITRIY VINOGRADOV

Ajoutez à cela la guerre ouverte entre le Pentagone et la CIA sur le théâtre de guerre syrien, où le Pentagone soutient les Kurdes du YPG, qui ne sont pas nécessairement en faveur d’un changement de régime à Damas, alors que la CIA soutient l’armement des modérés, dont des rebelles liés à al-Qaïda et / ou infiltrés.

Considérant l’administration Obama des Trois pieds nickelés de la politique étrangère, les menaces américaines ont volé plus généreusement que la sanglante massue à écrabouiller les boîtes crâniennes de Negan dans la nouvelle saison de The Walking Dead. Le chef du Pentagone, Ash Carter, un néocon certifié, a menacé de conséquences, comme des frappes potentielles contre les forces de l’armée arabe syrienne pour «punir le régime» après que le Pentagone a lui-même brisé le cessez-le-feu Kerry/Lavrov. Le président Obama a pris son temps pour peser ses options. Et à la fin, il a reculé. Il appartiendra à la pratiquement élue – par l’ensemble de l’establishment américain – Hillary Clinton de prendre la décision fatale. Elle ne sera pas en mesure d’obtenir une zone d’exclusion aérienne – parce que la Russie le fait déjà. Et si elle décide de «punir le régime», Moscou a déjà télégraphié, via le porte-parole du ministère russe de la Défense, le major-général Igor Konachenkov, qu’il y aura très certainement des conséquences pour imposer une guerre chaude de l’ombre.

Sun Tzu ne fait pas la première frappe

Washington, bien sûr, se réserve une capacité nucléaire de première frappe, ce que Hillary Clinton appuie pleinement – Donald Trump ne le fait pas, et pour cela il est aussi diabolisé. Si nous permettons à l’hystérie actuelle d’aller littéralement jusqu’au nucléaire, alors nous devons considérer la question du système anti-missile S-500 – qui scelle efficacement l’espace aérien russe. Moscou ne l’admettra pas officiellement car cela déclencherait une course aux armements sans relâche.

Une source des renseignements américains ayant des liens étroits avec les Maîtres de l’Univers mais en même temps opposée à la Guerre froide 2.0 car elle est contre-productive ajoute la nuance nécessaire : «Les États-Unis ont perdu la course aux armements, dépensant des milliards de dollars dans des guerres sans valeur et sans fin en Afghanistan, en Irak, en Syrie, en Libye, et maintenant ils ne sont plus une puissance mondiale car ils ne peuvent pas se défendre – avec des missiles obsolètes, THAAD, Patriot et Aegis Land Based Balistic Defence System – contre les ICBM russes. Les Russes ont scellé leur espace aérien. Les Russes ont peut-être jusqu’à quatre générations d’avance sur nous.»

En outre, dans les profonds recoins de la planification de la guerre de l’ombre, le Pentagone sait, et le ministère de la Défense russe sait aussi, que dans le cas où un émule de Dr Folamour lancerait une attaque nucléaire préventive contre la Russie, la population russe serait protégée par un système de missiles défensifs – ainsi que par des abris anti-nucléaires dans les grandes villes. Les avertissements à la télévision russe n’ont pas manqué. La population saurait où aller si l’événement terrifiant d’une guerre nucléaire devait se produire.

Inutile d’ajouter que la terrible possibilité de la première frappe nucléaire, par les États-Unis, transforme tous ces jeux de guerre de l’OTAN en Europe de l’Est –  du genre Seconde Guerre mondiale – en une cascade de propagande sans signification.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and U.S. President Barack Obama

Il y a «un chemin vers la normalisation dans les relations entre les USA et la Russie» © SPUTNIK / ALEKSEY NIKOLSKYI

Alors, comment Moscou a-t-il planifié tout cela ? Selon la source de renseignement américaine, «ils ont retiré la quasi-totalité du budget militaire de leur budget fédéral déclaré, apaisant l’Occident en lui  faisant croire que la Russie ne pouvait pas se permettre une accumulation militaire massive et qu’il n’y avait rien à craindre car la Russie était finie comme puissance mondiale. Le budget [déclaré] militaire était à peu près rien, donc il n’y avait rien à craindre en ce qui concerne la CIA. Si Poutine avait montré publiquement son gigantesque accroissement militaire, l’Occident aurait pu prendre des mesures correctives immédiates, comme en 2014 en écrasant le prix du pétrole.»

Le résultat final révèle alors que le Pentagone n’est pas tout à fait préparé à une guerre chaude – même s’il menace et bluffe maintenant quotidiennement la Russie. «Comme Brzezinski l’a souligné, si tel est le cas, cela signifie que les États-Unis ont cessé d’être une puissance mondiale. Les États-Unis peuvent continuer à bluffer, mais ceux qui s’allient avec eux n’auront nulle part où aller si ce bluff est dénoncé, comme c’est le cas maintenant en Syrie.»

La source américaine du renseignement est inflexible : «L’une des plus grandes accumulations militaires dans l’Histoire a eu lieu juste sous le nez de la dirigeante de la Banque centrale russe Elvira Nabiullina et du ministère russe des Finances pendant que la CIA attendait l’effondrement de la Russie qu’ils considéraient comme inévitable. La CIA attendra éternellement que la Russie s’effondre. Cette manœuvre du KGB est du pur génie. Et démontre que la CIA, qui est tellement noyée par les entrées de données qu’elle ne peut pas connecter les points de la silhouette sur quelque sujet que ce soit, doit être complètement réorganisée. En outre, tout le système d’approvisionnement de l’armée des États-Unis doit également être réorganisé, car il ne pourra jamais suivre si de nouveaux programmes d’armes comme le F-35 prennent vingt ans à développer pour se retrouver obsolètes avant même d’entrer en service. Les Russes ont un programme quinquennal de développement pour chaque nouveau système d’armement et ils sont loin devant nous dans tous les domaines clés.»

Si cette analyse est correcte, elle va à l’encontre des estimations russes les meilleures et les plus précises, selon lesquelles son potentiel militaire est peut-être fort, asymétrique, mais encore bien inférieur à la puissance militaire américaine.

Les analystes occidentaux bien informés savent que Moscou ne se vante jamais de ses avancée militaires – et a maîtrisé l’élément de surprise à la perfection. Beaucoup plus que de dénoncer un bluff, ce sont les tactiques de Sun Tzu employées par Moscou qui cliquettent bruyamment à Washington.

Pepe Escobar

 

Article original en anglais :  Russia Calls the War Party’s Bluff, Sputnik News, le 25 octobre 2016

Traduit et édité par jj, relu par Cat pour le Saker Francophone

Pepe Escobar est l’auteur de Globalistan : How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues : a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009), Empire of Chaos (Nimble Books) et le petit dernier, 2030, traduit en français.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur La Russie dénonce le bluff du parti de la guerre aux US

Hillary Rodham Clinton nous donne l’impression ces derniers temps que plus on la secoue, plus il en sort de nouveaux scandales. Nous avions déjà les scandales de Mena, Arkansas, là où son mari, «Bubba», était aussi connu en tant que William («Bill») Jefferson Clinton, Procureur général et ensuite Gouverneur. Ambrose Evans Pritchard, le fameux journaliste d’investigation du Telegraph britannique, produisit une documentation magistrale au sujet de la vie secrète de Bill Clinton, quand Bill était président et faisait face à une menace d’impeachment dans les années 1990 [1. The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, Regnery Publishing, 1997]. Il y eut ensuite les scandales de la Fondation Clinton, documentés dans le livre de Peter Schweitzer en 2015 : L’argent des Clinton : l’histoire non racontée de comment les gouvernements étrangers et autres affairistes aidèrent à rendre Bill et Hillary riches [2. Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich],  racontant la façon dont Hillary abusa de son poste de Secrétaire d’État pour orienter d’énormes «donations» de la part des saoudiens et consorts vers la Fondation Clinton au Conseil de laquelle elle siégeait, à peine venait-elle de quitter son poste de Secrétaire d’État. Il y a évidemment le scandale de son serveur de courriels relevant de la sécurité nationale, qu’un procureur général corrompu et un autre directeur du FBI aussi corrompu ont fini par escamoter en douce. Mais le dernier scandale en date relègue tous les autres à l’arrière-plan. Il s’agit du refus de Hillary de rendre public ses antécédents médicaux, détaillant ses prises de traitement et son véritable état de santé, des suites de sa commotion cérébrale de 2012. La candidate démocrate semble en effet souffrir médicalement d’une démence irréversible.

Le 8 août 2016, un blogueur et animateur d’une radio du New Jersey a divulgué ce qu’il alléguait être des copies ayant fuité des antécédents médicaux d’Hillary Clinton datant de 2014, provenant de sa doctoresse, Lisa Bardack, du Groupe Médical du Mt. Kisco, sis au nord de l’État de New York. D’après ces documents, le Dr. Bardack écrivit que Clinton souffrait de l’«apparition d’une démence vasculaire subcorticale», apparue après sa sérieuse commotion cérébrale dont elle souffrit des suites d’une chute lorsqu’elle était Secrétaire d’État, le 7 décembre 2012. Après cette chute, elle passa six mois en soins hospitaliers constants, d’après Bill Clinton qui révéla à ABC News en 2014 que cette blessure «nécessita six mois de traitement très sérieux afin de s’en remettre». Le 1er février 2013, la Secrétaire d’État et future candidate à la Présidence Hillary Clinton, démissionna abruptement de son poste de Secrétaire d’État, sans qu’il soit fait mention de son état de santé.

En mai 2014, ABC News citait l’extrait suivant provenant de ses docteurs, dont l’un d’eux était en effet le Dr. Lisa Bardack : «À l’occasion d’une IRM de suivi routinier ce dimanche, l’analyse a révélé […] un caillot dans la veine qui se trouve dans l’espace entre le cerveau et le crâne derrière l’oreille droite. Il n’a pas donné lieu à un accident vasculaire cérébral, ni à des dommages neurologiques. Pour aider à dissoudre ce caillot, son équipe médicale a commencé à traiter la Secrétaire d’État avec des anticoagulants.» – Dr Lisa Bardack, Groupe Médical du Mt. Kisco, et Dr Gigi El-Bayoumi, Université George Washington 1.

D’après l’Institut National de la Santé de Bethesda, Maryland, la démence vasculaire [ischémique] sous-corticale [DVISC] «est une maladie dégénérative ; il n’y a pas de remède. Les symptômes comprennent l’oubli, les changements dans la parole, une démarche instable, la maladresse ou des chutes fréquentes, des changements de personnalité ou de l’humeur». Or la candidate Clinton a été filmée trébuchant et tombant fréquemment sans raison apparente, par les médias au cours des dernières semaines. Elle apparaît souvent sur le podium avec un homme dont la fonction semble d’être là au cas où elle perdrait l’équilibre. La copie de l’examen de suivi du 5 février 2014 par le Dr Bardack, si elle est authentique, affirme que Mme Clinton lui a rapporté à elle que les «trous de mémoire, étourdissements et contractions incontrôlables ont empiré […] les scores de la patiente se sont significativement détériorés dans le test d’aujourd’hui, par rapport au test de 2013 […] la patiente montre aussi des signes plus fréquents de crises épileptiques complexes».

La Centre Clinique Lou Ruvo pour la santé mentale de Cleveland, un centre renommé mondialement pour ses recherches sur Alzheimer et d’autres maladies du cerveau, définit la DVISC comme suit : «Aussi appelée la maladie de Binswanger, elle est causée par des zones microscopiques mais répandues de dommages au cerveau, résultant d’épaississement et de rétrécissement (athérosclérose) des artères qui irriguent les régions sous-corticales du cerveau»2.

À présent, le 17 août, le quartier général de la campagne de Clinton a rendu publique une déclaration alléguée comme étant celle du Dr. Bardack, et fournie au site FactCheck.org [vérification des faits]. Dans cette déclaration, la Dr. Bardack est citée, déclarant que les documents de santé fuités ne sont pas authentiques, ajoutant qu’ils sont«faux, n’ont pas été écrits par moi et ne sont basés sur aucun fait médical»3

Malgré le degré de gravité des problèmes de santé d’une candidate qui deviendrait possiblement la prochaine Présidente américaine, il n’est pas satisfaisant que la déclaration ayant été produite par la campagne de Clinton pour le site FactCheck.org n’ait pas été rendue publique directement par la Dr Bardack elle-même, afin de dissiper toute rumeur. À présent cette dernière se refuse à répondre aux questions de la presse. Dès lors, les dénégations citées ne sont pas du tout suffisantes, étant donnés les enjeux extrêmement élevés pour la Nation et le monde. Quelle que soit la vérité quant à ce rapport médical du Dr Bardack allégué comme étant une fuite, il demeure indéniable que Clinton a été filmée de manière répétée durant la campagne, trébuchante et tombante. Un mauvais équilibre est généralement associé en effet, à des accidents vasculaires cérébraux [AVC] ou à des traumatismes crâniens. 4 A-t-elle subi un accident vasculaire cérébral en décembre 2012 qui aurait pu provoquer sa chute et engendrer par suite une commotion cérébrale, ou bien serait-ce la commotion cérébrale qui aurait pu provoquer l’AVC ? Est-ce que ses sévères et fréquentes quintes de toux sont le résultat des médicaments contre ces attaques épileptiques ? Si oui, de quels types sont-elles ?

Est également significatif l’article réalisé par le site d’information en ligne, Infowars,mené par le journaliste Paul Joseph Watson, rapportant une information fournie par son associé lors de la récente Convention nationale républicaine de Cleveland par un «lanceur d’alerte» au sein des services secrets, qui aurait déclaré, sur la base d’observations réalisées par d’autres agents des services secrets à l’occasion de la campagne de Clinton :

  • Hillary souffre d’une très sérieuse dégénérescence neurologique qui pourrait être la maladie de Parkinson.
  • Autour d’un demi million de dollars a été dépensé afin d’adapter trois véhicules spéciaux pour les voyages de Hillary, afin de fournir des planchers surbaissés et des accès modifiés l’empêchant de trébucher.
  • L’équipe de Hillary est tellement fébrile à tenter d’éloigner les journalistes le plus possible de Clinton, parce qu’elle est soumise au risque d’attaques épileptiques déclenchées par les flashs des caméras.
  • Hillary souffre de problèmes majeurs d’équilibre, de difficultés de marche et ne cesse de tomber.
  • La campagne de Hillary va être forcée de faire une importante annonce bientôt, au sujet de sa condition médicale 5.

Ceci a été rapporté sur le site Internet d’Infowars le 15 août. Deux jours plus tard, ce n’était pas le Dr. Bardack mais [le personnel de] campagne de Clinton qui produisait les dénégations alléguées concernant l’authenticité des documents de santé fuités. S’agissait-il là de l’annonce majeure que l’on attendait ? Si c’est le cas, elle semblerait bien pauvre.

Que révèlent alors les vraies pièces attribuées au Dr. Bardack ? Que signifient, quant à sa condition de santé, les rapports concernant les antécédents médicaux de Hillary Rodham Clinton, lorsqu’elle dut passer les six mois en traitement intensif, rapportés par les médias dans le centre médical de l’Université de Columbia, à New York ? Et quel traitement prend-elle aujourd’hui, le cas échéant ? Est-ce qu’elle est encore sous anticoagulants ? Des antidépresseurs ? De l’aspirine ? Si c’est le cas, lesquels et à quelle dose, ces informations devant servir à des experts médicaux compétents susceptibles de commenter les risques réels de santé qui pèsent sur Hillary.

Il est en tout cas clair qu’un candidat à un poste public, et spécialement pour le plus haut poste de la nation, n’est plus vraiment dans ce cas une personne privée. Elle a la responsabilité de se montrer transparente quant à sa condition médicale réelle. Jusqu’à présent, Hillary Clinton l’a refusé. Ce n’est pas uniquement irresponsable, c’est alarmant, c’est même effrayant. Les médias de gauche PC 6/ Politiquement Corrects.] aux États-Unis n’évoquent pas ces enjeux de façon sérieuse. Nous avons le droit d’accéder à une analyse complète et non biaisée de son état de santé et de ses traitements médicaux. Elle est candidate à la Présidence américaine, c’est-à-dire qu’elle va avoir le doigt sur le bouton nucléaire. Elle n’est pas en train de concourir pour le Conseil municipal de Mt. Kisco ou pour la présidence d’une association locale de parents-profs. Si son propre mari a été capable de déclarer aux médias en 2014 qu’elle avait souffert d’une «terrible concussion qui avait nécessité six mois de traitement très sérieux pour en venir à bout», il ne s’agit pas là d’un événement mineur.

F. William Engdahl

Article original en anglais :

A Brain-damaged US President with Finger on the Nuclear Button?, New Eastern Outlook, 24 août 2016

Traduit par Jean Maxime Corneille, vérifié par Wayan, relu par Catherine  pour le Saker Francophone

  1. Ibid 
  2. Ibid. NdT : voir ici «Les démences vasculaires», Bull. Acad. Natle Méd., 2012, 196, no 2, 409-430, séance du 21 février 2012. 
  3. Ibid 
  4. NdT : détresse neurologique dans les deux cas. À défaut, ce pourrait être des troubles de l’oreille interne, mais qui ne produiraient pas des symptômes proches de la crise d’épilepsie et autre pertes de mémoire, de connaissance et autre phénomène de désorientation (typique des détresses neurologiques). 
  5.   Traduit en français ici  : Le comportement étrange d’Hillary Clinton – Info ou intox du camp Trump ? (E&R, 8 août 2016) ; voir aussi Karma imprévu : Le Système sera-t-il «victime» de la santé déclinante d’Hillary ? (Chroniques de la Vieille République, 8 août 2016). 
  6. Principaux Courants [Mainstream 
  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Une présidente américaine au cerveau endommagé, le doigt sur le bouton nucléaire ?

La fuite continue de scandales émanant de Wikileaks et impliquant le couple Clinton semble avoir fait perdre la majeure partie de sa crédibilité à Hillary Clinton qui se retrouverait en cas de victoire, de plus en plus improbable, à l’élection présidentielle en position de justiciable potentielle et privée de légitimité.

La réouverture de l’enquête du FBI concernant le serveur de mails privé de Mme Clinton s’est ainsi traduite par un décrochement spectaculaire de la candidate démocrate dans les dernières enquêtes d’opinion. Ce énième scandale impliquant l’ancienne secrétaire d’Etat semble avoir achevé d’écœurer une partie de l’électorat américain.

