Category Archives: Geopolitics

The US Government Thinks it Can Fool Us into a War with Russia

Posted on by
1

pissoffirs1

By Nick Bernabe

Source: The Anti-Media

It seems like only a few months ago (because it was) when the government that rules America was condemning the brutal crackdown against protesters by the Ukrainian government. The then-Russian backed regime was fending off large crowds of protesters who were angry about the Ukrainian government’s close ties with Russia, resorting to violence and anti-riot tactics to disperse the crowds.

In a statement issued by the White House on January 19th, before the new Western backed ‘legitimate’ government of Ukraine took power, US officials condemned the violence against protesters:

“We are deeply concerned by the violence taking place today on the streets of Kyiv and urge all sides to immediately de-escalate the situation. The increasing tension in Ukraine is a direct consequence of the government failing to acknowledge the legitimate grievances of its people.

Instead, it has moved to weaken the foundations of Ukraine’s democracy by criminalizing peaceful protest and stripping civil society and political opponents of key democratic protections under the law. We urge the government of Ukraine to take steps that represent a better way forward for Ukraine, including repeal of the anti-democratic legislation signed into law in recent days, withdrawing the riot police from downtown Kyiv, and beginning a dialogue with the political opposition.

From its first days, the Maidan movement has been defined by a spirit of non-violence and we support today’s call by opposition political leaders to reestablish that principle. The U.S. will continue to consider additional steps — including sanctions — in response to the use of violence.”

In a noble yet ironic –selective at best– attempt to stand up for human rights, what the US government said in the above statement made sense. Kind of.

While fighting for freedom of speech is a good thing, it should be stood up for even when it’s inconvenient. Now, as the US and allies in the West deliver billions in loans, tech and intel to the new central-banker-run government in Ukraine, Kiev is fully engaging (and killing) pro-Russian protesters in the East of Ukraine and even in the Southwestern port city of Odessa. Ahh yes, the sweet smell of selective humanitarianism.

Then –lockstep with American political talking heads– US media outlets immediately began referring to these pro-Russian (former)protesters as insurgents, militants, militiamen, radicals, separatists and terrorists just before the killing started a few months ago. They knew it was coming. 40 pro-Russians were burned alive in a building on Friday and there was hardly a mention of it in the news. You see, now the protesters are called terrorists so it’s okay to kill them. When did the media stop calling them protesters and start calling them terrorists? When it became politically convenient. Iraq remembers.

The US government (and citizen by default through taxes) is actively supporting the crony, human rights abusing, unelected Ukrainian regime through billions in loans, military training and equipment of which we can only speculate about.

As an American citizen, I do not consent to this insane foreign policy. And, according to a recent survey by the Wall Street Journal, it seems that at least 47% of Americans agree with me:

Americans in large numbers want the U.S. to reduce its role in world affairs even as a showdown with Russia over Ukraine preoccupies Washington, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

In a marked change from past decades, nearly half of those surveyed want the U.S. to be less active on the global stage, with fewer than one-fifth calling for more active engagement—an anti-interventionist current that sweeps across party lines.

…The poll findings, combined with the results of prior Journal/NBC surveys this year, portray a public weary of foreign entanglements and disenchanted with a U.S. economic system that many believe is stacked against them. The 47% of respondents who called for a less-active role in world affairs marked a larger share than in similar polling in 2001, 1997 and 1995. 

Good! So the propaganda isn’t working, but the government doesn’t really care about public opinion anymore. After all, how many Americans would actually support sending billions of US dollars to an oppressive Ukrainian puppet regime while our own schools and infrastructure dwindle into a bureaucratic wasteland and the country falls $16+ Trillion into debt? Not me.

Another small detail to remember as the US government escalates tensions in Ukraine under the banner of de-escalation (I know it’s Orwellian, but what isn’t nowadays) is that the American government likely helped overthrow the democratically elected, Russian-aligned former government of Ukraine. As this leaked tape of a conversation between diplomats proves, the US government hand picked central banker Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be the new ‘legitimate’ leader of Ukraine long before the coup took place. Oh yeah, “Fuck the EU” while we’re at it!

Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, later haphazardly apologized for her remarks that were recorded and leaked anonymously when she appeared at a press conference, clearly shaken up and taken back by the leak:

So while the US government and their media cohorts continue to push for the West’s version of “stability, democracy and self-determination” in Ukraine, the truth is that they were and continue to be part of the driving force causing these very problems they seek to fix. But hey, what’s new?

In no way do I seek to condone Putin or Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Russia is also a large oppressor in the region and is an oligarchy which is structured and governed much like America, for the rich. The Russian-American proxy war in Ukraine will have one guaranteed loser, the innocent Ukrainian civilians who are caught in the crossfire of this banker resource conflict. Both American and Russian citizens must regain control over their governments or these injustices will continue. Please share this article if you think WWIII is a bad idea.

Piketty, Meet Orwell: Why Modern Oligarchy MUST Turn Fascist

Posted on by
Reply

index

By Patrick Walker

Source: OpEdNews.com

If Frenchman Thomas Piketty, for all his brainiac academic wonkiness, has become a U.S. publishing sensation and economics rock star, it’s not merely due to his high-profile promoters. Granted, Piketty touters like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz carry high-brow clout (rather justified, given their own economics Nobel Prizes), among both fellow economists and intellectually serious progressives; it’s hardly surprising they help set intellectual fashions. But the deeper reason Piketty crossed the Atlantic so well is his timeliness: he had an economic message America’s most politically aware citizens were desperately waiting to hear.

For me (and, I suspect, for millions like me), the translated Piketty message–and I mean translated not just from French to English, but from economics to political activism, is this: your governance is illegitimate, and you now have the go-ahead signal to REVOLT. Not that many of us weren’t ready to revolt anyway (Occupy Wall Street, the anti-XL pipeline movement, and the food service workers’ strike were among the most prominent foreshocks), but the point is that Piketty gave us a new intellectual legitimacy. All true idealists are at some level truth seekers, and nothing gives us the needed conviction to go overturning the social order (a task people of conscience don’t undertake lightly) than indisputable evidence that the current order is illegitimate–a menace to the common good.

Having been irreversibly persuaded ourselves of the need for revolt, we feel free–in good conscience and citing the same evidence that persuaded us–to spread the message of revolt.

Piketty gave us the needed evidence–and as I mean to argue passionately here, Orwell closes the deal. I mean to say the twentieth-century Brit has “crossed the pond” perhaps even better than Piketty, and that we’ll fail to grasp the truly sinister implications of Piketty if we don’t make Orwell his required intellectual “diet supplement.” All modern oligarchic governance must end, in Orwell’s unforgettable image, in “a boot stamping on a human face forever.” Nothing less is at stake in our call to radical action.

Before proceeding, I wish to make one point of intellectual clarity. Careful readers will perhaps have noted that what I called illegitimate, in light of Piketty, is our governance. Now, I could easily have chosen a more familiar word, like government or system or society, but I fear that in doing so, I would have lost needed precision. Even a qualification like political system might not do the trick. For by governance I mean something wider than government and narrower than society, and wish to avoid (for now) distracting questions about the adequacy or legitimacy of the political system bequeathed to us by this nations’ founders. By governance, I means the whole collection of institutions, organizations, laws, and practices that determine how we are actually governed. So in the term, I very much intend to include the media, police and military, political parties, PACs, and other interest groups. Everything variable, in short, that enters the equation of how our nation is governed. It’s the final result of that equation–summarized in the word governance– that’s now provably illegitimate.

As I feel no shame (but rather, great pride) in saying, I write as a tribal progressive–NOT as a tribal Democrat. In fact, it’s my being a tribal progressive that frees me of the intellectual blinders necessarily entailed by being a tribal Democrat. For no tribal Democrat is intellectually equipped to grasp the illegitimacy of our governance, which is clearly–in a system monopolized by two parties–a bipartisan affair. Not that any sane person would say that both parties share culpability equally; anyone who fails to properly assign greater blame to Republicans has respected, heavyweight constitutional scholars like Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein–writers long noted for their nonpartisan balance and objectivity–to answer to. Their deservedly popular book It’s Even Worse than It Looks places the lion’s share of the blame for Congressional dysfunction (the piece of the illegitimacy puzzle they deal with) squarely on right-wing extremism. But our governance is scarcely a matter simply of Congress–or of one party. Any thorough analysis of our current illegitimacy would have to include Congressional Democrats, the Supreme Court, President Obama, the “shadow governance” of the Deep State, and the maggot swarms of lobbyists who descend on Washington daily. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. But it’s hardly my purpose to sort out in depth the agents responsible for our gravely dysfunctional oligarchy, but rather to spotlight its grievous, jackboot-trampling-face consequences. For, as I intend to prove, oligarchs can ultimately rule us in no other way.