Un sondage d’ABC / Washington Post, connus pour être des soutiens d’Hillary, publié mardi, c’est à dire après la divulgation de la réouverture de l’enquête du FBI, donne pour la première fois Donald Trump gagnant avec 46% des intentions de vote au niveau national contre 45% pour Hillary Clinton. L’échantillon du sondage d’ABC présente de plus une surreprésentation démocrate, ce qui laisse supposer que l’avance réelle de Donald Trump pourrait raisonnablement être plus conséquente…

Le même renversement de tendance s’observe dans les « swing states » qui font traditionnellement basculer l’élection. Selon l’institut Real Clear Politics, au 1er novembre, Trump devance Clinton de plus de neuf points dans le Missouri, d’un point en Floride, de quatre points en Géorgie, de presque un point en Caroline du nord, de plus de deux points dans l’Ohio, de plus d’un point en Arizona ainsi que dans l’Iowa. Il est à égalité avec la candidate démocrate dans le Névada. Au total, Trump est ainsi donné gagnant dans sept des seize « swing states » contre huit pour Hillary Clinton…

Plus inquiétant pour la candidate de Wall Street et des médias, la courbe de tendance des intentions de vote en faveur de la candidate démocrate dans les Etats susceptibles de basculer pour l’un ou l’autre camp, montre un véritable plongeon.

Le staff de campagne d’Hillary Clinton a ainsi réagi en mode panique à l’annonce de la réouverture de l’enquête concernant son serveur de mails privé, dénonçant une manœuvre « politique » visant à influencer l’élection de la part du directeur du FBI James Comey, relayé par une partie du département de la justice. L’ancien procureur général Eric Holder l’a ainsi accusé de vouloir « jeter le discrédit » sur la candidate démocrate et le Département de la justice, relayé par de nombreux procureurs fédéraux. Pourtant, selon le Daily mail, citant une source « proche de James Comey », sa décision aurait été motivée par le fait : « qu’il ne pouvait plus résister aux pressions venant des agents du FBI et de ses principaux adjoints », elle aurait donc été largement contrainte.

Selon la même source : « l’atmosphère était devenue toxique au FBI depuis que Jim avait annoncé en Juillet qu’il ne recommanderait pas de poursuites à l’encontre d’Hillary ». Il semble donc que, plus que la décision d’un homme, la réouverture de l’enquête concernant le serveur de mails d’Hillary Clinton soit l’aboutissement de pressions d’une partie de l’appareil de renseignement US opposé au « système de corruption » mis en place par le couple Clinton. C’est ce qu’affirme Steve Pieczenik dans une vidéo publiée par divers sites américains.

Pieczenik fut l’assistant du secrétaire d’Etat américain d’Henry Kissinger ; il a occupé les fonctions de sous-secrétaire adjoint sous les administrations Ford, Carter, Reagan, et Bush; il fut également membre du Council of Foreign Relationsjusqu’en 2012. En 2014, il fut accusé par les magistrats italiens enquêtant sur l’assassinat de l’ancien premier ministre Aldo Moro, d‘avoir été directement impliqué dans son élimination. Il semble ainsi avoir joué un rôle de premier plan au sein des services et de la communauté du renseignement US, une des composantes essentielles du « Deep state ». Il déclare aujourd’hui que les révélations de Wikileaks sur le couple Clinton ont été fournies à l’organisation par une partie de la communauté du renseignement US, et qu’il s’agit d’un « contre coup d’état » qui répond au système de corruption mis en place par le couple Clinton. Selon lui, les Clinton ont ainsi réalisé un « coup d’état silencieux » en utilisant la corruption et la co-optation, comme je l’avais exposé dans un précédent article à propos du système de collusion mis en place par le staff de campagne d’Hillary Clinton avec les médias mainstream.

assange WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange © Peter Nicholls / Reuters

Julian Assange © Peter Nicholls / Reuters

Selon Pieczenik, le système de collusion mis en place par le couple Clinton, pour ce qui concerne les Etats-Unis, touche également le système judiciaire et les grandes agences de renseignement, CIA et FBI. Il cite à ce propos nommément son directeur James Comey. Pieczenik déclare ainsi qu’une partie de la communauté du renseignement s’est organisée en conséquence de manière à réaliser un « contre coup d’état », par l’intermédiaire de Julian Assange et Wikileaks auxquels elle a fourni ses informations. Le degré de corruption et de perversité du système et du couple Clinton a été l’élément déclencheur de ce « contre coup d’état » destiné à « sauver la république ». Il s’agit selon Pieczenik, d’une « seconde révolution américaine » engagée par des « vétérans » et une partie de l’appareil de renseignement US contre un pouvoir qui à leurs yeux a dépassé toutes les bornes de la corruption et de la compromission, notamment par l’intermédiaire de la fondation Clinton.

Voilà peut-être ce qui explique, malgré l’engagement massif des médias en faveur de la candidate démocrate, d’où Donald Trump tire l’assurance et l’aplomb avec lesquels il ne cesse de dénoncer la corruption du couple Clinton, allant jusqu’à affirmer que toute victoire d’Hillary serait entachée de fraude électorale.

Une partie du « Deep State » semble avoir lâché Hillary et s’être engagée de tout son poids pour lui barrer la route à la présidence. Si un « coup d’état silencieux » est bien engagé aux Etats-Unis à l’occasion de l’élection présidentielle, les semaines à venir seront sans nul doute historiques.

Guillaume Borel 

 

Guillaume Borel, documentaliste, analyste politique, est l’auteur de l’ouvrage Le travail, histoire d’une idéologieÉditions Utopia: 2015. Il s’intéresse aux questions de macro-économie, à la géopolitique et aux questions de propagande et d’intoxications médiatiques.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Wikileaks, bras armé d’un « coup d’état » silencieux aux USA?

Régis Le Sommier face à Élisabeth Guigou – Capture d’écran 

Régis Le Sommier face à Élisabeth Guigou : des vérités dérangeantes pour l’État français

Récemment, dans l’émission Ça vous regarde de LCP, le grand reporter Régis Le Sommier s’est risqué à évoquer ouvertement la politique clandestine de la France en Syrie, suscitant l’indignation puis le déni de cette influente parlementaire. En effet, le directeur adjoint de Paris Match – qui revient d’Alep-Ouest en rapportant que sa population subit quotidiennement les attaques de l’opposition –, a déclaré durant cette émission avoir « du mal à comprendre avec le gouvernement français [ce que l’on] va chercher comme rebelles [à soutenir]. La plupart des rebelles modérés sont partis avec les Turcs [pour les] aider dans leur offensive contre les Kurdes », soulignant que les combattants retranchés à Alep-Est sont donc « essentiellement des islamistes ». Lorsqu’Élisabeth Guigou confirma ce fait, elle avança que la radicalisation des rebelles était due aux actions militaires du gouvernement syrien et de ses alliés. Régis Le Sommier lui répondit que ces opposants extrémistes étaient financés par « l’argent de l’Arabie saoudite et puis aussi aidés par les Français, quelque part. Voilà. Cette radicalisation, en leur donnant des armes en plus, en leur permettant de mener une lutte jusqu’au bout, on a quand même largement favorisé cette guerre civile syrienne, dont on est [co-]responsable, et dont on paye les conséquences avec le flux de réfugiés aujourd’hui ». Cette prise de position de Régis Le Sommier tranche avec les opinions de la majorité des journalistes français, qui désignent fréquemment Bachar el-Assad et ses alliés comme les principaux responsables du désastre syrien, et qui refoulent l’implication clandestine de l’État français et de ses alliés occidentaux dans ce conflit.

Manifestement indignée par ces propos, Élisabeth Guigou déplora inexplicablement que « l’on saute au Yémen ! » Régis Le Sommier lui répondit qu’il ne parlait pas du conflit yéménite, mais bel et bien de la guerre en Syrie, rappelant que « nos alliés » d’Arabie saoudite avaient « largement mis [leurs] mains dans la guerre civile syrienne en armant les rebelles, c’est une réalité ». Après s’être agacée du fait qu’on lui coupait la parole, Élisabeth Guigou démentit les arguments de Régis Le Sommier, en prétendant que l’État français n’« est pas là à chercher des [rebelles à aider], à soutenir un camp contre l’autre ; on est là à chercher la paix, et chercher la paix, on ne demande qu’une chose, c’est qu’il puisse y avoir à la fois un dialogue, mais un dialogue responsable, et qu’on arrête les bombardements, et qu’on ait un cessez-le-feu, et qu’on aille sortir ces malheureux [civils d’Alep-Est], et qu’on organise des couloirs humanitaires, et évidemment que les discussions (…) doivent aussi avoir lieu avec Monsieur Poutine, mais encore faut-il qu’il soit ouvert à la discussion, et malheureusement, malheureusement, ça ne se passe pas comme ça ».

Derrière le déni de Madame Guigou, le jeu trouble de la France vis-à-vis des rebelles en Syrie

Dans cet argumentaire, Élisabeth Guigou a omis quelques réalités dérangeantes qu’il semble nécessaire de rappeler. Tout d’abord, elle nia le fait que le gouvernement français appuie « un camp contre l’autre » dans le conflit syrien. Pourtant, François Hollande a lui-même reconnu en août 2014 qu’il avait ordonné à ses services d’armer ce qu’il nomma la « rébellion syrienne démocratique », malgré le risque avéré que ces armements tombent entre de mauvaises mains. En décembre 2015, l’auteur de ces lignes avait interrogé le député LR et ancien juge antiterroriste Alain Marsaud sur la politique clandestine de la France en Syrie. Ce dernier avait alors déclaré sans ambages qu’« il n’est pas sérieusement contesté qu’à un moment ou un autre l’État français a facilité les actions d’al-Nosra qui, je vous le rappelle, est une filiale d’al-Qaïda [en Syrie]. J’ai eu l’occasion de montrer à l’Assemblée Nationale des photos de combattants d’al-Nosra en possession de fusils d’assaut français. Il n’y avait bien évidemment aucune volonté du gouvernement français de voir mis en évidence une telle collaboration avec un groupe terroriste. Ainsi fut rejetée toute idée d’enquête parlementaire. » Récemment interrogé sur cette question, le député PS Gérard Bapt me confirma un « soutien clandestin de l’État français en faveur des différentes mouvances islamistes en Syrie, au regard de la porosité et de la proximité entre ces groupes alliés sur le terrain. Or, l’aide française aux rebelles en Syrie, et plus généralement le soutien occidental en leur faveur, se sont poursuivis y compris après les attentats contre Charlie Hebdo et l’Hyper Casher, pourtant revendiqués par al-Qaïda. »

En décembre 2012, le ministre des Affaires étrangères français Laurent Fabius relaya les arguments des alliés pétromonarchiques de la France, déclarant que le Front al-Nosra faisait du « bon boulot sur le terrain », alors que le Département d’État plaçait cette milice sur la liste onusienne des organisations terroristes. Cette démarche de la diplomatie américaine était en totale contradiction avec la politique clandestine de la CIA et de ses partenaires occidentaux et proche-orientaux, qui soutenaient depuis janvier 2012 le Front al-Nosra en Syrie, c’est-à-dire bien avant le déclenchement de l’opération Timber Sycamore au printemps 2013. Relayée par le journal Le Monde, cette déclaration stupéfiante du locataire du Quai d’Orsay sur le « bon boulot » de la branche syrienne d’al-Qaïda ne fut pas reprise dans la presse francophone. Elle avait été prononcée par Laurent Fabius alors que l’État Islamique d’Irak (EII), qui allait s’autoproclamer « califat » en juin 2014 après la prise de Mossoul, faisait partie intégrante d’al-Nosra. En avril 2013, cette organisation et l’EII décidèrent de se séparer à l’issue d’une importante rencontre entre commandants jihadistes. L’EII se rebaptisa alors « EIIL » (État Islamique en Irak et au Levant), et absorba la grande majorité des combattants, des armes, des munitions, de la logistique et des centres de commandement du Front al-Nosra dans le Nord de la Syrie. De ce fait, le soutien clandestin d’al-Nosra par les services spéciaux occidentaux et leurs alliés proche-orientaux a favorisé la montée en puissance du futur « État Islamique » dans le conflit syrien – un risque anticipé en 2012 par le Renseignement militaire du Pentagone (DIA).

En mars 2016, le magazine Marianne révéla que la direction de la prospective du Quai d’Orsay avait, dès octobre 2012, alerté le ministre des Affaires étrangères et l’Élysée sur le fait que l’Arabie saoudite et le Qatar finançaient les groupes extrémistes en Syrie – ce qui vient d’être confirmé par des propos d’Hillary Clinton rendus publics par Wikileaks. Dans une note qui fut ignorée par leur hiérarchie, ces experts du Quai d’Orsay soulignèrent que le « piège [venait] du Golfe », et que « nous [risquions] d’y tomber ». Finalement, à partir de 2014, plusieurs députés de l’opposition accusèrent le gouvernement français d’avoir soutenu le Front al-Nosra, rappelant qu’il s’agissait de la branche d’al-Qaïda dans le conflit syrien. Au vu de la gravité de ces allégations, on aurait pu s’attendre à un scandale national. Il n’en fut rien, les médias français n’ayant pas repris ces arguments. Présidente de la Commission des Affaires étrangères de l’Assemblée Nationale depuis juin 2012, Élisabeth Guigou pouvait-elle ignorer ces politiques clandestines ? Contactée durant l’écriture de cet article, la députée n’a pas répondu à ma sollicitation.

Embargo en Syrie, guerre au Yémen, bataille de Mossoul : le moralisme français n’est pas crédible

Durant ce débat télévisé sur LCP, d’autres vérités dérangeantes ont été passées sous silence par Élisabeth Guigou. Cette dernière, à l’instar du gouvernement français, persiste à nier le réel et à mener une diplomatie moraliste et manichéenne qui met en péril nos relations avec la Russie, un acteur incontournable dans le conflit syrien, un important fournisseur de gaz pour l’Europe et une puissance nucléaire stratégique. Or, ce positionnement irrationnel nécessite d’entretenir l’illusion d’un État français irréprochable, donc de dissimuler le fait que le gouvernement soutient non seulement des islamistes en Syrie – comme nous venons de le rappeler –, mais également une guerre illégale frappant les civils yéménites depuis le printemps 2015, ainsi qu’une véritable guerre économique contre le peuple syrien. En effet, le site TheIntercept.com a récemment dévoilé un rapport interne de l’ONU démontrant que les sanctions unilatérales des pays de l’Union Européenne et des États-Unis contre la Syrie punissent collectivement la population. En effet, ces mesures bloquent ou complexifient l’accès aux médicaments, au carburant ou à des équipements susceptibles de réparer les infrastructures détruites par la guerre – dont les hôpitaux, les stations d’épuration ou les centrales électriques. Considérant la sévérité de ces sanctions approuvées par l’État français – qui d’après ce rapport perturbent grandement les opérations humanitaires de l’ONU et des ONG dans ce conflit –, les préoccupations du gouvernement vis-à-vis du sort de la population syrienne semblent toutes relatives.

L’implication clandestine de l’armée et des services de renseignement français dans la guerre au Yémen suscite la même impression déplaisante. En effet, comme l’a souligné Régis Soubrouillard en avril 2015, le Pentagone, la Direction du Renseignement Militaire (DRM) et la DGSE aident l’Arabie saoudite à planifier ses bombardements et à sélectionner ses cibles, notamment au moyen de renseignements satellitaires. Citant un article du Canard Enchaîné, mais ne mentionnant pas le rôle des Britanniques dans ce conflit, Régis Soubrouillard a rapporté que « les “militaires américains supervisent cette guerre en tant qu’associés”, (…) les opérations [étant] supervisées par le CENTCOM, qui pilote toutes les opérations américaines dans le Moyen-Orient et en Asie centrale. » Il ajouta que, « selon la lettre Intelligence online, “les services de renseignement français ont ouvert en grand les vannes des transferts de renseignement pour soutenir l’opération ‘Tempête décisive’ au Yémen. La Direction du Renseignement Militaire (DRM) et la DGSE ont ainsi reçu l’ordre express de l’Élysée de soutenir par tous les moyens l’offensive de Riyad contre les rebelles houthis ». La « coalition arabe » est donc une expression qui masque, intentionnellement ou non, le rôle central des gouvernements américain, français et britannique dans cette guerre aux conséquences humanitaires désastreuses – notamment en termes d’accès à l’eau potable.

En effet, comme l’a rapporté Amnesty International en février dernier, « j’ai été témoin de ce que les Yéménites endurent – voir des corps tirés des décombres à Sanaa ou des restes humains parmi les gravats jonchant le site d’une station d’épuration visée par une frappe aérienne à Hajja [,] ou assister à une réception de mariage qui se transforme en funérailles ». En janvier 2016, l’UNICEF expliquaitque « les enfants représentent au moins la moitié des 2,3 millions de personnes déplacées de leur foyer, et au moins la moitié des 19 millions de personnes qui s’efforcent chaque jour de trouver de l’eau potable ; (…) Les services publics de santé, d’eau et d’assainissement ont été décimés et ne peuvent pas répondre aux besoins toujours croissants d’une population désespérée. » Ainsi, des millions de civils yéménites subissent les conséquences des bombardements massifs d’infrastructures civiles par la coalition « arabe ». Ces opérations militaires aggravent le manque chronique d’eau potable au Yémen, ce qui engendre des épidémies de maladies diarrhéiques et de choléra.

Le blocus de la coalition « arabe » et le pilonnage délibéré des fermes et de l’industrie agricole yéménites constituent également un problème majeur dans ce pays, « plus de la moitié des 28 millions de Yéménites [étant] à court de nourriture [, avec] les enfants (…) en première ligne ». Selon l’UNICEF, 3 millions de personnes ont besoin d’une aide alimentaire immédiate, et 1,5 million d’enfants souffrent de malnutrition. Avec la reprise des opérations de la coalition « arabe » en août dernier, il est difficile d’être optimiste sur l’issue d’une guerre totale qui, contrairement au conflit syrien, attire nettement moins l’attention des citoyens et des médias français. Or, selon le spécialiste du Moyen-Orient Mathieu Guidère, « le Yémen est en train de devenir une nouvelle Syrie ». Dans un tel contexte, le quasi-silence du Quai d’Orsay et de l’Élysée sur la guerre au Yémen est compréhensible, la France étant discrètement impliquée dans le soutien de la coalition « arabe » aux côtés de nos alliés américains et britanniques, tout en aidant clandestinement des rebelles islamistes dans le conflit syrien en coordination avec les principaux services secrets occidentaux et proche-orientaux. Parallèlement, la reconquête de Mossoul par les forces locales et les puissances de l’OTAN a été lancée le 16 octobre, l’ONU craignant « une crise humanitaire sans précédent » et de lourdes pertes humaines au sein de la population. Ces risques ne dissuadent aucunement l’État français d’engager notre armée dans ces opérations en Irak, tout en dénonçant des bombardements à Alep-Est qui ont pourtant le même objectif qu’à Mossoul : libérer une grande métropole d’une force d’occupation islamiste.

Face au risque d’escalade militaire globale, la lucidité diplomatique doit s’imposer

La France étant donc loin d’être irréprochable sur la scène internationale, il faudrait abandonner cette « émodiplomatie » qui n’est pas crédible, qui est souvent contraire à nos intérêts nationaux, qui accentue dangereusement les tensions Est-Ouest, et qui ne suffit plus à dissimuler l’engagement inavouable de l’État français dans des guerres par procuration au Yémen et en Syrie. Et si des « bavures » sont perpétrées par la coalition durant la bataille de Mossoul, nos partenaires russes – dont le Président a exhorté les forces occidentales à épargner les civils irakiens –, accuseront à leur tour la France et ses alliés de commettre des crimes de guerre, amplifiant les tensions et les risques d’escalade militaire entre grandes puissances au Proche-Orient, voire au-delà.

Par conséquent, les dirigeants français et européens ne doivent plus céder à la russophobie excessive qui s’est imposée à Washington, et ainsi faire preuve de lucidité diplomatique. Ils devraient donc s’opposer à toutes nouvelles sanctions contre la Russie, et tenter de trouver des solutions constructives avec nos partenaires du Kremlin – comme lors des négociations ayant abouti aux accords de Minsk II. Ne décourageant point les ambitions géopolitiques de Vladimir Poutine, les sanctions frappant l’économie russe depuis 2014 devraient être abandonnées, du moins par l’Union Européenne. Ce revirement diplomatique pourrait enclencher un processus de désescalade, qui semble impératif dans le contexte actuel. En effet, nous observons chaque jour des tensions exacerbées entre la Russie et l’Occident, à tel point que le Financial Times, le Spiegel ou le ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères nous mettent en garde contre un risque réel de guerre mondiale. Pour ne citer qu’une seule de ces sources, les propos du chef de la diplomatie germanique sont alarmants : « C’est une illusion de croire qu’il s’agit de l’ancienne guerre froide. Les temps actuels sont différents, plus dangereux. (…) Le danger d’une confrontation militaire est considérable. Ce danger n’a jamais été aussi important depuis des décennies, et la confiance entre l’Ouest et l’Est jamais aussi faible ». Lorsque l’on observe la situation géopolitique mondiale, ce constat se traduit dans les faits, et la Russie est en train de préparer activement sa population à cette sinistre éventualité. Est-ce donc le temps du moralisme, des hésitations et des menaces diplomatiques irréalistes ? On peut légitimement en douter.

Maxime Chaix 

 

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Pourquoi l’« émodiplomatie » française n’est ni crédible, ni constructive

Collusion wahhabo-sioniste en vue !

novembre 4th, 2016 by Bruno Guigue

Mine de rien, une députée israélienne vient de découvrir le pot aux roses. Avec ingénuité, cette élue du parti de gauche « Meretz » a révélé que 122 militaires israéliens et américains étaient en activité sur une base aérienne saoudienne. Cette situation l’horrifie, dit-elle, car ces militaires sont inutilement exposés au « terrorisme saoudien » ! On ne sait s’il faut attribuer cette indignation à la candeur des sionistes de gauche ou à leur duplicité coutumière. Mais l’affaire a le mérite de lever le voile sur la collaboration militaire israélo-saoudienne au moment où l’Arabie saoudite est engagée dans une partie de bras de fer avec l’Iran.

Selon des sources citées par cette parlementaire, l’opération viserait à déployer un système antiaérien extrêmement performant sur le sol saoudien tout en consolidant le système antimissile israélien « Dôme de fer ». Un accord en ce sens aurait même été paraphé au cours de la visite de Barack Obama à Riyad en avril 2016. Ainsi, la Maison blanche ferait coup double. Les Saoudiens nourrissant à l’égard des missiles iraniens la même hantise que les Israéliens à l’égard de ceux du Hezbollah, l’Oncle Sam réunit ses deux alliés régionaux en les gratifiant des derniers joujoux du complexe militaro-industriel.

D’étranges conciliabules laissaient supposer que Riyad et Tel Aviv nouaient clandestinement un partenariat militaire malgré l’absence de relations officielles entre les deux pays. On se doutait bien que la non-reconnaissance d’Israël par la pétromonarchie préférée des Occidentaux n’était plus qu’un héritage suranné, lié à la grande époque de la « solidarité arabe » et voué par l’esprit du temps à finir aux oubliettes. De nombreux indices nourrissaient le soupçon d’une telle connivence, avivé par des convergences d’intérêt qui n’échappent à personne. Désormais, c’est fait. Un pas été franchi. La coopération entre Israël et les Saoud s’étale au grand jour avec la bénédiction américaine. Il faut d’ailleurs reconnaître que certains Saoudiens avaient anticipé ce rapprochement. Il suffit de rappeler les déclarations prémonitoires du prince Walid Ben Talal en octobre 2015.

Selon le quotidien koweïtien « Al Qabas », il déclara : « Je me rangerai du côté de la nation juive et de ses aspirations démocratiques dans le cas du déclenchement d’une Intifada palestinienne, et j’userai de toute mon influence pour briser les initiatives arabes sinistres visant à condamner Tel-Aviv, parce que je considère l’entente israélo-arabe et une future amitié comme nécessaire pour empêcher l’extension dangereuse de l’Iran ». On n’entendit guère les amis occidentaux d’Israël, à l’époque, se scandaliser de cette déclaration d’amour d’un coupeur de tête esclavagiste pour la « seule démocratie du Moyen-Orient » (si vous êtes un laïque européen) ou la « lumière des nations » (si vous êtes un puritain américain).

al_walid_ben_talal

Le prince Al-Walid BenTalal – DR.

Mais continuons avec le prince Walid. « Par conséquent, dit-il, l’Arabie Saoudite et Israël doivent renforcer leurs relations et former un front uni pour contrecarrer le programme ambitieux de Téhéran ». Fort logiquement, la République islamique d’Iran est en ligne de mire. Mais il y a plus. Le quotidien koweïtien « Al Qabas » précise que le prince Al-Walid BenTalal s’est exprimé lors d’une tournée régionale visant à obtenir un soutien pour les rebelles saoudiens présents en Syrie ». Cette ultime précision dévoile le fond de l’affaire. Car Washington, Riyad et Tel Aviv ont le même désir de provoquer la chute du président syrien. Les Saoudiens sont les sponsors officiels de ces hordes de mercenaires décérébrés dont raffolent les droit-de-l’hommistes. Mais Israël et les USA sont les bénéficiaires ultimes de cette tentative de destruction d’un Etat syrien qui a trois fâcheuses manies : il défend sa souveraineté, il soutient le Hezbollah et réclame la restitution du Golan.

Certains diront peut-être que les relations entre Riyad et Washington ne sont pas au beau fixe (on a beaucoup entendu ce discours depuis le 11 septembre 2001). Ils noteront que depuis la levée du veto présidentiel par le Congrès les familles des victimes du 11 septembre peuvent saisir la justice contre le pouvoir saoudien. Certes. Mais il ne faudrait pas nourrir des illusions démesurées sur la justice américaine. Les services secrets des deux pays étant mouillés jusqu’au cou, ils se couvriront mutuellement. Le tandem infernal qui a produit dans l’ombre les attentats du 11 septembre devrait traverser sans embûche cette péripétie judiciaire.

Entre les USA et l’Arabie saoudite, en réalité, la relation est structurelle, non conjoncturelle. Pétrole oblige ! La soif d’hydrocarbures en est le ressort historique. Mais ce n’est pas tout. Depuis 1945, la doctrine rétrograde de l’allié wahhabite présente aussi pour Washington un gage rassurant de conservatisme. Unis dans une même aversion pour les rêveries des partageux et une même envie de profit accumulé, le puritanisme anglo-saxon et le rigorisme wahhabite sont au diapason.

C’est pourquoi, devant la triple menace qui se profila à partir des années 50 (le communisme pro-soviétique, le nationalisme arabe, puis la révolution iranienne), Washington joua résolument la carte de l’obscurantisme religieux. Le wahhabisme mondialisé est une force de frappe idéologique, un redoutable « soft power », une formidable machine à décérébrer les masses musulmanes. L’impérialisme l’utilisa, à grande échelle, contre ces tentatives de développement autocentré qu’incarnèrent l’Egypte nassérienne, l’Algérie de Boumediene, l’Irak baasiste, la Libye de Khadafi, la République islamique d’Iran et la Syrie d’Al-Assad.

Rempart contre l’influence soviétique, antidote au nationalisme arabe progressiste, opportun concurrent de l’influence chiite : Washington prêta au radicalisme wahhabite toutes les vertus. En échange des livraisons de pétrole, il laissa le champ libre à Riyad, qui investit des sommes colossales dans la formation de centaines de milliers de prédicateurs obstinément littéralistes et crétinisés par un fanatisme obtus. Ces hordes de bavards prétentieux, obsédés par la lettre et fermés à l’esprit des textes, ont colporté depuis un demi-siècle une doctrine qui est une injure à la civilisation de l’Islam classique et un affront à la modernité éclairée par la raison. Cette propagande religieuse d’une imbécillité crasse, hélas, fut le vecteur insidieux d’une régression culturelle sans précédent.

Plus grave encore, le lavage de cerveau wahhabite a contribué au désarmement politique et idéologique du monde arabe. Il l’a affaibli face aux convoitises étrangères en frappant d’illégitimité, au nom d’un panislamisme réactionnaire, de jeunes Etats qui avaient l’audace de vouloir incarner un pouvoir souverain, moderne et séculier. La sauvage agression contre la Syrie, en réalité, est le dernier acte de cette conspiration de l’impérialisme occidental allié à l’obscurantisme wahhabite contre la souveraineté nationale arabe. Les pétromonarchies du Golfe ne sont pas seulement les bailleurs de fonds du terrorisme takfiriste (quand il frappe des musulmans) et djihadiste (quand il frappe des non-musulmans). Avec la bénédiction des puissances occidentales, elles fournissent à ces mercenaires sans foi ni loi leur dose quotidienne de stupéfiant idéologique. Elles leur inoculent cette haine toxique de la différence religieuse qui est au fondement de leur obscurantisme sectaire. Le wahhabisme, c’est le captagon des desperados du chaos.

Parce qu’il est logé par les hasards de la géologie sur une nappe d’hydrocarbures, ce régime qui devrait être aboli séance tenante par mesure de salubrité publique est un partenaire de premier plan pour Washington. Le complexe militaro-industriel abonde en armements dernier cri une dynastie dégénérée qui rêve les yeux ouverts de gloire militaire. Ne sachant que faire de leurs montagnes de pétrodollars, ces parasites jouisseurs goinfrés de pognon entrent massivement dans le capital des multinationales et placent leurs excédents de liquidités en bons du Trésor américain. Business is business ! Prêts à vendre leur mère pour amasser davantage, ces ploutocrates du désert communient avec ceux de Wall Street dans la même dévotion pour le dieu-dollar, ils se vautrent devant le Veau d’Or avec la même ferveur, sans doute persuadés d’être élus de Dieu, les uns et les autres, pour goûter tant de félicité terrestre.

Certes, vue des USA, l’Arabie saoudite rend bien des services. Mais Washington a une autre corde à son arc. Riyad n’occupe pas le sommet du podium. La fortune colossale accumulée par la finance new-yorkaise a créé une puissante oligarchie israélo-américaine. Pour cette caste richissime, Israël est beaucoup plus qu’un allié des Etats-Unis. C’est le miroir où la nation américaine contemple son modèle. Car Israël est le peuple élu dont l’Amérique reproduit l’épopée. L’Amérique est le second Israël voué à civiliser le Nouveau Monde en y répandant les bienfaits de la libre entreprise. Même croyance en une « destinée manifeste », même métaphysique de l’élection. Cette oligarchie prédatrice ne doute de rien. Elle attribue sa puissance à la faveur divine. Elle se croit choisie par Dieu pour guider les nations.

Dictée par le lobby pro-israélien, la politique extérieure des Etats-Unis sert donc les intérêts sionistes. L’immunité d’Israël est garantie par le droit de veto américain au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU. La colonisation israélienne, cette injure au droit des peuples, peut se poursuivre en toute impunité, réduisant en miettes ce qui reste de la Palestine. Barack Obama n’a rien fait pour la freiner. Avant de tirer sa révérence, il a pris la précaution d’accorder à Tel Aviv une aide militaire sans précédent de 38 milliards de dollars. Le résultat ne s’est pas fait attendre. Goldman Sachs a annoncé son soutien à Hillary Clinton. Les millions de dollars coulent à flots. Deux candidats se disputent le pouvoir comme des pantins désarticulés. Les docteur Folamour du Pentagone rêvent d’atomiser la Russie. En attendant, Wall Street encaisse ses dividendes par milliards de dollars.

Pour exercer sa domination au Moyen-Orient, l’impérialisme peut compter sur ses deux garde-chiourme. Leur coopération militaire est une divine surprise, une formidable aubaine. Israël est une force de frappe militaire dont la fonction est de soumettre la nation arabe. Ouvertement complice du projet sioniste, l’Arabie saoudite est une force de frappe idéologique dont la fonction est de débiliter les masses. La force militaire, l’argent sans limites, la puissance de l’idéologie qui formate les esprits. Le « hard power » au sionisme, le « soft power » au wahhabisme. En tout cas, c’est désormais officiel. Leur collusion au service de la stratégie du chaos est exposée au grand jour. Ces deux pustules ont partie liée pour contaminer toute la région. Alors les jeux sont faits ? Pas sûr. Le vaccin est en préparation.

Bruno Guigue

 

Bruno Guigue, ex-haut fonctionnaire, analyste politique et chargé de cours à l’Université de La Réunion. Il est l’auteur de cinq ouvrages, dont Aux origines du conflit israélo-arabe, L’invisible remords de l’Occident, L’Harmattan, 2002, et de centaines d’articles.

Image : Barack Obama et le roi Salman au Palais Erga, à Riyad, le 20 avril 2016. Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Collusion wahhabo-sioniste en vue !

Par : Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos, GRAIN, Inter Pares et Solidarity Sweden – Latin America

Votre pension n’est-elle pas en train de chasser des petits agriculteurs de leurs terres ?

Dans le monde entier, des agriculteurs sont privés de leurs terres, de manière souvent violente, et ces terres passent aux mains de grandes sociétés et de spéculateurs qui voient le foncier agricole comme un investissement lucratif. Mais quels sont les mécanismes complexes derrière ces agissements ? Se peut-il que votre propre fonds de pension contribue à l’accaparement des terres dans des pays comme le Brésil ?

Cette vidéo animée montre comment un fonds international d’acquisition de terres agricoles, géré par le géant financier américain TIAA-CREF, s’est servi d’une structure d’entreprise complexe pour contourner les restrictions de la législation brésilienne sur les investissements étrangers dans le foncier agricole. Le fonds a ensuite acquis des terres auprès d’un homme d’affaires brésilien qui a fait usage de violence et de fraude pour se saisir de vastes superficies de terres agricoles utilisées par des petits agriculteurs et des populations indigènes dans les États du Maranhão et du Piauí. Cette vidéo vise à faire pression sur les fonds de pension pour les obliger à révéler publiquement le nom et l’emplacement des terres agricoles qu’ils ont acquises de par le monde et à mettre fin à la spéculation sur les terres agricoles.

Les luttes en matière de terres et de ressources s’intensifient au Brésil, où 150 défenseurs de l’environnement, dont beaucoup se battaient pour protéger les terres de petites communautés agricoles, ont été assassinés depuis 2012. Il est important pour nous d’exposer les responsables et les mécanismes tapis derrière cette violence et de dire STOP à la spéculation sur le foncier agricole et à l’accaparement des terres.

Si vous utilisez un fonds de pension, contactez votre gestionnaire pour lui dire que vous ne voulez pas que vos économies servent à l’accaparement des terres ni à la spéculation sur les terres agricoles !

Cette vidéo a été réalisée par Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos, GRAIN, Inter Pares et Solidarity Sweden – Latin America

Pour plus de renseignements, voir: “Fonds de pension étrangers et accaparement des terres au Brésil”, https://www.grain.org/e/5337

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Des fonds de pension alimentent l’accaparement des terres au Brésil

Un ancien haut responsable du FBI a fustigé Hillary et Bill Clinton dimanche comme étant les chefs d’une « famille du crime organisé » en proie à la corruption et à la tromperie.

James Kallstrom, le chef de bureau du FBI de New York City au milieu des années 90, a déclaré que la réouverture de l’enquête du FBI sur le serveur de messagerie privée de Clinton, a confirmé que l’ancienne secrétaire d’Etat n’a jamais été soumise à une « véritable enquête » dès le départ.

« Les Clinton sont une famille du crime. C’est comme du crime organisé. La Fondation Clinton est un cloaque … c’est tout simplement scandaleux de voir comment Hillary Clinton a vendu son bureau pour l’argent. C’est une menteuse pathologique, » Kallstrom a fulminé à John Catsimatidis sur son programme radio de « Chats Table ronde » , avant de diriger sa colère sur son ancien employeur.
«Cette enquête n’a jamais été une véritable enquête, ils n’avaient jamais constitué de grand jury, » a dit Kallstrom au sujet de l’investigation du FBI concernant les e-mails de Clinton. «Cette enquête a été dans l’incapacité de présenter des citations à comparaître, des mandats de perquisition et d’obtenir des preuves … C’était tout simplement ridicule.»
« Ils ont laissé tellement de choses sous le tapis. Les cas de complot et de destruction de preuves et d’entrave à la justice et de parjure, » a-t-il dit.
«Ce ne sont pas les agents du FBI qui sont à blâmer pour ce fiasco … C’est la hiérarchie. C’est Jim Comey … Les agents sont furieux à cause de ce qui se passe. C’est un fait», a-t-il ajouté.
Les commentaires de Kallström viennent au moment où le FBI a annoncé avoir découvert un trésor de nouveaux courriels envoyés et reçus par Huma Abedin, une proche confidente de Clinton, ce qui incite l’agence à rouvrir son enquête de haut niveau.
Le dernier lot de courriels a été trouvé au milieu d’une enquête séparée d’Anthony Weiner, le mari maintenant séparé d’Abedin, qui aurait couché avec une jeune fille de 15 ans.