Now, my calling myself a “tribal progressive” is something of a joke, modeled of course on the notion of unthinking, party-line-towing tribal Democrats and Republicans. In fact, I also self-identify as an intellectual and truth seeker, and therefore as someone for whom–as for Orwell–there’s something deeply sinister in the notion of a banned or off-limits book. Consequently, I’ve been known to indulge myself in authors and works whose reputation among the politically correct Left is, to put it mildly, dubious. Hence, I’ve read with pleasure Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, a thoughtful and thought-provoking work once favorably reviewed by no less a lefty idol than John Maynard Keynes. And I’m now reading Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man, a work bearing even the sulfurous stench of favorable reviews by adoring neocons. Yet, it’s reading Fukuyama that–far from reinforcing my faith in current U.S. governance–has, in conjunction with Piketty, obliterated all sense of its legitimacy. In fact, it’s because of Fukuyama (a learned, thoughtful author unfortunate in his associates and admirers–perhaps culpably) that I consider the whole question raised by Picketty as one of legitimacy.

And it’s the crucial question of legitimacy–the very heart of governance–that forcefully links Piketty to Orwell.

So here we’ve reached the heart of my topic. As Fukuyama deeply understands, the very survival of a political system or government depend on its legitimacy in the eyes of enough of its citizens. Crucially, not all of its citizens, indeed not even a majority, but enough citizens wielding the means of force and control to keep the doubters of its legitimacy in line. Hitler, as Fukuyama for example notes, was never elected by a majority, and probably never even freely supported by one. Little matter; the millions of Nazi supporters he did have were able to acquire near-monopoly of the means of force and control in German society, with the lethal consequences known to history. The complacent, misguided souls who cowishly nod their heads to Sinclair Lewis’s famous title statement “It Can’t Happen Here” probably fail to grasp that fascists’ required legitimacy is a minority matter; they certainly fail to grasp that Lewis himself believed it could. The it of course being U.S. fascism–and I believe it’s not only possible, but largely in place, and inevitable if we don’t soon change course.

Why? This is where Piketty’s strongly argued thesis about the nature of capitalism meets the brutal rubber of Orwell’s fascist road. See, Piketty’s central thesis is that the very nature of capitalism, because rewards to capital owners normally accumulate faster than general economic growth, is to produce oligarchic societies. Unless, says Piketty, extraordinary circumstances or government intervention–like high taxes–bring the rewards to capital in line with everyone else’s benefits from the economy. Now, the extraordinary circumstances, like world wars, are hardly desirable, and even depend for much of their effect on giving society a compelling rationale to tax the very rich. But as Piketty is keenly aware, extraordinary circumstances are by definition rare, and barring them, capital-owning oligarchs possess powerful means for thwarting government correctives to natural capitalist inequality. Like, say, buying the governments that would implement those correctives. Which clearly describes our current U.S. predicament–especially after the Supreme Court, itself an oligarchs’ plaything, has made buying our government infinitely easier.

So where does Orwell come in? The quick-and-dirty answer is, in vividly detailing the thoroughly modern, technology-based methods by which a tiny minority, hell-bent on exploiting a majority, recruits a critical mass of supporters (only a minority–though of millions–is needed) to keep the exploited majority at bay. In other words, as the word supporters clearly implies, the tiny minority (in our case, capitalist oligarchs) recruits just enough people who believe the exploitative governance of a majority by a capitalist minority is legitimate. And uses those millions of recruits to hold the exploited majority in terror. For once the majority gradually awakens to the illegitimacy of their exploitation by a handful of oligarchs, only a sizable minority (say, millions) of brainwashed or paid-off recruits wielding powerful modern weaponry, can keep the awakening majority from turning on the oligarchs. In other words, only a fascist government–one that recruits by technologies of propaganda and reigns by technologies of terror–can ultimately serve the aims of modern oligarchs.