 

Source: Bill and Hillary Clinton lead diabolical, influence-peddling organized crime syndicate, FBI’s former NYC boss says, NY Daily News, 30 octobre 2016

Traduction: Fawkes News

 

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Vidéo – D’après l’ex directeur adjoint du FBI James Kallström, la famille Clinton donne dans le « crime organisé »

Em maio de 2014, o historiador suíço Daniele Ganser questionou em Journal of 9/11 Studies: « Os historiadores, hoje e nos próximos anos, enfrentam uma tarefa desafiante: devem escrever a história dos acontecimentos de 11 de setembro de 2001. O que escreverem, será ensinado nas aulas de História. Mas o que escreverão? Que Osama bin laden enviou 19 muçulmanos a fim de executar um ataque de surpresa nos EUA? Ou escreverão que a administração de Bush foi responsável pelo ataque, seja arquitetando-o ou deliberadamente permitindo a fim de chocar a população dos EUA, criar um pretexto para aumentar os gastos militares, e atacar Afeganistão e Iraque? ».

Longe de esclarecimentos ao mesmo tempo que acarretam consequências catastróficas à humanidade, os ataques do 11 de Setembro (11/9) nos Estados Unidos mudaram o curso da história muito mais que pelo atrativo jornalístico capaz de transmitir, ao vivo e com requintes de Hollywood o choque à Torre Sul do complexo do World Trade Center em Nova Iorque – duas emissoras simplesmente anteciparam, uma delas em uma hora, a queda do terceiro edifício, o Word Trade Center 7 jamais atingido por nenhum avião, ambos os fatos quem chama profunda atenção e geram inúmeros questionamentos, até hoje não explicados.Procurado pela reportagem, o ativista e escritor norte-americano Kevin Ryan, um dos maiores investigadores das implicações do 11/9, autor de Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects, membro-fundador da Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, do 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington além de diretor do Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth e co-editor do Journal of 9/11 Studies desde 2006, questiona: « Ou o terrorismo foi facilitado dentro dos Estados Unidos, ou o governo inexplicavelmente fracassou ao responder quando a nação foi atacada ».Segundo a versão oficial, os maiores ataques em solo norte-americano da história foram arquitetados de uma caverna no Afeganistão pelo saudita de origem iemenita Osama bin Laden quem, treinado, financiado e armado nas fileiras de Washington durante a Guerra Fria, esteve às vésperas dos atentados sob tratamento de hemodiálise no Hospital Americano de Dubai, capital dos Emirados Árabes, amigavelmente visitado por agentes da CIA. Em poucos dias, como se tudo já estivesse de antemão preparado, as forças norte-americanas e da OTAN já encontravam-se organizadas para combater na propalada « Guerra ao Terror ».Declarada de uma catedral pelo então presidente dos Estados Unidos George W. Bush, citando salmos ao lado de um rabino, de um padre e de um pastor evangélico, nos 15 anos cumpridos em 7 de outubro (data da invasão ao Afeganistão, em 2001), esta arbitrária guerra, mais longa ocupação militar da história dos Estados Unidos que fere todas as leis internacionais e a própria Constituição norte-americana (a qual desautoriza guerras de agressão), e que desde o início recusa-se em levantar provas e realizar julgamentos, tem gerado centenas de milhares de refugiados em todo o mundo, além de ter assassinado mais de um milhão e meio de civis apenas no Afeganistão e no Iraque, Estados que jamais atacaram nem sequer apresentaram, em nenhum momento na história, ameaça à segurança dos Estados Unidos.Crimes por forças policiais ocorridos inclusive na Europa, como no caso do estudante brasileiro Jean Charles de Menezes de 27 anos, baleado pelas costas por ter sido « confundido » com um « suspeito » de práticas terroristas pela Polícia de Londres em 2005; um dentre milhões de crimes jamais investigados nesta maniqueísta guerra que rompeu a política externa norte-americana e as relações internacionais em quase 400 anos, desde a assinatura da Paz de Vestfália que, em 1648, colocou fim á Guerra dos Trinta Anos na Europa surgindo como marco no equilíbrio de forças internacional, ao garantir a soberania das nações. Sobre o Estado policialesco que se tornou também o Reino Unido desde que teve início a « Guerra ao Terror », o ativista britânico pelos direitos humanos Peter Tatchell, com longa história de luta e vítima perseguições e detenções pela causa das minorias em seu país, conta que « o Reino Unido introduziu a detenção sem acusação ou julgamento de suspeitos de terrorismo ».

Já nos epicentros da chamada luta contra o terrorismo, « do ponto de vista da proteção de civis ambas as operações têm sido um desastre », afirma o finlandês Timo Kivimäki, professor de Relações Internacionais e diretor de Pesquisa da Universidade de Bath (Reino Unido), especialista em terrorismo global, um dos poucos acadêmicos sóbrios ao pensar o assunto que também traz, nesta reportagem, análises de como superar o terrorismo global. Mas os atentados do 11/9 mudaram o destino da humanidade, sobretudo, pelo estado permanente de medo nos quatro cantos do planeta que, inevitavelmente, alimenta desde o início a « Guerra ao Terror » apoiada em tão forte quanto precário apelo moralista e religioso: intolerância contra toda e qualquer diferença, especialmente islamitas de origem árabe estigmatizados pela mídia, incluindo a indústria cinematográfica norte-americana. Através disso, direitos civis têm sido feridos sem precedentes em todo o mundo, principalmente nos Estados Unidos com a introdução da Doutrina Bush seguida, em grande medida, por Barack Obama hoje – em determinados casos até ampliada, como a vigilância doméstica e global que se apoia, pateticamente, no discurso de segurança nacional. Profundo estado de tensão internacional levado às últimas consequências, sentido na vida cotidiana dos sete bilhões de habitantes da Terra hoje das mais diversas maneiras e nos mais diversos locais, públicos ou não.

« O medo funciona. O povo amedrontado faz qualquer coisa. Para que sintam medo é preciso criar uma aura de ameaça eterna. Os terroristas [do governo dos Estados Unidos] nos manipulam: sobem o alerta para laranja, depois para vermelho, e voltam para laranja. Eles misturam mensagens, e você enlouquece. É como treinar um cão: se você disser ‘sente e role’ ao mesmo tempo, ele não saberá o que fazer. O povo norte-americano vem sendo tratado assim! Estimulam o medo do povo. É impossível que alguém consiga viver assim, sempre no limite. O alerta não cairá para verde ou azul, nunca chegará lá!”, afirmou Jim McDermott, ex-congressista e psiquiatra norte-americano, no documentário Fahrenheit 9/11, do cineasta Michael Moore.

Com a imposição do medo por certos governos, grandes guerras e invasões foram perpetradas ao longo da história e abriram caminho para a imposição de políticas de linha dura, blindando a corrupção desenfreada das classes dominantes. No caso específico dos Estados Unidos no início deste século, « os crimes do 11/9 foram pretexto para guerras de agressão já previstas, empreendidas para consolidar o poder através da pilhagem de recursos naturais », afirma Ryan. Durante os anos de Obama, quem chegou à Casa Branca sob discurso pacifista e defesa dos direitos humanos, houve acirramento da agressividade das forças militares no Oriente Médio, e nenhuma investigação sobre as implicações do 11/9.

Particularmente sobre a mídia corporativa internacional, desde o início optou pelo sensacionalismo e pela geração de histeria, favorecendo o discurso do governo local e sem nenhuma motivação investigativa. « Na sociedade de hoje, a mídia não é uma ferramenta para informar o público. É de entretenimento e propaganda. As pessoas não são entretidas por questões que desafiam seriamente as principais instituições de suas vidas », pontua Ryan. « Quando os meios de comunicação predominantes relatam as questões não respondidas do 11/9, geralmente são muito limitados. Nunca vemos reportagens sobre os testemunhos do bombeiro nas explosões secundárias nos edifícios do World Trade Center [relatando explosivos contidos dentro da Torre, desde o subsolo até os andares superiores], nem investigação sobre os exercícios militares que obstruíam as respostas de defesa aérea naquele dia. Não ouvimos nada sobre como setenta por cento das questões das famílias das vítimas do 11/9 permanecem sem resposta diante da versão oficial ».

Os crimes do 11/9 também têm servido para que o governo dos Estados Unidos, sem aval judicial nem sequer provas, mantenha preso pelo tempo que a Casa Branca e a CIA determinarem, e torture das maneiras mais cruéis civis « suspeitos » de práticas terroristas. Sobre isto, o ex-agente da CIA John Kiriakou traz sérias revelações. « Fiquei em silêncio de 2002 até 2007. Decidi, finalmente, denunciar em dezembro de 2007 depois que o presidente George W. Bush mentiu duas vezes ao povo norte-americano. Ele disse, na primeira vez, que os Estados Unidos não torturavam ninguém », conta Kiriakou, quem se demitiu da Agência de Inteligência e ficou dois anos preso por denunciar a administração de Bush.

E a realidade do Afeganistão, cuja ideia imposta ao inconsciente das sociedades ocidentais pela mídia predominante é que se trata de nação cujas vidas são de menos valor, é trazida do próprio país sul-asiático por duas importantes vozes que denunciam, em altíssono: « Vivemos um 11 de Setembro todos os dias no Afeganistão ». São elas: a líder da Associação das Mulheres Revolucionárias do Afeganistão (RAWA, na sigla em inglês), que se identifica apenas como Friba para sua segurança, e a ativista pelos direitos humanos, escritora e ex-parlamentar expulsa injustamente do cargo por denunciar membros narcotraficantes e acentuadamente misóginos colocados no poder pelos Estados Unidos, Malalaï Joya, quem, jurada de morte, vive escondida, nunca dorme duas noites na mesma casa e se movimenta pelo país apenas de táxi debaixo de uma burca, com 12 seguranças fortemente armados.

Realidade cruel que a mídia de desinformação global tem se recusado a apresentar – a não ser quando se trata de lançar mais gasolina sobre o fogo terrorista, com a velha pitada de petróleo árabe tornando-se, assim, perfeita propagandista do terror e dos interesses belicistas, econômicos e estratégicos do Império de turno.

Combate ao Terror, Crimes de Guerra e Narcotráfico

Em 3 de outubro de 2015, o hospital de Médicos sem Fronteiras na cidade afegã de Kunduz foi bombardeada « por engano » pelas forças norte-americanas, deixando como saldo 42 mortos e a destruição completa das instalações do centro de saúde. Tal « equívoco » tem sido uma constante diária no Afeganistão desde outubro de 2001. No país sul-asiático, o cenário é catastrófico: dia a dia inúmeras residências, escolas e hospitais destruídos deixando dezenas de milhares de inocentes mortos incluindo crianças, mulheres e idosos, além de um número ainda maior de inválidos.Kivimäki é enfático ao se referir à suposta luta do bem (Ocidente) contra o mal (muçulmanos e árabes em geral): “Não há nenhuma Guerra contra o Terror. Se houvesse, não usaria o terror como tática”. Na realidade, novas invasões ao Oriente Médio já estavam previstas nos porões de Washington bem antes dos atentados do 11/9: o Projeto para o Novo Século Norte-Americano, iniciado em meados da década de 1990 pelo então presidente Bill Clinton, foi reelaborado por futuros integrantes da equipe de governo de George H. Bush (filho) em 2000, ano das eleições presidenciais que dariam vitória justamente a Bush. No documento, os arquitetos dos crimes internacionais dos Estados Unidos, eufemisticamente chamados de « política externa », alegam que apenas um novo Pearl Harbor seria capaz de motivar nova empreitada na região mais rica em petróleo do planeta, e assim impulsionar a já combalida economia do país à época. « Se olharmos para os países onde a proteção das grandes potências tem operado, podemos ver que mais da metade das mortes em conflitos do mundo é produzida ali », acrescenta o analista.As invasões norte-americanas ao Afeganistão em 2001 e Iraque em 2003 ferem a Constituição dos Estados Unidos, a qual não autoriza guerra preventiva, isto é, sem que o país haja sido agredido antes. No plano externo, Washington e seus aliados têm passado por cima dos acordos internacionais estipulados pelas Nações Unidas (ONU), a qual prevê guerra apenas como « ação em caso de Ameaça à paz, ruptura de paz e agressão » de um Estado contra outro em sua Carta, capítulo VII, ratificada por seus 193 países-membros, incluindo os próprios Estados Unidos.Sobre as alegações do então presidente Bush de que Saddam Hussein armazenava e produzia bombas de destruição em massa, jamais encontradas, além de ter tido ligações com os terroristas do 11/9, fato tampouco comprovado, a ONU vistoriou o Iraque por vários meses prévios à invasão norte-americana sem ter encontrado nada que motivasse intervenção militar, manifestando-se totalmente contrária à invasão em consonância com os países da região e de praticamente todas as partes do mundo.Para o analista finlandês, a brutalidade das forças militares ocidentais que carece de legitimidade e fere a Convenção de Genebra, ataca indiscriminadamente os direitos humanos, impõe seus valores e aumenta ataques aéreos visando apenas punição de supostos inimigos, sem considerar solidariedade internacional e o fortalecimento da ONU, gera efeito reverso aumentando atos terroristas e diminuindo a segurança dentro dos Estados Unidos e dos países aliados. « Apenas através de ações interativas de paz e de diálogo, esta espiral de escalada poderia ser encerrada », adverte. E observa ainda: « Na imposição de justiça e equidade, estes países tornaram-se atores enquanto outros, especialmente os países em desenvolvimento e muçulmanos, os objetos de disciplina das coalizões militares, gerando ressentimento. As operações militares no Oriente Médio têm aumentado a violência, de maneira que a proteção voltou-se contra aqueles que se tem o objetivo de proteger. As maciças operações militares ocidentais que minaram os direitos soberanos de muitos países muçulmanos e que causaram uma série de fatalidades, deram origem à expansão do radicalismo anti-ocidental no Terceiro Mundo muçulmano. A lógica da escalada, do aprofundamento e da difusão do ódio de ambos os lados se impuseram, e novas formas de terrorismo surgiram ». Neste sentido, Tatchell aponta: « A Guerra ao Terror está a ponto de se transformar em uma guerra de terror, com as novas leis draconianas que afirmam defender a liberdade, na verdade a minando ».

Dentro do Reino Unido, maior aliado de Washington, Tatchell lembra que tem havido ataques e prisões muitas vezes violentos de muçulmanos totalmente inocentes, inclusive de muçulmanos universitários que pesquisavam a Al-Qaeda como parte dos estudos. « Tais excessos são contraproducentes, contribuem para uma maior radicalização da comunidade muçulmana ».

No Afeganistão, Joya aponta aos gastos militares bilionários de Washington em seu país como contraditórios, questionando o destino do dinheiro e observando que o Taliban, paradoxalmente, apenas se fortalece. « Se uma pequena parte desse dinheiro fosse gasta de verdade na mudança de vida do povo afegão, a situação poderia mudar », pontua a ativista.

Mencionando que democracia não pode ser imposta por intervenção estrangeira segundo todas as evidências históricas e a do próprio Afeganistão hoje, Friba afirma que « a chave para a liberdade e para a democracia está em uma luta unida, organizada do nosso povo. Uma luta árdua que seja, mas não há outra maneira de sair deste atoleiro. Apenas as pessoas de um país podem decidir seu destino, e construir um sistema que lhes serve ». A isso, Joya acrescenta: « Não há dúvidas de que o Afeganistão precisa de ajuda internacional para voltar aos trilhos e se reconstruir, mas nós não queremos ocupação, os afegãos têm uma longa história de oposição à ocupação estrangeira ».

Enquanto afirma que a maioria dos afegãos considera que o governo dos Estados Unidos os traiu em nome de democracia e defesa dos direitos humanos, especialmente das mulheres historicamente oprimidas em seu país, Friba alerta: « As pessoas que amam a paz têm que enxergar a realidade do Afeganistão, e de todos os outros países que os Estados Unidos invadiram. O que eles veem como raras notícias da situação catastrófica nesses países, é a realidade cotidiana do povo. Elas precisam pressionar seus governos para que mudem a política de invasões e ocupação, e serem solidárias às vítimas dessas guerras, o que fortalecerá a luta pela liberdade e pela democracia nesses países. Elas devem saber que o imposto que pagam é usado por seus governos para tornar o Afeganistão e outros países em guerra um Inferno, que irá impactar diretamente suas vidas e tornar os países ocidentais inseguros, como o que testemunhamos hoje nas cidades europeias ».

Obama assumiu a Casa Branca em 2009 prometendo encerrar a ocupação no Afeganistão. Com o passar do tempo, contudo, foi se evidenciando que a promessa não seria cumprido até que, em 16 de maio de 2013, ficou claro que o presidente norte-americano não manteria fielmente a essência velada da « Guerra ao Terror, de perpetuar a ocupação em um país estratégico pela localização, próximo de rivais como China, Rússia e Irã, além da proximidade em relação a países com grandes reservas petrolíferas e pela grande riqueza afegã em recursos minerais que, segundo Friba, têm sido privatizados por « instituições imperialistas como FMI, Banco Mundial, OMS, com consequências devastadoras ao pobre povo afegão ». Pois em maio de 2013, Michael Sheehan, secretário-adjunto de Defesa para operações especiais e conflitos de baixa intensidade, prenunciou que « a guerra contra a Al-Qaeda e suas redes afiliadas poderia durar mais 20 anos », durante uma audiência no Senado a fim de solicitar autorização para o uso da Força Militar.

« O governo dos Estados Unidos tem dado as mãos aos mais brutais inimigos do povo afegão, e instalado pessoas infames e corruptas em cargos-chave de seu regime-fantoche para avançar em seus interesses regionais no Afeganistão », afirma Joya. E acrescenta: « As forças dos Estados Unidos e da OTAN não são sérias em sua luta contra o Taliban, contra quem joga o jogo de Tom e Jerry. Todos sabem que derrotar um pequeno grupo como o Taliban não é difícil para uma superpotência apoiada por diversas outras nações, mas os Estados Unidos precisam do Taliban como desculpa para ficar no Afeganistão por muito tempo, e transformar o país em sua base militar na região para combater potências asiáticas tais como China, Rússia, Irã, entre outros, e também prosseguir com suas estratégias econômicas e militares na região ».

Assim, o regime de Obama apenas tem aumentado os crimes de guerra no Afeganistão matando até mais civis que Bush, superando este, em muitas vezes, até na utilização dos devastadores drones, aviões não tripulados considerados ilegais por ferir a soberania das nações e matar sem prévia sentença judicial, além de colocar em maior risco a vida de civis inocentes conforme mostram claramente os fatos e o próprio relatório da comissão bipartidária norte-americana que, em 2014, incluiu diversos ex-agentes da inteligência e oficiais militares do país. « Os afegãos estão esmagados entre quatro inimigos: as forças dos Estados Unidos e da OTAN, os criminosos e senhores da guerra da Aliança do Norte no governo impostos pelos norte-americanos, o Taliban e um Estado Islamita recém-surgido », diz Friba, garantindo também que o Afeganistão está pior agora que antes da invasão liderada pelos Estados Unidos.

De acordo com Joya, um dos grandes objetivos por trás da ocupação do Afeganistão é « restaurar o patrocínio do comércio da droga e exercer controle direto sobre as rotas dos 600 bilhões de dólares anuais da indústria global dela, traçada pela CIA. Há relatos de que até o Exército dos Estados Unidos está engajado no tráfico de drogas ». O Afeganistão produz 93% do ópio mundial, um aumento de 4.500% desde 2001 que coloca o país, novamente, como maior produtor mundial da planta, e maior exportador da droga. « A máfia da droga detém o poder afegão, apoiada pelo Ocidente », denuncia Friba.

Dentro dos Estados Unidos, a prática de tortura por parte da CIA em Guantánamo contra « suspeitos » de envolvimento com terrorismo, segundo Kiriakou, não se trata de exceção como se tentou fazer crer quando tal fato se tornou inegável no final do mandato de Bush – quem tentou se eximir de responsabilidades. « Eu sabia que a CIA estava torturando seus prisioneiros, que a tortura era a política oficial da CIA e que o presidente havia aprovado, pessoalmente, a tortura ». Perguntado se algo mudou com Obama, o ex-agente da CIA é categórico: « Honestamente, não acho que haja nenhuma diferença real entre George W. Bush e Barack Obama. Nossos métodos de inteligência estão exatamente da mesma maneira ». E acrescenta: « Sem supervisão real por parte do Congresso, a CIA vai continuar fazendo o que bem entende em todo o mundo. A CIA tem de trabalhar para proteger o povo norte-americano respeitando os direitos humanos, os direitos civis e as liberdades civis. Ela não está fazendo isso. Segurança e liberdade não são mutuamente exclusivas. Podemos ter ambas ».

Kiriakou enfatiza que os tomadores de decisão de Washington deveriam responder em um tribunal pelo que o ex-agente da CIA qualifica de guerras arbitrárias no Oriente Médio. « Uma guerra de arbitrária é, por definição, uma guerra de agressão. Se George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice e outros fossem de qualquer outro país, eles poderiam estar sentados no banco dos réus em Haia ». Ganser segue a mesma linha e acrescenta que esta empreitada ocidental no Oriente Médio « é uma batalha pelo poder, por petróleo e por gás natural. Está relacionada a dinheiro e geostratégia ».

Para Ryan, nada disso é do interesse dos principais meios de comunicação: « Atualmente, são quase inteiramente de propriedade de apenas algumas grandes corporações para impor a verdade à sociedade. Como a General Electric pode vender armas se sua parceira, a rede de TV NBC, disser às pessoas a verdade sobre a guerra? ».

O Novo ‘Pearl Harbor’

As implicações do 11/9 possuem contradições e evidências de sobra que apontam para execução interna, isto é, que norte-americanos em posições de poder foram responsáveis pela realização dos ataques, o que, diante de inúmeras evidências, é o mais plausível enquanto Bush e Obama fizeram de tudo para impedir uma investigação independente instada por pesquisadores locais e familiares de vítimas. Para o atual ocupante da Casa Branca, « é contraproducente olhar para trás », gerando profunda indignação a familiares de vítimas e pesquisadores da tragédia.A denominada Comissão do 11/9 foi, desde o início, programada para defender o governo de Washington. Sofreu diversas interferências de altos escalões da política conforme Ryan observa: « A Comissão do 11/9 não conseguiu responder 70% das perguntas colocadas pelas famílias do 11/9, responsáveis por dirigir a criação da Comissão. Também é importante perceber que um esboço do que viria a se tornar o Relatório da Comissão do 11/9 foi produzido antes do início da investigação. O esboço foi mantido em sigilo do pessoal da Comissão, e parece ter determinado o seu resultado. Além disso, a Comissão alegou repetidas vezes, 63 vezes para ser exato, que não encontrou nenhuma evidência relacionada a muitos dos aspectos mais importantes dos crimes. Esses fatos sugerem que a Comissão nunca teve nenhuma intenção de revelar a verdade sobre o 9/11 ».Diversos físicos e arquitetos norte-americanos, reunidos na organização Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth(AE911Truth), observam que as Torres Gêmeas e o World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) ruíram à velocidade de queda livre, o que só seria possível através de implosão controlada. Embora a prefeitura de Nova Iorque, a mando de Bush, tenha removido imediatamente os resquícios dos edifícios que deveriam servir como investigação, alguns transeuntes conseguiram levaram consigo partes dos escombros que acabaram nas mãos dos AE911Truth. Através de minuciosa investigação, foram constatados componentes de explosivos, mais especificamente dinamites em partes dos edifícios destruídos supostamente pelo choque dos aviões, em tese sequestrados por muçulmanos radicais. « Quem colocou os explosivos nos edifícios do World Trade Center? », questiona Ryan. « Quem foi convidado à reunião de eliminação de explosivos/terrorismo no World Trade Center 7 na manhã de 11 de setembro de 2001, e qual foi a ordem do dia? A segunda questão refere-se a uma reunião convocada por Larry Silverstein e pelo Serviço Secreto no edifício 7 do World Trade Center na manhã de 11/9. Unidades de eliminação de explosivos provenientes de instalações militares dos EUA haviam sido convidadas para a reunião. Foi apenas mais uma incrível coincidência? Precisamos saber mais sobre isso ».Especificamente sobre a queda do WTC7, há o fato surpreendente – para dizer o mínimo – que ele ruiu sem ter sido chocado por nenhum avião. « Foi ao chão por implosão controlada? Ou pelo fogo como o NIST [ National Institute of Standards and Technology] alega? », questiona Ganser lembrando que mesmo o NIST admite nos dias de hoje que o WTC7 levou poucos alguns segundos para cair. « Isso significa que durante esses segundos,o edifício sofreu resistência zero, resistência absolutamente nenhuma. No entanto, havia 81 colunas sustentando o edifício. Desta maneira, isso é muito estranho », observa Ganser.Outra pergunta entre as inúmeras sem resposta envolvendo os ataques do 11/9, diz respeito ao tempo que os aviões sobrevoaram o espaço norte-americano: por até uma hora. Especialmente um deles, em direção ao Pentágono, local considerado o mais seguro do mundo, sem ter sido interceptado pelo sistema de segurança aérea que, pela primeira e única vez na história do país, falhou inexplicavelmente diante de uma operação que levaria, no máximo, um minuto para que jatos interceptadores iniciassem o processo de detenção dos aviões. Houve diversos discursos oficiais desencontrados na tentativa de explicar o que realmente aconteceu com a defesa aérea norte-americana naquele dia, um substituindo o outro, todos impossíveis de serem sustentados. No caso particular da Standard Operating Procedures (Procedimentos Operacionais Padrão, responsáveis por garantir respostas de emergência através dos jatos) estavam simplesmente suspensos em 11 de setembro de 2001 – primeira e única vez na história dos Estados Unidos.

« Muitas vezes as pessoas entendem mal, pensando que os transpônderes dos aviões sequestrados foram todos desligados, e que os aviões não poderiam ter sido rastreados. Esta afirmação não reconhece que as autoridades haviam rastreado aviões que traficavam drogas via radar por muitos anos. Mais importante, o voo 175 não desligou o transponder. Este foi o segundo avião que atingiu o World Trade Center e seu transponder esteve ligado durante todo o tempo em que os defensores de ar o assistiam na tela. Por isso, eles sabiam que estava fora da rota. Voou sequestrado por 20 minutos após o primeiro avião ter atingido o World Trade Center, cerca de 45 minutos após o primeiro sequestro, fato sabido das lideranças da Administração Federal de Aviação », precisa Ryan, quem também questiona: « Na medida em que o piloto automático avança, é interessante notar que, de acordo com o estudo oficial da trajetória de voo, o piloto automático do voo 77 [que atingiu o Pentágono] ficou ligado enquanto o avião era sequestrado, e ao longo de sua volta de 180 graus de volta para Washington. Parece que a volta a Washington foi parte do caminho do voo programado, ou o piloto automático foi comandado instantaneamente ».

Outra contradição diz respeito aos supostos sequestradores dos quatro aviões, que segundo a versão oficial eram 19: seis deles, denunciados no mesmo dia pelo Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, polícia federal e secreta dos Estados Unidos), apareceram dias depois vivos em diferentes partes do mundo, denunciando não serem terroristas, possuindo os mesmos dados e a mesma fisionomia das alegadas pelos oficiais norte-americanos. Sobre isso, Ryan lamenta a ausência de investigação por parte do FBI, quem até hoje mantém os seis na lista de sequestradores do 11/9. « Os relatórios de que os homens acusados ainda estavam vivos não foram investigados pelo FBI, nem pela Comissão do 11/9. Mesmo o novo diretor do FBI, Robert Mueller, expressou publicamente dúvidas sobre a identidade dos sequestradores.

Questionado sobre a hipótese de execução interna, Ryan afirma: « É difícil discordar considerando que as pessoas fora dos Estados Unidos não poderiam ter feito o que precisava ser feito [a fim de atingir e derrubar as Torres Gêmeas e o Pentágono]. Por exemplo, apenas norte-americanos poderiam ter levado a rede de comando dos país a falhar, e apenas norte-americanos poderiam ter desativado as defesas aéreas. Em outro sentido, o 11/9 continua sendo uma ‘execução interna’ pela qual muitos norte-americanos não vão sequer atentar à evidência dos crimes. As barreiras psicológicas são muito grandes ».

Para Kiriakou, « o 11 de Setembro foi, é claro, a pior falha de inteligência da história dos Estados Unidos. A CIA nunca poderá mudar isso ». Ryan mostra-se pessimista que a verdade seja encontrada, e que justiça seja feita: « Nenhum dos presidenciáveis [Clinton e Trump] vai fazer nada para desafiar a versão oficial do 11/9. Se o fizessem, nunca ouviríamos nada sobre eles na mídia corporativa ».

Edu Montesanti

Edu Montesanti é autor do livro Mentiras e Crimes da “Guerra ao Terror” (2012). Escreve para revista Caros Amigos Jornal Pravda e Pravda Report (Rússia), Global Research (Canadá), e Truth Out (Estados Unidos). É tradutor do sítio na Internet das Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo (Argentina) e da Associação das Mulheres Revolucionárias do Afeganistão (RAWA, na sigla em inglês); foi tradutor do sítio na Internet da escritora, ativista pelos direitos humanos e ex-parlamentar afegã expulsa injustamente do cargo, Malalaï Joya. Escreveu para Diário Liberdade (Galiza), Observatório da Imprensa (TV Brasil) e Nolan Chart (Estados Unidos). www.edumontesanti.skyrock.com

  • Posted in Português
  • Commentaires fermés sur O Novo ‘Pearl Harbor’ E A Propaganda Do Terror. Recontando os Crimes que Mudaram o Curso da História

Vidéo : Le coup d’État d’Hillary Clinton

novembre 4th, 2016 by Steve Pieczenik

L’Amérique remercie les braves agents spéciaux du FBI qui ont forcé son directeur, James Comey, à réouvrir le dossier de corruption concernant HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] !

À présent, le monde est dans tous ses états au sujet de James Comey ré-ouvrant la scandaleuse affaire des courriels de l’ignoble HRC. Comme d’habitude, les médias ont laissé entendre tous les types de raisons pour lesquelles Comey venait de trouver de nouvelles preuves concernant HRC, sur l’ordinateur personnel de Huma Abedin. Oui, le même ordinateur que son mari, l’ex-membre du Congrès Anthony Weiner, avait utilisé pour parler de sexe à une jeune fille de quinze ans de Caroline du Nord 1. Pourtant, la presse et l’équipe pas si brillante de HRC a manqué l’entière dynamique permettant de comprendre cette situation inhabituelle.

Récemment, j’avais en effet fait remarquer que nos braves hommes et femmes de la Communauté du renseignement (CR [Intelligence Community – IC]), en particulier au sein du FBI et de certains services de police hautement qualifiés, avaient forcé James Comey de réouvrir ses investigations sur HRC.

Mes sources m’informent qu’il y a en fait très peu de nouvelles preuves. Qui donc avait besoin de nouvelles preuves, alors qu’il y avait d’ores et déjà une masse de preuves criminelles qui ont été «glissées sous le tapis» ? Il semble bien que quelques honnêtes agents spéciaux du FBI mécontents aient finalement refusé d’accepter les avertissements de Loretta Lynch, pas plus que la capitulation initiale de Comey face aux intimidations de HRC. [Au contraire,] ces agents ont mis en garde à la fois Lynch et Comey qu’ils rendraient publiques toutes les informations qu’ils avaient sur HRC. Y compris les éléments de preuve qui furent délibérément cachés par le ministère de la Justice [DOJ – Department of Justice] sur ordre de Valerie Jarrett et d’Obama.

Ces agents du FBI ont donc été prêts à prendre un risque majeur pour leur carrière et pour leurs vies, en sachant très bien que Comey et Lynch [DOJ] avaient couvert les actions criminelles de Hillary, Bill, Huma Abedin, et du reste de leur équipe hétéroclite. Ces guerriers citoyens resteront anonymes, car ils devront continuer d’opérer au sein du Bureau [fédéral – FBI], afin de s’assurer qu’un travestissement aussi important de la justice, commis par Hillary et ses cohortes, ne puisse jamais se produire à nouveau.

Notre pays est reconnaissant pour le patriotisme de notre CR, du FBI et de la police locale, parce que sans ces rares instances, nous autres Américains, aurions eu à nous battre encore plus durement pour débarrasser notre corps politique des détritus de ces trente dernières années.

Winston Churchill avait traduit cette idée au mieux, lorsqu’il a exprimé la gratitude de l’Angleterre pour ces quelques braves pilotes de chasse britanniques et polonais volant au-dessus de Londres, assurant la protection des citoyens britanniques contre les chasseurs et bombardiers nazis dévastant la ville pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale : «Jamais tant d’hommes n’auront dû autant à si peu d’entre eux»…

Je vous remercie, agents du FBI, de la CR et de la Police locale ! Les citoyens américains sont reconnaissants pour votre courage contre la tyrannie.

 

Voir en anglais :

Hillary_Clinton_(24338774540)

Video: Corruption, Cooptation, Cronyism: The Hillary Clinton “Takeover”, The “Counter-Coup”, Action of America’s Intelligence Community

Texte traduit par Jean-Maxime Corneille, Le Saker francophone

Traduction / sous-titre de la vidéo : Yan Merkado

https://www.tipeee.com/yann-merkado

Notes:

NdT : référence à «Anthony Weiner sent sexually explicit messages to 15-year-old, report says» (Guardian, 22 septembre 2016). «Une proche de Hillary Clinton rattrapée par un scandale» (Le Figaro, 29 août 2016) ↩

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Vidéo : Le coup d’État d’Hillary Clinton

“Follow the money.” That telling phrase, which has come to summarize the Watergate scandal, has been a part of the lexicon since 1976. It’s shorthand for political corruption: At what point do “contributions” become bribes, “constituent services” turn into quid pro quos and “charities” become slush funds?

Ronald Reagan was severely criticized in 1989 when, after he left office, he was paid $2 million for a couple of speeches in Japan. “The founding fathers would have been stunned that an occupant of the highest office in this land turned it into bucks,” sniffed a Columbia professor. 

So what would Washington and Jefferson make of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Mandatory financial disclosures released this month show that, in just the two years from April 2013 to March 2015, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state collected $21,667,000 in “speaking fees,” not to mention the cool $5 mil she corralled as an advance for her 2014 flop book, “Hard Choices.”

Throw in the additional $26,630,000 her ex-president husband hoovered up in personal-appearance “honoraria,” and the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the former first couple — who, according to Hillary, were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001 with some of the furniture in tow — can finally make ends meet.

No wonder Donald Trump calls her “crooked Hillary.”

A look at Mrs. Clinton’s speaking venues and the whopping sums she’s received since she left State gives us an indication who’s desperate for a place at the trough — and whom another Clinton administration might favor.