Now, Piketty’s own historic examples might seem to refute the notion of oligarchs needing the modern Orwellian toolkit, but citing such historical counterexamples is shallow, and does not account for the fact that times–and above all, technologies–have changed. The key notion is that Orwellian methods are serving the aims of modern twenty-first century oligarchs, not those of nineteenth century France or England–a golden age for oligarchs Piketty often cites. In fact, today’s oligarchs require an economically richer, better-educated populace of servants than their nineteenth century counterparts; and even where they don’t strictly require it, such a populace is a fact on the ground they simply have to deal with–and control.

So, for example, even your average Walmart or McDonald’s peon needs to be–and in fact is–more literate and economically better off than your average eighteenth-century peon (or factory drudge) pure and simple. While condemning large segments of the population to unthinking drudgery (with no leisure for thoughtful politics) remains a perennial part of the oligarch toolkit, it simply can’t play the same role in population control it did when the drudges weren’t even allowed to vote. And of course, with legions of the unemployed poor, often replaced by cheaper foreign workers or robots, now having leisure for politics (if not necessarily thoughtful politics), the old-timey oligarch trick of denying the franchise is quickly making a comeback. But sadly for oligarchs, big enough segments of the U.S. population consider this trick illegitimate that it can never come anywhere close to being the chief means of control. So again, this is where Orwell comes in–and even building support for denial of the franchise requires massive Orwellian propaganda. Oligarchs must thank God every day for a critical mass of fearful, resentful racists and xenophobes–which clearly describes much of the Republican Party’s base.

Of course, racism and xenophobia are the hardly only Orwellian propaganda tools for recruiting oligarch lapdogs, though it must admitted they have served –and will long continue to serve–Republican oligarchs admirably. Patriotism, especially of the self-interested zero-sum variety where foreigners’ agendas and competition for resources and market share make them a threat to “our way of life,” has admirably served oligarchs from both parties. This has been especially true of fossil fuel oligarchs, who’ve successfully brainwashed Americans on the “energy independence” necessity of fossil fuels–even though our nation has been dramatically affected by the global climate harm these outmoded fuels are causing. And fossil-oligarch propaganda is remarkably adaptable; fossil fuels’ role as geopolitical muscle can be stressed now that large-scale plans for export prove the energy-independence argument was always hogwash.

But neither propaganda nor force exhaust the control tools in the oligarch toolkit; the fact is, there are certain “oligarch support industries” that have distinct trickle-down benefits. Not that trickle-down economists ever worked in the manner its ideologues proposed; in fact, the successful trickle-down depends on Big Government in a way that would have horrified trickle-down economics’ original small-government proponents. Understanding the mechanism involves understanding what I mean by “oligarch support industries”; by and large, I mean the industries, based on force and spying, that either distract attention from oligarchs, or potentially crack skulls on their behalf, once the legitimacy of their governance has been shaken in the eyes of large segments of the population. Offhand, I’d say this constitutes all branches of the U.S. military, mercenaries, and military contractors; government and private surveillance organizations; and police and private security organizations. Now, no one ever went broke serving the needs of the rich; in fact, providing oligarch support industries has become a huge U.S. business sector. But the very hugeness of that sector has swollen well beyond meeting oligarch needs, and can only be attributed to a perverse (perverse because it depends on Big Government) form of trickle-down.