To Read the Full Article on the the New York Post click here 

 

Here’s how much Hillary Clinton was paid for her 2013-2015 speeches:

  • 4/18/2013, Morgan Stanley, Washington, DC: $225,000
  • 4/24/2013, Deutsche Bank, Washington, DC: $225,000
  • 4/24/2013, National Multi Housing Council, Dallas, Texas: $225,000
  • 4/30/2013, Fidelity Investments, Naples, Fla.: $225,000
  • 5/8/2013, Gap Inc., San Francisco, Calif.: $225,000
  • 5/14/2013, Apollo Management Holdings LP, New York, NY: $225,000
  • 5/16/2013, Itau BBA USA Securities, New York, NY: $225,000
  • 5/21/2013, Vexizon Communications Inc., Washington, DC: $225,000
  • 5/29/2013, Sanford C. Bernstein and Co. LLC, New York, NY: $225,000
  • 6/4/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group, Palmetto Bluffs, SC: $225,000
  • 6/6/2013, Spencer Stuart, New York, NY: $225,000
  • 6/16/2013, Society for Human Resource Management, Chicago, Ill.: $285,000
  • 6/17/2013, Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, Mich.: $225,000
  • 6/20/2013, Boston Consulting Group Inc., Boston, Mass.: $225,000
  • 6/20/2013, Let’s Talk Entertainment Inc., Toronto, Canada: $250,000
  • 6/24/2013, American Jewish University, Universal City, Calif.: $225,000
  • 6/24/2013, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Company LP, Palos Verdes, Calif.:$225,000
  • 7/11/2013, UBS Wealth Management, New York, NY: $225,000
  • 8/7/2013, Global Business Travel Association, San Diego, Calif.: $225,000
  • 8/12/2013, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Las Vegas, Nev.: $225,000
  • 9/18/2013, American Society for Clinical Pathology, Chicago, Ill.: $225,000
  • 9/19/2013, American Society of Travel Agents Inc., Miami, Fla.: $225,000
  • 10/4/2013, Long Island Association, Long Island, NY: $225,000
  • 10/15/2013, National Association of Convenience Stores, Atlanta, Ga.: $265,000
  • 10/23/2013, SAP Global Marketing Inc., New York, NY: $225,000
  • 10/24/2013, Accenture, New York, NY: $225,000
  • 10/24/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group, New York, NY: $225,000
  • 10/27/2013, Beth El Synagogue, Minneapolis, Minn.: $225,000
  • 10/28/2013, Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, Chicago, Ill.: $400,000
  • 10/29/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group, Tuscon, Ariz.: $225,000
  • 11/4/2013, Mase Productions Inc., Orlando, Fla.: $225,000
  • 11/4/2013, London Drugs Ltd., Mississauga, Canada: $225,000
  • 11/6/2013, Beaumont Health System, Troy, Mich.: $305,000
  • 11/7/2013, Golden Tree Asset Management, New York, NY: $275,000
  • 11/9/2013, National Association of Realtors, San Francisco, Calif.: $225,000
  • 11/13/2013, Mediacorp Canada Inc., Toronto, Canada: $225,000
  • 11/13/2013, Bank of America, Bluffton, SC: $225,000
  • 11/14/2013, CB Richard Ellis Inc., New York, NY: $250,000
  • 11/18/2013, CIIE Group, Naples, Fla.: $225,000
  • 11/18/2013, Press Ganey, Orlando, Fla.: $225,000
  • 11/21/2013, U.S. Green Building Council, Philadelphia, Pa.: $225,000
  • 01/06/2014, GE, Boca Raton, Fla.: $225,500
  • 01/27/2014, National Automobile Dealers Association, New Orleans, La.:$325,500
  • 01/27/2014, Premier Health Alliance, Miami, Fla.: $225,500
  • 02/06/2014, Salesforce.com, Las Vegas, Nev.: $225,500
  • 02/17/2014, Novo Nordisk A/S, Mexico City, Mexico: $125,000
  • 02/26/2014, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, Orlando, Fla.: $225,500
  • 02/27/2014, A&E Television Networks, New York, NY: $280,000
  • 03/04/2014, Association of Corporate Counsel – Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif.: $225,500
  • 03/05/2014, The Vancouver Board of Trade, Vancouver, Canada: $275,500
  • 03/06/2014, tinePublic Inc., Calgary, Canada: $225,500
  • 03/13/2014, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Orlando, Fla.:$225,500
  • 03/13/2014, Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies, New York, NY:$250,000
  • 03/18/2014, Xerox Corporation, New York, NY: $225,000
  • 03/18/2014, Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, Montreal, Canada:$275,000
  • 03/24/2014, Academic Partnerships, Dallas, Texas: $225,500
  • 04/08/2014, Market° Inc., San Francisco, Calif.: $225,500
  • 04/08/2014, World Affairs Council, Portland, Ore.: $250,500
  • 04/10/2014, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Inc., Las Vegas, Nev.:$225,500
  • 04/10/2014, Lees Talk Entertainment, San Jose, Calif.: $265,000
  • 04/11/2014, California Medical Association (via satellite), San Diego, Calif.:$100,000
  • 05/06/2014, National Council for Behavioral Healthcare, Washington, DC:$225,500
  • 06/02/2014, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, Denver, Colo.: $225,500
  • 06/02/2014, Lees Talk Entertainment, Denver, Colo.: $265,000
  • 06/10/2014, United Fresh Produce Association, Chicago, Ill.: $225,000
  • 06/16/2014, tinePublic Inc., Toronto, Canada: $150,000
  • 06/18/2014, tinePublic Inc., Edmonton, Canada: $100,000
  • 06/20/2014, Innovation Arts and Entertainment, Austin, Texas: $150,000
  • 06/25/2014, Biotechnology Industry Organization, San Diego, Calif.: $335,000
  • 06/25/2014, Innovation Arts and Entertainment, San Francisco, Calif.: $150,000
  • 06/26/2014, GTCR, Chicago, Ill.: $280,000
  • 07/22/2014, Knewton Inc., San Francisco, Calif.: $225,500
  • 07/26/2014, Ameriprise, Boston, Mass.: $225,500
  • 07/29/2014, Coming Inc., Coming, NY: $225,500
  • 08/28/2014, Nexenta Systems Inc., San Francisco, Calif.: $300,000
  • 08/28/2014, Cisco, Las Vegas, Nev.: $325,000
  • 09/04/2014, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, Calif.: $225,500
  • 09/15/2014, Caridovascular Research Foundation, Washington, DC: $275,000
  • 10/02/2014, Commercial Real Estate Women Network, Miami Beach, Fla.:$225,500
  • 10/06/2014, Canada 2020, Ottawa, Canada: $215,500
  • 10/07/2014, Deutsche Bank AG, New York, NY: $280,000
  • 10/08/2014, Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), Chicago, Ill.:$265,000
  • 10/13/2014, Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Colorado Springs, Colo.:$225,500
  • 10/14/2014, Salesforce.com, San Francisco, Calif.: $225,500
  • 10/14/2014, Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, Calif.: $335,000
  • 12/04/2014, Massachusetts Conference for Women, Boston, Mass.: $205,500
  • 01/21/2015, tinePublic Inc., Winnipeg, Canada: $262,000
  • 01/21/2015, tinePublic Inc., Saskatoon, Canada: $262,500
  • 01/22/2015, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Whistler, Canada: $150,000
  • 02/24/2015, Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women, Santa Clara, Calif.:$225,500
  • 03/11/2015, eBay Inc., San Jose, Calif.: $315,000
  • 03/19/2015, American Camping Association, Atlantic City, NJ: $260,000

Total: $21,667,000

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Clintongate: How Corporate America Bought Hillary Clinton for $21 Million

Why are they lying? Everything is being done to convince the public that Russia wants war; that it has annexed Ukraine; that it will attack Western Europe; that it will crush the Baltic states and Poland in its advance; that it’s committing war crimes in Syria; that Assad is a dictator and a butcher; that he has met peaceful demands for reform with brutal repression; that those fighting Assad are moderate rebels; that he is dropping barrel bombs on civilians. 

Why are they lying?

Because the people don’t want war: they want jobs and bread.

They will not agree to murder people who have done them no harm.  They will consent to war if told they are under attack or that the war will save other people from genocide, rape, or other gross violations of human rights. The people are not interested in world domination, but the elite are. The people are, therefore, the enemy within. They must be persuaded to support the elite’s plan by perverting their decency. They must be made to cringe in fear. They must be made to believe that war—any war—will be defensive.

This is the tactic of terrorists: terrorizing the population to obtain political ends.

Hillary Clinton is lying: a no-fly zone in Syria will not “save lives.” 

In her last presidential debate, Clinton said that she wants a no-fly zone in Syria because it will “save lives”:

“I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria, not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians.”


The “leverage” she is seeking is Russian roulette with the planet. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford (image right), noted in response that a no-fly zone in Syria might trigger a war with Russia, a nuclear power. Neither does she believe that a no-fly zone will save lives.  In a closed-door speech to Goldman Sachs in 2013, Clinton said:

“To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.”

She knows what is at stake with a no-fly zone in Syria, and yet she tells us the opposite of what she knows will happen. In other words, she’s lying.

What has changed Clinton’s mind since 2013?

In 2013, there was no need to risk nuclear war over Syria. The so-called Free Syrian Army and assorted rebel groups were doing just fine in their offensive. In 2013, Syria stood alone, apart from some Iranian assistance. Until 2015, the Assad government was on its last breath, in retreat from the provinces of Raqqa, Aleppo, Hama, Idlib, and Latakia. By September 2015, the generous financial, military, and operational support by the United States, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to the  “anti-Syrian coalition”– Islamic State, the Jabbat al-Nusra, the “Free Syrian Army”–was paying great dividends in advancing the destabilization of the Assad government. Soon, it could be expected that the symbolic head of Assad would sit on a silver platter in the White House, along with other colonial trophies.

The humanitarian consequences for Syrians, however, were catastrophic. Fleeing the terror of a Syria in the clutches of cutthroat mercenary armies, refugees flooded Turkey, Jordan, Greece, and other countries, becoming human barter between Turkey and the European Union.  The EU paid Turkey two billion euro to keep within its borders this human avalanche of “collateral damage.”

That was the situation in September of 2015, when Russia, invited by the legitimate Syrian government, legitimately intervened in Syria with aircraft, support personnel, military advisors and equipment.  In a year of Russian efforts to establish a premise for a peaceful solution in Syria by eliminating the militant rabble the Western chorus of “Assad must go” has mutated into a furious hiss of impotent rage. No one expects Assad to go now, unless the US comes up with a strategy to reverse the losses the Russian intervention has inflicted.

Enter Hillary’s reversal on the no-fly zone, which now, contrary to her judgment in 2013, will “save lives.”

What is a no-fly zone?

A no-fly zone is a coercive appropriation of the partial airspace of a sovereign country. It is the arbitrary creation of a demilitarized zone in the sky to prevent belligerent powers from flying in that air space. In Syria, the “belligerent power,” ironically, would be the internationally recognized legitimate Syrian government and its legitimate ally, Russia.

According to former UN Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali (image left), in an interview with John Pilger, a no-fly zone is illegal under international law.  No-fly zones are post-Soviet inventions. The measure was never proposed, used, or authorized to this day by the UN Security Council until the Soviet Union virtually dissolved. This restraint was exercised by the US for the excellent reason that no such aggression on a sovereign state would have been tolerated without massive fuss at the UN Security Council and a bad rap for the US. There have been only three instances of a no-fly zone so far, all in the wake of the disappearance of the USSR: Iraq (1991-2003), Bosnia (1993-95), and Libya (2011), all initiated on the hypocritical pretense of “saving lives.”

What is Plan B?

In one word: escalation. Apart from partitioning the air space of Syria, Plan B would provide for supplying, through Qatar or Saudi Arabia, man-portable air defense systems to the “moderate opposition,” including if it is acknowledged that the “moderate opposition” has allied itself openly with the al-Nusra front. Plan B has not been approved, but the media has floated a series of reports throughout October as being under consideration.

On October 28, the New York Times published an astonishing conclusion about an aspect of the Obama administration’s strategy in Syria, though gently and benevolently worded. The Times indicated that it was being felt that Obama had insufficiently armed the “moderate opposition,” so that in Aleppo it had “no choice” but to partner with al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly al-Nusra) to fight off Putin and Assad.  At the same time, Reuters noted that the Obama administration had formerly considered arming the “moderates” with anti-air missiles but was constrained by the fear that such weapons would fall in the hands of ”extremists.”

Such reports suggest, rather boldly, I think, that “former restraint” might have to give way to greater support for the “moderate” militants, including if they partner with “extremists.” Thus, we arrive at a point of utter bewilderment in which we verify the absurdity of launching a War on Terror to end up fighting a War with Terror.

Oppose US imperialism

It is good and proper that we should denounce Hillary Clinton for her vile record of regime change (in Honduras), crime of aggression (Libya), threats to Russia and China, corruption, illegality, and abuse of power. She’s clearly unfit to be president of any decent country that calls itself democratic.

However, fixating on her individual agency lets the policy off the hook. The US is not yet a banana republic, in which the patriarch of some rich landowning family becomes the patriarch-autocrat of a country. An intricate network of powerful interests, which determine the policy, rules the US, frantic to maintain global economic and military dominance. This ruling class selects the candidate who will best carry out the policy. Hillary Clinton will be the servant of the interests of the ruling class of which she is a member. She will be their president.

So it’s the policy that must be opposed, and this policy is imperialist.

We must develop a principled opposition to this policy, without prevarications. The task falls on the left, but it cannot be a left divided by relativist consideration of “evil” on all sides. However we may feel about the morality of governments in Russia, China, Syria, Iran, etc., one thing is clear: they did not launch a war on Iraq, opening the door to all the crimes that followed from that original crime. It is time to decide whether we want to live with things as they are or change them. And we must begin by changing them at home.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Lethal Lie of Hillary Clinton: « Saving Lives » with « No-Fly Zone » in Syria. Playing « Russian Roulette with the Planet »

A evasão fiscal, delito dos ricos à custa dos pobres

novembre 4th, 2016 by Jérôme Duval

Cerca de 800 milhões de pessoas passam fome em todo o Mundo, a maioria delas nos países ditos «em desenvolvimento». Ora nesses países, todos os anos, 250 mil milhões de euros de receitas fiscais desaparecem nos paraísos fiscais, ou seja, 6 vezes a quantia anualmente necessária para vencer a fome daqui até 2025.1

«Calcula-se que 85 % a 90 % destes haveres [fundos privados colocados em paraísos fiscais] pertencem a menos de 10 milhões de pessoas – ou seja, 0,014 % da população mundial –, e que pelo menos um terço desses haveres pertencem às 100 000 famílias mais ricas do mundo, pesando cada uma delas pelo menos 30 milhões de dólares».2Não restam dúvidas: é aos mais afortunados que faz proveito a redução das receitas fiscais por fraude, as quais perpetuam e agravam as desigualdades.

A razão levaria a pensar que os mais ricos, que gozam dos benefícios das suas sociedades, deveriam contribuir para uma redistribuição em proveito dos mais pobres, por via dos impostos sobre os benefícios dessas sociedades. Ora a mais-valia extraída graças à exploração da força de trabalho evapora-se em territórios paradisíacos para a oligarquia que governa e legisla. Trata-se de um roubo organizado em grande escala – ilegítimo e não conforme à ideia de desenvolvimento humano – duma riqueza que pertence àquelas e àqueles que a criaram com o seu trabalho e que deveria financiar os serviços públicos. De facto, o imposto sobre os rendimentos que escapa ao fisco e por isso não é redistribuído para o bem comum permite ao capitalista optimizar a mais-valia extraída pelo trabalho e procurar meios de a privatizar na sua totalidade.

A fraude entrava o desenvolvimento

A fraude e a evasão fiscal, praticadas nomeadamente pelas multinacionais com a ajuda das grandes firmas de auditoria (os famosos «Big four»: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ernst & Young, KPMG et Price Water House Coopers), são um verdadeiro flagelo que entrava o real desenvolvimento das populações empobrecidas por essas práticas. Esta hemorragia de capitais impede a construção de hospitais e a contratação de médicos com salários decentes; o equipamento de escolas na medida necessária e o recrutamento de professores, afim de diminuir o número de alunos por turma; a implantação de redes de água potável, etc.

Para o período de 2008-2012, a Global Financial Integrity calcula que, em 31 países em desenvolvimento, as saídas ilícitas de fundos foram superiores às despesas públicas de saúde e que, em 35 países em desenvolvimento, foram superiores às despesas públicas de ensino3. No seu relatório Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries: 2004-2013, a mesma organização verificou que os países ditos em desenvolvimento e as economias emergentes perderam 7800 mil milhões de dólares (7 002 450 000 000 euros) nos fluxos financeiros ilícitos de 2004 a 2013, com saídas ilícitas progressivamente mais elevadas, aumentando a um ritmo médio de 6,5 % ao ano – quase duas vezes maior que o ritmo de crescimento do PIB mundial!

Crescimento das desigualdades

Grande parte das necessidades gritantes, indispensáveis ao avanço de um desenvolvimento real, foram abandonadas em proveito duma oligarquia que não pára de enriquecer. O programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento (PNUD) indica que 8 % da população mundial mais rica embolsa metade dos rendimentos totais, indo a outra metade para os restantes 92 %4. As riquezas concentradas nas mãos dos 1 % mais ricos passaram de 44 % das riquezas mundiais em 2010 para 48 % em 2014. No espaço de 20 anos, as desigualdades de rendimento aumentaram nos países em desenvolvimento.5

A fraude fiscal tem de ser levada a sério e merece uma justiça que castigue os culpados. É ela um dos factores que entrava o desenvolvimento dos países empobrecidos e agrava o «sistema da dívida». No seu relatório, o perito independente encarregado de estudar a dívida na ONU, M. Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, insiste na necessidade de combater os fluxos financeiros considerados ilícitos, que «contribuem para a acumulação de uma dívida insustentável, pois a insuficiência das receitas públicas pode levar os governos a recorrerem a empréstimos externos». Os fluxos ilícitos de capitais privam assim o Estado da possibilidade de financiar actividades indispensáveis à eliminação da pobreza e à satisfação dos direitos económicos, sociais, culturais, civis e políticos.

No seguimento deste relatório foi aprovada no Conselho dos Direitos Humanos da ONU uma resolução sobre a evasão fiscal e sobre a necessidade de devolver os haveres desviados dos países ditos «em desenvolvimento». Nesta votação, ocorrida a 24/03/2016, nem um só país europeu votou a seu favor. Bélgica, França, Alemanha, Holanda, Suíça, Reino Unido, Portugal, Albânia, Eslovénia, Letónia, Geórgia, República da Coreia, ex-República jugoslava da Macedónia, México e Panamá abstiveram-se.

Jerome Duval

 

1.«Ao todo, o montante das fugas de recursos para o desenvolvimento, que leva em conta, além das receitas fiscais perdidas, os ganhos que poderiam ser feitos por meio dos investimentos em falta, ronda entre os 250 mil milhões e os 300 mil milhões de dólares por ano.» Ver A. Cobham, «UNCTAD study on corporate tax in developing countries», Unacounted.org (2015). Ver também a petição em linha.

2.Ver Étude finale sur les flux financiers illicites da ONU, p. 6, disponível em francês no site da ONU.

3.Ver J. Spanjers e H. Foss, «Illicit financial flows and development indices: 2008-2012», Global Financial Integrity, p. 30-33 (2015).

4.Ver PNUD, «Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries», p. xi do texto inglês (New York, 2013).

5.Ver «Wealth: having it all and wanting more», relatório temático da Oxfam, p. 2, 3 e 7 (2015).

Fontes e referências:

Artigo de opinião publicado em 1/09/2016 em Politis.fr

évasion fiscale

L’évasion fiscale, délit de riches aux dépens des pauvres

Tradução: Rui Viana Pereira, cadpp.org

  • Posted in Português
  • Commentaires fermés sur A evasão fiscal, delito dos ricos à custa dos pobres

Evasión fiscal, un delito de ricos a costa de los pobres

novembre 4th, 2016 by Jérôme Duval

En los países en vías de desarrollo, al menos 250.000 millones de euros de ingresos fiscales desaparecen cada año en los paraísos fiscales, es decir, seis veces el importe anual necesario para luchar y vencer el hambre hasta 2025.

Cerca de 800 millones de personas pasan hambre en el mundo, principalmente en los países llamados “en desarrollo”. No obstante, en estos países, al menos 250.000 millones de euros de ingresos fiscales desaparecen cada año en los paraísos fiscales, o sea, seis veces el importe anual necesario para luchar y vencer el hambre hasta 2025. “Se ha calculado que entre el 85% y el 90% de esa riqueza pertenece a menos de 10 millones de personas —apenas el 0,014% de la población mundial—, y una tercera parte como mínimo pertenece a las 100.000 familias más ricas del mundo, cada una de las cuales posee un patrimonio neto de 30 millones de dólares como mínimo”, según el Estudio final sobre los flujos financieros ilícitos de la ONU.

Son entonces los más adinerados los que se aprovechan de la reducción de ingresos fiscales por fraude, lo que perpetúa y empeora las desigualdades. Parece lógico que los más ricos, que se aprovechan de los beneficios de sus empresas, tendrían que contribuir con una redistribución a favor de los más pobres a través del impuesto sobre los beneficios de estas empresas. Sin embargo, la plusvalía generada por la explotación de la fuerza laboral se evapora en territorios paradisíacos para la oligarquía que gobierna y legisla.

Se trata de un robo organizado a gran escala –ilegítimo y no conforme a cualquier idea de desarrollo humano– de una riqueza que pertenece a aquellos y aquellas que la han creado con su trabajo, y que debería financiar los servicios públicos. De hecho, el impuesto sobre los beneficios, así no redistribuido para el bien común porque escapa al fisco, permite al capitalista optimizar la plusvalía obtenida del trabajo intentando, ilegalmente o no, privatizar su totalidad.

El fraude obstaculiza el desarrollo

El fraude y la evasión fiscal, que son practicados por las multinacionales ayudadas por grandes sociedades de auditoría, sobre todo (los famosos big four: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ernst & Young, KPMG y Price Waterhouse Coopers), son una verdadera calamidad que entorpece el avance de un desarrollo real para las poblaciones empobrecidas por estas políticas.

Esta hemorragia de capitales impide la construcción de hospitales y el empleo de médicos con salarios dignos; el equipamiento de escuelas a la altura del reto acompañado de una contratación de profesores para reducir el número de alumnos por clase; la implantación de redes de suministro de agua potable, etc. Para el periodo 2008-2012, Global Financial Integrity estima que en 31 países en desarrollo las salidas de fondos ilícitos fueron superiores a los gastos públicos de salud, y que en 35 países en desarrollo fueron superiores a los gastos públicos de enseñanza.

En su informe Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries: 2004-2013, la misma organización constata que los países calificados de “en desarrollo” y las economías emergentes perdieron 7,8 billones de dólares en los flujos financieros ilícitos desde 2004 hasta 2013, con salidas ilícitas cada vez más importantes, aumentando una media de un 6,5% al año, casi dos veces más rápido que el PIBmundial.

Crecimiento de las desigualdades

Tantas necesidades evidentes y, sin embargo, indispensables para el avance de un verdadero desarrollo se abandonan en favor de una clase oligárquica que no para de enriquecerse. El Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) ha indicado que el 8% de la población mundial más rica recibe la mitad de la totalidad de los ingresos, mientras que la otra mitad se reparte entre el 92% restante. La riqueza concentrada en manos del 1% más rico ha ascendido al 48% de la riqueza mundial en 2014 frente al 44% en 2010. Durante los últimos 20 años, las desigualdades de los ingresos han aumentado en los países en desarrollo.
El fraude fiscal merece un poco de seriedad, y sobre todo una justicia que sancione a los culpables. En ello va el desarrollo de países empobrecidos por el “sistema deuda”. En su informe, el experto independiente sobre la deuda de la ONU, Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, insiste en la necesidad de combatir los flujos financieros considerados ilícitos, que “contribuyen a la acumulación de una deuda insostenible, porque la falta de ingresos públicos puede forzar a los gobiernos a acudir a los préstamos exteriores”.

En vez de endeudarse para hacer frente a esta hemorragia de capitales que constituye el fraude fiscal, dichos flujos ilícitos privan a los Estados de recursos que podrían financiar actividades indispensables para la eliminación de la pobreza y para la consecución de derechos económicos, sociales, culturales, civiles y políticos.

Al término de este informe, una resolución sobre la evasión fiscal y la necesidad de devolver los activos malversados a los países calificados de “en desarrollo” fue adoptada a nivel del Consejo de los Derechos Humanos de la ONU. El 24 de marzo de 2016, ningún Estado europeo votó a favor. Bélgica, Francia, Alemania, Países Bajos, Suiza, Reino Unido, Portugal, Albania, Eslovenia, Letonia, Georgia, la República de Corea, la Ex-República yugoslava de Macedonia, México y Panamá se abstuvieron.

Jérôme Duval

Artículo publicado en francés en Politis.fr

évasion fiscale

L’évasion fiscale, délit de riches aux dépens des pauvres

Traducido del francés por Sylia Amrarene y revisado por Fátima Martín. https://www.diagonalperiodico.net/global/31292-evasion-fiscal-delito-ricos-costa-pobres.html / CADTM

 Foto : CC – Flickr – 2014 – William Murphy

Jérôme Duval es miembro del CADTM, Comité para la abolición de las deudas ilegítimas (www.cadtm.org) y de la PACD, la Plataforma de Auditoría Ciudadana de la Deuda en el Estado español (http://auditoriaciudadana.net/). Es autor junto con Fátima Martín del libro Construcción europea al servicio de los mercados financieros, Icaria editorial 2016 y es también coautor del libro La Deuda o la vida, (Icaria, 2011), libro colectivo coordinado por Damien Millet y Eric Toussaint, que ha recibido el Premio al libro político en la Feria del libro político en Lieja, Bélgica, en 2011.
  • Posted in Español
  • Commentaires fermés sur Evasión fiscal, un delito de ricos a costa de los pobres

La dette dans le monde vient d’atteindre un niveau record. Cette question était coeur des Assemblées annuelles du FMI et de la Banque mondiale qui viennent de se terminer à Washington. Alors qu’un nombre croissant de pays est au bord du défaut de paiement, ces deux institutions décident… d’aggraver le surendettement.

Dans son nouveau rapport, le FMI s’inquiète du niveau des dettes globales qui affichent le taux record de 225 % du Produit Intérieur Brut (PIB) mondial. Les deux tiers de ces dettes sont d’origine privée, contractées par les entreprises et les banques, laissant craindre une nouvelle crise financière et de nouveaux sauvetages par les Etats. Cette évolution résulte principalement de la politique monétaire des banques centrales comme la BCE qui prêtent au secteur privé à des taux nuls. Cette politique favorise les grandes banques qui lui empruntent d’énormes quantités de liquidités gratuitement mais qui, au lieu de prêter aux ménages, profitent de cette manne pour spéculer et prêter massivement aux Etats et aux entreprises du Sud.

Pourquoi prêter au Sud ? Depuis la crise de 2007 causée par le secteur financier, les capitaux cherchent les meilleurs rendements. Les pays du Sud, aux taux de croissance économique plus élevés, sont des cibles privilégiées. La hausse de leurs ressources liées au cours élevé des matières premières combiné au bas niveau des taux d’intérêt encourage alors ces Etats à profiter de cette conjoncture, enclenchant un nouveau cycle de réendettement. Entre 2006 et 2014, les prêts accordés aux pays à « faible revenu » ont plus que triplé. Plusieurs pays « partenaires » de la Belgique ont vu leur dette exploser entre 2010 et 2016 comme le Niger (+179 %), le Mozambique (+201 %), le Rwanda (+169 %), etc.

Entre-temps, la conjoncture internationale a radicalement changé puisque le prix des matières premières a considérablement diminué ; la baisse des recettes d’exportations combinée à des taux d’intérêt allant parfois au-delà des 10 % aggravant le surendettement. Certains pays comme le Mozambique et la Tunisie ont même frôlé récemment le défaut de paiement.

Coupes sombres dans les dépenses vitales

Ce sont les populations qui paient le prix fort puisque le paiement des dettes, jugé prioritaire par les créanciers et les gouvernements débiteurs, se fait au détriment des dépenses vitales comme la santé et l’éducation. Et cela ne concerne pas que les pays les plus paupérisés. Comme l’a souligné le Conseil des droits de l’homme de l’ONU, dans une résolution adoptée le 23 mars 2016, contre laquelle la Belgique a voté : « le fardeau croissant de la dette auquel doivent faire face les pays en développement les plus endettés, en particulier les pays les moins avancés, n’est pas viable et constitue un des principaux facteurs qui empêchent de progresser dans le développement durable centré sur la population et l’élimination de la pauvreté (…) pour bon nombre de pays en développement et de pays en transition, le service excessif de la dette a fortement limité la capacité de promouvoir le développement social et d’assurer des services essentiels pour créer les conditions indispensables à la réalisation des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels (…) les pays en développement continuent de rembourser davantage chaque année que les montants effectifs qu’ils reçoivent au titre de l’aide publique au développement. »

Pour s’attaquer au surendettement des Etats, le FMI et la Banque mondiale proposent comme « solution » de les endetter davantage en leur accordant de nouveaux prêts pour payer les créanciers privés imprudents ou spéculateurs… comme en 1982 lors de la première crise de la dette. Comme d’habitude, le FMI et la Banque conditionnent leurs prêts au renforcement de mesures d’austérité appelées dans leur jargon « réforme structurelle ». Le Programme d’action mondiale de la directrice du FMI, Christine Lagarde, est sans équivoque : « il importe d’accélérer la mise en œuvre des réformes structurelles ». Feu sur le droit du travail : la priorité est à la « réforme du marché du travail »

Des erreurs grossières

Pour s’assurer que ces politiques seront appliquées par les Etats endettés, le FMI et la Banque mondiale veulent aussi être les juges de la « soutenabilité » de leurs dettes. Juges… et parties comme le souligne l’Expert de l’ONU sur la dette puisque ces institutions pourront « avoir tendance à se montrer ouvertement optimistes concernant la dette des pays qui s’efforcent de mettre rapidement en œuvre leurs prescriptions de politique, et plus pessimistes envers les pays qui, à leur avis, ignorent leurs conseils », dégradant ainsi la note de ces derniers. Outre ce conflit d’intérêts, la crédibilité du FMI est également largement mise à mal vu les grossières erreurs commises dans ses prévisions sur l’impact économique des programmes d’austérité en Grèce.

Enfin, prétendre évaluer la soutenabilité de la dette uniquement en fonction de la capacité financière des Etats à payer la dette sans jamais tenir compte de l’obligation des Etats à assurer les besoins fondamentaux de leur population, démontre bien que les priorités de ces deux institutions ne sont pas la lutte contre la pauvreté et pour le plein-emploi, contrairement à ce qu’indiquent leurs statuts. Soulignons que plusieurs pays du Sud consacrent déjà plus d’un tiers de leurs dépenses publiques tous les ans au service de la dette.

Pour évaluer la soutenabilité mais aussi identifier la part illégale, odieuse ou illégitime de leurs dettes, les Etats débiteurs devraient eux-mêmes mettre sur pied des audits avec participation des représentants de la société civile, comme le préconisent les Principes directeurs de l’ONU sur la dette. Sur cette base, ils pourraient suspendre immédiatement le paiement des dettes qui entravent leur développement et annuler sans condition les dettes frauduleuses et celles contractées contre l’intérêt de leurs populations. Cette option aurait l’avantage de ne pas solliciter de nouveaux prêts empoisonnés du FMI et de la Banque mondiale.

 Renaud Vivien

Source : Le Soir

Renaud Vivien : Co-secrétaire général du CADTM Belgique, juriste en droit international. Il est membre de la Commission pour la Vérité sur la dette publique de la Grèce créée le 4 avril 2015.

 

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Le FMI et la Banque mondiale précipitent le Sud dans une nouvelle crise de la dette

After reports emerged alleging that the US may be tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC) over war crimes in Afghanistan, Radio Sputnik host Brian Becker discussed the possibility of such a scenario with international criminal lawyer Christopher Black.

Black, who is on the list of counsel at the ICC, told Loud & Clear that the initial report by Foreign Policy, suggesting Washington’s actions in Afghanistan may be investigated, appeared at a tough time for the organization. Prior to the publication three African nations — South Africa, Gambia and Burundi — withdrew from ICC over its alleged bias toward the continent.

Listen to Christopher Black:  « ICC Opens Afghanistan War Crimes Investigation: Could the U.S. Actually be Tried? » on Spreaker.

“It’s something to reestablish [ICC’s] prestige and credibility, because it’s in a state of collapse at the moment,” Black commented on the occasion, adding that there’s little evidence that the US will actually appear before court.

Citing the ICC report from the last year, Black stressed that potential inquiry into Afghanistan’s war crimes will be referred to every party involved in the conflict, including the Taliban, Afghan government and other forces. But it won’t concern the states that investigate the purported war crimes on their own, he added.

“[The report] says that the US has disciplinary procedures set up. People are being investigated [by US courts] and [ICC] may have to assess whether it is a serious investigation on that. Because the ICC won’t charge a country with war crimes if its own internal procedures are in place and they are pursuing people who commit crimes.”

In case of Afghanistan, Washington largely justifies its actions in the country, Black said.

“They said they made that attack, aggression against Afghanistan, in order to go after the Taliban government, which was ‘harboring Osama bin Laden’,” he said. “But remember the history, the Taliban said ‘we do have bin Laden here and will hand him over if you present evidence of his crimes.’ All they received was bombs.”

Moreover, Black highlighted, the US is not a member of ICC and has its federal protection act in place that prevents American personnel and officials from being charged by international courts, which means it’s unlikely the ICC will ever charge any American with war crimes.

“I don’t see them [US] accepting anything from the ICC, if it had an independent prosecutor,” Black said, adding that the ICC, under its two prosecutors, has done nothing to deal with war crimes committed by NATO forces in Libya or Yugoslavia.

The ICC ultimately is a tool for extension of American power worldwide Black explained, adding that Washington controls the prosecution staff in the ICC, “by placing its personnel in key positions or by persons that can control key positions. »

“The NATO tribunals have three purposes: to demonize governments that they want to crush, to cover-up their role in those wars and to make sure those people will never come back to governments. And the rest is propaganda.”

Since its establishment in 2003, it has opened 10 investigations and has found guilty 39 people, all from Africa.

“The US and its Western allies are using the ICC to go after who are standing their way, But they do not go for people [Uganda’s President Yoweri] Museveni who commit war crimes on the daily basis all over the Congo. Their client-leaders are left away and the rest are targeted,” he said.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Will the US Actually Be Tried in An International Court for Afghanistan War Crimes?

The cozy relationship between Goldman Sachs and the Clintons has reached dizzying new heights in recent years, giving the Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton an immensely influential partner on Wall Street.

As the public and most of the mainstream media is still processing the political bombshell concerning the newly reopened FBI probe into the Hillary Clinton’s email server case – the global investment banking firm Goldman Sachs quietly endorsed the Democratic presidential candidate this past week.

The financial ties that bind the Clintons and Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs are nothing new, but never before have the connections been so exposed. Let’s take a trip down collusion lane to review some of the more questionable examples of their political and financial merger formed long ago…

clinton-gold-21wire-slider-sh
‘MONEY CHANGERS’ – Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs are inextricably linked to the Clinton’s and The Clinton Foundation. (Photo illustration 21WIRE)

The Clintons & Goldman Sachs 

While campaigning for his first term in the White House, former president Bill Clinton received an enormous amount of support from Washington insider lobbyists and investment banking firms on Wall Street.

At the top of the pile sat Goldman Sachs…

In 1992, the LA Times reported that presidential nominee Bill Clinton,”received the largest share of his financial support–at least $2.6 million–from lawyers and lobbyists,” and that Clinton also received additional support from “…big securities firms such as Goldman, Sachs & Co. in New York and Stephens Inc. in his hometown of Little Rock, Ark. In fact, Goldman Sachs employees and their family members were responsible for the biggest contributions from a single firm: $98,700.”

For decades the Clintons have remained close allies to the banking behemoth Goldman Sachs and in the process, a mutually beneficial relationship has taken hold, something that even the NY Times admits:

Over 20-plus years, Goldman provided the Clintons with some of their most influential advisers, millions of dollars in campaign contributions and speaking fees, and financial support for the family foundation’s charitable programs.

By now, there should be little doubt that the Clinton political machine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Wall Street banking cartel. Their relationship was built over three decades.

The real watershed moment came here…

1-clinton-glass-steagall-goldman
BLANK CHECK: Bill Clinton laughs with Wall Street elites after signing the Financial Services Modernization Act in 1999.

‘Key to the Kingdom’

In one of the most significant financial rulings in the modern era, the Clinton presidency gave big banks like Goldman Sachs the skeleton key to the kingdom by deregulating the investment banking system almost entirely.

The Clinton/Goldman Sachs/Wall Street partnership was fully forged after the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which banking luminaries cynically named the “Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999″ officially titled the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.  The original Glass-Steagall was a depression-age four-part provision under the Bank Act of 1933 that strictly prohibited securities activities that could be harmful to investors – the same sort of rogue speculating and paper fiat fraud which triggered the Great Depression (1929-1941). In fact, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed Glass-Steagall, opened the door for the ‘shadow banking’ realm outside of regulatory oversight which led to a much higher trading risk, as banks became more interlinked.

Simply put: Clinton’s repeal of Glass-Steagell removed the firewall between speculative investment banking and regular high street retail and consumer banking – which exposed everyone to toxic, subprime ponzi schemes and fake paper products being pushed around the globe by the banking elite – which ultimately causing the global economy to crash in 2008. All that can be laid at the feet of one William Jefferson Clinton. And Hillary still claims that, “My husband did so well with the economy.” Really?

In a cross-posted article featured at Huffington PostNomi Prins underscored the complicit nature of Wall Street and Washington after the removal of tighter bank regulations under the Clinton administration during the 1990’s:

To grasp the dangers that the Big Six banks (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) presently pose to the financial stability of our nation and the world, you need to understand their history in Washington, starting with the Clinton years of the 1990s. Alliances established then (not exclusively with Democrats, since bankers are bipartisan by nature) enabled these firms to become as politically powerful as they are today and to exert that power over an unprecedented amount of capital. Rest assured of one thing: their past and present CEOs will prove as critical in backing a Hillary Clinton presidency as they were in enabling her husband’s years in office.

Prins herself was a former managing director at Goldman Sachs, senior managing director at Bear Stearns, as well as having worked as a senior strategist at the now defunct investment banking firm Lehman Brothers. Following the financial crash in 2007-2008, Prins blew the whistle on the banking world in a book entitled “It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bonuses, Bailouts, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street.”

Prins has become an advocate for the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act since departing from the investment banking world.

The media outlet Common Dreams described the merger between Citicorp and Travelers Group (becoming Citigroup), which was dubbed the ‘Citi-Travelers Act’ on Capitol Hill. It was a conglomeration that went hand in hand with the Clinton administration’s influence on banking deregulation marked by the repeal of Glass-Steagall:

Then, in 1998, in an act of corporate civil disobedience, Citicorp and Travelers Groupannounced they were merging. Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers. The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. Citigroup’s co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut.

At the time, it was the largest financial merger even though it was technically illegal, as stated by the former Bankers of America CEO Kenneth Guenther. In 1999, after “12 attempts in 25 years,”Congress passed the Financial Services Modernization Act, which led to the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was pushed heavily by Citigroup’s co-CEO Sanford Weill and lobbyist Roger Levy and according to a report by The Nation:

They laid out more than $290 million for lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and donated more than $150 million in the 1997–98 election cycle—a figure sure to be topped in 1999–2000.

How much of those contributions made their way to the Clinton family and what kind of impact did this have after they left the White House?

In 2005, Bill Clinton was paid over half a million for speaking at three private Goldman events.

1-Hillary-clinton-HalloweenIn 2013, after stepping down from her position as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton gave a total of three paid speeches at Goldman Sachs events to the tune of $675,000 dollars, in which one attendee said “she sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director,” according to a quote obtained by Politico. Indeed, Clinton gave a glowing speech to the Goldman gang and in the process, as Wikileaks released in early October, the Democratic nominee believes in “both a public and a private position” on Wall Street reform and that it is an “oversimplification” to suggest that investment banking led to the most recent financial crisis.

That Clinton leak provided another window into the much protected alliance between finance and politics, but it’s only the tip of a much larger iceberg.

In 2015, the Washington Post reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton earned in excess of $25 million for delivering 104 speeches since the beginning of 2014, a huge infusion to their net worth as she was readying for a presidential bid.”

1-chelsea-clinton
‘ANOINTED’: Chelsea Clinton with Goldman Sachs-backed hedge funder Marc Mezvinsky.

The Clinton family is chock-full of banking connections, as Chelsea Clinton ‘joined’ the Avenue Capital Group, which according to reports is a “…$12 billion hedge fund whose founder has contributed to many Democratic Party campaigns.” Chelsea is married to Marc Mezvinsky, a former investment banker for Goldman Sachs. Chelsea’s tenure at Avenue Capital Group was from 2006-2008 just prior to Hillary Clinton’s run for president in 2008. Since then Chelsea has risen to vice chairman inside the Clinton Foundation.

Marc Mezvinsky was forced to close one of his hedge funds recently, Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, after had the fund lost most of its initial investor funds of $25 million – after blowing the money on secondhand junk Greek bank stocks and toxic government debt.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree…

As it turns out, Marc is the son of troubled former Congressman Ed Mezvinsky – another close friend of Team Clinton.

Politico reports on one of Ed Mezvinsky’s financial controversies in 1999:

In the waning days of Clinton’s presidency, federal prosecutors and the FBI were bearing down on former Rep. Ed Mezvinsky (D-Iowa), who had fallen for a series of Ponzi schemes and pulled in nearly $10 million money from other investors to cover his losses.

Continuing, Politico outlined new information concerning a pardon request sent by from Ed Mezvinsky’s wife to then President Bill Clinton:

…records released last week by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock and obtained by POLITICO show Mezvinsky and his then-wife — ex-Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-Pa.) — pleaded with the former president for a presidential pardon to head off the looming federal case.

In 2016, the Daily Mail reported the following:

Chelsea Clinton’s husband and his partners have suffered a huge loss after trying to bet on the revival of the Greek economy, and are now being forced to shut down one of their hedge funds.

Marc Mezvinsky, 38, and his partners, former Goldman Sachs colleagues Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon, raised $25million from investors to buy up bank stocks and debt from the struggling nation.

That fund however has lost 90 percent of its value, investors with direct knowledge of the situation told The New York Times, and will now be closed.


‘THE INSIDERS’ – A ground-breaking ceremony at Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan in 2005. Hillary Clinton is joined by Michael BloombergLloyd Blankfein (current Goldman Sachs CEO), Former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Image Source: ilovemyfreedom)

The NY Times further outlined the long-held Clinton/Goldman connection just two years before the 2007-2008 financial crisis:

The Clintons’ relationships with Wall Street deepened in the 2000s, when Mr. Clinton set up his foundation in Harlem and Mrs. Clinton was elected to the Senate from New York. That brought her in close touch with the big Wall Street firms, a source of jobs and tax revenue for New York — and a leading source of campaign funds for Mrs. Clinton. During her years in Congress, employees of Goldman donated in excess of $234,000 to Mrs. Clinton, more than those of any other company except Citigroup, accordingto the Center for Responsive Politics.

Along with other New York politicians, Mrs. Clinton worked to obtain federal tax breaks to resuscitate Lower Manhattan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and those breaks helped Goldman build its new, roughly $2 billion headquarters. When it broke ground in 2005, Mrs. Clinton and other New York officials were on-site.

‘HOW TO MONETIZE INFLUENCE’ – Lloyd Blankfein at a Clinton Global Initiative event with Hillary Clinton. (Image Source: sputniknews)

The Wall Street Racket

To understand who powers the Clinton Foundation’s billion dollar RICO influence-peddling slush fund, you need to understand how money is laundered between Wall Street and Washington DC.

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Citigroup and many others were all ordered to pay millions for misleading investors after the 2008 crash, then in April of 2016, Goldman was ordered to settle a federal and state probe for $5 Billion dollars. CNBC reported the following:

Goldman Sachs will pay $5 billion to settle federal and state probes into the bank’s sale of mortgage-backed securities before the financial crisis, the Justice Department announced Monday.

Authorities said Goldman misrepresented the quality of loans it securitized and then sold to investors ahead of the housing bubble and 2008 crisis. The settlement includes a $2.4 billion civil penalty, $1.8 billion in relief payouts to underwater homeowners and affected borrowers and $875 million to resolve various other claims.

This resolution holds Goldman Sachs accountable for its serious misconduct in falsely assuring investors that securities it sold were backed by sound mortgages, when it knew that they were full of mortgages that were likely to fail,” acting Associate Attorney General Stuart Delery said in a statement.

In 2013, a Bloomberg article questioned how Goldman managed to survive and even thrive during the 2007-2008 economic crisis:

Whether Goldman could have gone the way of Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch remains the subject of much debate. Goldman maintains that it did not need, or want, the $10 billion bailout that Hank Paulson [ former Goldman alum] pushed on it and other firms in October 2008. But the fact remains that when the Federal Reserve allowed Goldman and Morgan Stanley—but not Lehman Brothers—to become bank holding companies on Sept. 21, 2008, Goldman was able, three days later, to raise $10 billion in equity, $5 billion from the public and another $5 billion from investor Warren Buffett. That would probably not have happened without the Fed’s expedited decision and support. (A week later, Morgan Stanley saved itself from bankruptcy when it negotiated a $9 billion equity investment from Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group.)

All told the Clinton friendly investment giant Goldman Sachs (after making record profits) became the fifth mega-bank ordered to pay billions to the Department of Justice after the financial crash of 2007-2008. In addition, the firm was ordered to pay $3 billion to the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2014 – not including pending private lawsuits levied on the firm since the Great Recession.

In a New York Review article Goldman Sachs was already under investigation for committing fraud at least a year before the economic crash in 2007-2008:

Data gathered mostly from the Corporate Research Project, a public interest website, show that on thirteen occasions between 2009 and 2016, Goldman was penalized by US courts or government agencies for fraudulent or deceptive practices that were committed mostly between 2006 and 2009.

Image result for robert rubin bill clinton
‘CASHING OUT’ – Bill Clinton with his top economic strategist Robert Rubin. (Image Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

Wall Street Selects ‘Team Clinton’

The Clinton connection to Goldman Sachs emerged in the early 1990’s as Robert Rubin, a former senior partner with Goldman (with a 26-year tenure with the firm), joined former President Clinton’s economic policy team, later becoming Secretary of the Treasury in 1995. Around that time, the Clinton presidency ushered in soaring tax hikes under the ‘Rubinomics’ banner (aka Clintonomics), the plan raised taxes on most Americans, specifically the middle class, in what was said to be the largest increase in American history at the time.

According to Congressional record (Vol.146 part 2), “In 1995, the economy grew at a sickly 1.5% – Clinton’s vetoes of spending cuts [insured] continued deficits well into the 21st Century.” 

In a Multinational Monitor report entitled “Wall Street’s Best Investment: Ten Deregulatory Steps to Financial Meltdown,” by Robert Weissman and James Donahue, a clearer picture of the financial collusion spawned in the 1990’s under the Clinton administration was revealed:

During the Clinton Administration, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who had run Goldman Sachs, enthusiastically promoted the legislation. In a 1995 testimony before the House Banking Committee, for example, Rubin argued that “the banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933. … U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically. Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.

With a pedigree that included Goldman Sachs, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Brookings Institution and the Bilderberg Group, Robert Rubin emerged in 1999 as the vice chairman at Citigroup (1999-2009) after overseeing its merger as well as helping to craft the repeal of Glass-Steagall while serving as Secretary of Treasury. Rubin made a fortune with Citigroup causing sharp criticism in media and from those within the financial sector following the 2007-2008 crash. Here’s a passage from Bloomberg regarding Rubin in the aftermath of the banking collapse:

When it collapsed, due in part to bank-friendly policies that Rubin advocated, he made more than $100 million while others lost everything. “You have to view people in a fair light,” says Phil Angelides, co-chair of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, who credits Rubin for much of the Clinton-era prosperity. “But on the other side of the ledger are key acts, such as the deregulation of derivatives, or stopping the Commodities Futures Trading Commission from regulating derivatives, that in the end weakened our financial system and exposed us to the risk of financial disaster.


‘SWORN’ – FBI director James Comey sworn in by former DOJ head Eric Holder. (Image Source: thewhitehousespin)

Under the Microscope

Over the summer 21WIRE observed some curious connections between the Clinton Foundation and FBI director James Comey, as well as his questionable handling of other cases related to the Clinton family. Here’s the following passage to consider in light of the new information related to the Clinton investigation:

Many will also be unaware that before Comey was installed by the Obama Administration as FBI Director, he was on the board of Director at HSBC Bank – a bank implicated in international money laundering, including the laundering of billions on behalf of international drugs and narcotics trafficking cartels.Forbes also points out where Comey was also at the key choke-point during the case involving dodgy auditor KPMG which followed on by the HSBC criminal case:

If Comey, and his boss Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, had made a different decision about KPMG back in 2005, KPMG would not have been around to miss all the illegal acts HSBC and Standard Chartered SCBFF +% were committing on its watch. Bloomberg reported in 2007 that back in June of 2005, Comey was the man thrust into the position of deciding whether KPMG would live or die for its criminal tax shelter violations.

In 2015, the Guardian discussed the financial relationship between HSBC and the Clinton Foundation receiving a startling $81 million in donations from clients of the large bank:

The charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family has received as much as $81m from wealthy international donors who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank.

Leaked files from HSBC’s Swiss banking division reveal the identities of seven donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation with accounts in Geneva.

A new update on the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation was announced over the last 24 hours, in addition the recently reopened Clinton email probe from last week. It remains to be seen how in-depth this new investigation will be.

To call it collusion would be an understatement.

When looking back at the financial affairs of the Clintons, Goldman Sachs and others on Wall Street – it’s clearer than ever that what we are looking at is a criminal syndicate.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Partners in Crime: Goldman Sachs, the Clintons and Wall Street

Em um país com alicerces democráticos frágeis, para dizer o mínimo, um auto-denominado Observatório da Imprensa (OI) não poderia ser dirigido por ninguém mais senão ele, quen retrata perfeitamente a « democracia » tupiniquim: Alberto Dines, declarado sionista que promoveu o golpe cívico-militar-midiático-empresarial de 1964 no Brasil (fato não confessado pelo dito-cujo, mas documentado). E não poderia ser sustentado por outra organização senão a tal de Ford Foundation, bem-conhecida ONG de fachada da CIA.

Semanalmente publicando no sítio do OI de dezembro de 2012 a março de 2014, este autor praticava contra-informação em relação à mídia oligárquica e se diferenciava de Dines por apontar diversos desvios midiáticos como defesa dos interesses dos que a sustentam, isto é, dos políticos e do alto empresariado além do próprio imperialismo norte-americano, e não como meros « equívocos jornalísticos » por inaptidão ou afã de publicar, padrão mantido precariamente pelo « observador midiático do Brasil », amigo íntimo e admirador de personagens como Roberto Civita, proprietário da famigerada editora Abril, já falecido.

Em meados de 2013 no OI, este autor ousou « observar o observador » alegando que ninguém estava acima do bem e do mal, e por isso mesmo nem da crítica: afinal, se observávamos semanalmente a tudo e a todos, por que não sermos igualmente observados? Pois a observação crítica deu-se quando Dines, tentando desviar a atenção da gravidade da espionagem globalmente descomedida do regime de Washington revelada por Edward Snowden, especialmente contra o Brasil (mais espionado do mundo então), alegou que a indignação de determinados setores nacionais (incluindo a deste autor) devia-se a ressentimento contra os Estados Unidos, « motor da política deste país há tantas décadas », segundo o « crítico » de jornalismo.

Obviamente, a intolerância crônica contra demagogia e puxa-saquismo sofrida por este autor acabou gerando mal-estar naquele meio que não preza nem nunca prezou pela liberdade de expressão e pela verdade dos fatos. Alguns meses depois, acabou insustentável a permanência deste autor ali.

Leis de Imprensa, Pesadelo do Oligopólio Midiático e de Seus Financiadores

Pois a publicação do dia 29 de outubro de 2016 a ser brevemente observada aqui não é de Dines, mas retrata a hipocrisia que marca aquele meio e a grande mídia em geral, a mesma covardia intelectual que faz Dines desconversar quando questionado se promoveu o golpe de 64 (na última vez, o mestre da rotulagem mais baixa e da fraseologia saiu pela tangente qualificando o escritor que publicou livro sobre sua fundamental participação no golpe, de « cão raivoso »). A « análise » midiática a seguir marca também, pontualmente, a própria « posição » do OI: a da omissão já que Dines passa longe da discussão a seguir, na condição de ilustre representante das oligarquias.

Plínio Lopes, estudante de Jornalismo, analisou (muito bem) a forma sensacionalista do « jornalismo » policial que, muitas vezes, fere gravemente a garantia constitucional da presunção da inocência, expõe inocentes ou suspeitos ainda não julgados, gerando assim mais ódio e violência.

Tudo isso é correto até que Lopes conclui que o « jornalismo » policial precisa se reinventar. O que as medíocres faculdades de Jornalismo – indústrias do diploma elitistas e formadoras de idiotas por excelência – e Dines jamais colocam em questão, seguidos pelo discípulo de turno, é que o jornalismo brasileiro em geral precisa, como em qualquer Estado democrático ao redor do mundo, de regulação, isto é, obedecer leis de Imprensa que no País inexistem, embora estejam previstas no artigo 220 da Constituição Federal.

No Brasil, as cinco principais emissoras de TV controlam, direta ou indiretamente, 274 redes (65% do total). Só a rede Globo controla 61,5% de TVs UHF; 40,7% dos jornais; 31,8% de TVs VHF; 30,1% das emissoras de rádio AM e 28% das FM.

A revista britânica The Economist, altamente conservadora, afirmou em 2014 que a concentração de audiência no Brasil é absurda, sugerindo que a então presidente Dilma deveria regular a Imprensa local, fazendo comparações com a mídia dos Estados Unidos – país fortemente liberal do ponto de vista econômico – a fi de constatar e quanto a mídia brasileira é anti-democrática.

Já em 2013, a ONG Repórteres Sem Fronteiras (RSF) pontuou que, no Brasil, « dez principais grupos econômicos, de origem familiar, continuam repartindo o mercado da comunicação de massa », observando ainda que o monopólio midiático no País parece « pouco modificado, 30 anos após a ditadura militar (1964-1985) », definindo-o como o « país dos 30 Bersluconis », referindo-se ao magnata da mídia e ex-primeiro ministro italiano.

Porém, amedrontados com o fato de que seus lucros possam ser diminuídos, os proprietários dos grandes meios de comunicação tupiniquins, através de seus jornalistas-fantasia, vendem a ideia que Leis de Imprensa imporiam uma ditadura da informação ao País: mais uma completa inversão de papéis da mídia de manipulação e embaralhamento do entendimento coletivo.

Liberdade de Expressão e Direitos Humanos

Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos de 1948, no artigo 19, destaca que “todo indivíduo tem direito à liberdade de opinião e de expressão; este direito inclui a liberdade de, sem interferência, ter opiniões e de procurar, receber e transmitir informações e ideias por quaisquer meios, independentemente de fronteiras”.

Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos, também em seu artigo 19, prevê: “Toda pessoa terá o direito à liberdade de expressão; esse direito incluirá a liberdade de procurar, receber e difundir informações e ideias de qualquer natureza, independentemente de considerações de fronteiras, verbalmente ou por escrito, de forma impressa ou artística, ou por qualquer meio de sua escolha”.

No âmbito das Américas, a Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos, conhecida como Pacto de San José da Costa Rica e assinada pelos membros da Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA), declara no artigo 13 que “toda pessoa tem o direito à liberdade de pensamento e de expressão. Esse direito inclui a liberdade de procurar, receber e difundir informações e ideias de qualquer natureza, sem considerações de fronteiras, verbalmente ou por escrito, ou em forma impressa ou artística, ou por qualquer meio de sua escolha”.

Mas não se deve ingenuamente esperar que, no sistema capitalista que visa o lucro, as empresas de mídia voluntária e altruisticamente esqueçam os índices de audiência e se reinventem, movidas pelo amor ao ofício e à vida.

A presidente Dilma foi derrubada do cargo não apenas inconstitucionalmente, como também de maneira muito baixa por seus encargados mais próximos (como Michel Temer), sem espaço para apresentar sua versão dos fatos no mesmo oligopólio midiático que sempre se recusou a regular, sob o pífio e oportunista argumento de que a sociedade possui controle remoto (como se houvesse pluralidade; tanto não há nem nunca houve, que ela caiu sem poder fazer sua voz chegar à maioria da sociedade), e o sítio que se intitula fiscal da Imprensa, jamais contraria os interesses mesquinhos, justamente, da grande mídia oligárquica de imbecilização em massa.

Sem democratização da mídia não haverá, jamais, jornalismo minimamente ético no Brasil, a liberdade de expressão continuará seriamente comprometida no Brasil e, consequentemente já que mídia é primordial na concepção de valores e ideias e na influência de comportamentos, a própria democracia e o senso cidadão seguirão da mesma maneira, paupérrimos no País. E sem essa discussão, as mais diversas análises terminarão, na essência, vazias, efêmeras, uma série de palavras jogadas ao vento.

Edu Montesanti

  • Posted in Português
  • Commentaires fermés sur Observando o ‘Observatório da Imprensa’: E a Regulação da Mídia?