See, precisely because no one ever went broke meeting the needs of the rich–and protecting their sorry asses in case the legitimacy of their governance breaks down is a huge oligarch need–investors in oligarch support industries soon become–if they weren’t already–oligarchs themselves. Now, a standard part of Piketty’s model is that oligarchs spend a portion of their vast wealth to buy government, in order both to protect and expand their already excessive wealth. Unsurprisingly, oligarchs created by oligarch support industries behave in exactly the same way: they invest heavily in lobbying government to support and expand their industries. Now, since the oligarch support industries in question straddle the public and private sectors, the lobbying successfully expands jobs–essentially, spying and potentially cracking skulls, both inside and outside our government. In no other case I can think of has “trickle-down economics” been so wildly successful. And even without oligarch propaganda, the overly swollen leagues of soldiers, spies, cops, rent-a-cops, and surveillance and weapons manufacturers–by now swollen well beyond the original protection needs of their oligarch employers–have a vested interest in serving oligarchs both inside and outside their industries.

And of course–though legally and morally this is not supposed to be the case–one must include many elected officials, elected and unelected judges, and journalists in corporate-owned media–as unofficial members of the oligarch support industries. While Republicans are clearly worse, it’s clear once again that these illegitimate members of the oligarch support industries are bipartisan–as was most recently proved by the eleven Democrat Senators (let’s brand them “the Keystone Eleven”) who were ready to surpass even Obama’s service to fossil fuel oligarchs by taking approval of the environmentally insane Keystone XL pipeline out of his cowardly, dithering election-year hands. Clearly, these Democrats are prepared to use the fascist jackboot against conscientious Americans on behalf of fossil-fuel oligarchs, since thousands of heroic citizens are pledged to civil disobedience against the unconscionable pipeline.

While the “boot stamping a human face” approach, backed by fascist pro-government courts, has already been used against Occupy Wall Street, I suspect approval of the XL pipeline will show us fascism–Orwellian brutality supporting Piketty’s increasingly dominant oligarchs–in its most blatant form. This will be, of course, because enough conscientious citizen have seen through oligarch propaganda to realize oligarch agendas threatens humanity’s very survival. So bipartisan is the push for pro-oligarch fascism that eleven Democrats openly decided noble Keystone protesters deserved Orwellian brutality.

Until we widely disseminate the fact that Orwell is other side of Piketty–that a “boot stamping on a human face forever” is the logical conclusion of runaway economic inequality–we’ll never (until we’re ALL destroyed by climate change) see an end to illegitimate oligarch rule.

The Vindication of Daniel Ortega

Posted on by
Reply

0,,4477394_4,00

By toni solo

Source: Axis of Logic

North American and European economies continue to be stuck with intractable, if for the moment moderate, stagflation. Prices for most household purchases steadily increase while majority incomes stagnate. By contrast, corporate incomes increase, subsidized by Western government and Central Bank policy. The resulting increase in inequality is clearly a deliberate policy outcome responding to the weakening of Western economies relative to global counterparts led by China and Russia.

Among those counterparts, Latin America, for long one of the world’s most unequal regions, is playing a leading role demonstrating how to reduce inequality. That is true to some extent in Brazil and Argentina, but it is particularly the case in the bloc of countries grouped in the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA). Western governments and corporate media regularly criticise the governments of ALBA members like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua while omitting the solidity and consistency of those countries’ economic and social success over the last seven or eight years. Nicaragua is a perfect example of that pattern, having achieved the highest regional decline in inequality along with Bolivia and Ecuador.

A July 2013 World Bank paper “Deconstructing the Decline in Inequality in Latin America” shows that ALBA members Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua are the countries that had most reduced inequality as of 2011. Nicaragua had the highest average GINI coefficient year-on-year fall of  2.6% between 2000 and 2011. The figures for Bolivia and Ecuador are 2.05 and 1.99 respectively. In terms of an overall decline in the GINI coefficient in the region the figures for the period covered by the World Bank report are that Bolivia’s dropped 15.5%, followed by Nicaragua (12.2%), Argentina (10.7%), Peru (8.7%) and Venezuela (8.5%). (The figure for Ecuador is absent because data prior to 2003 were unavailable.)

Nicaragua in macro
Nicaragua is a Central American and Caribbean country with a population now of over 6 million. For decades it was the second poorest country in the Americas. Devastated by a US government contrived war in the 1980s, from 1990 to 2007 the country was governed on neoliberal principles dictated by foreign donor governments and multilateral financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In January 2007, President Daniel Ortega took office leading the second democratically elected government of the Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional.

2007 was the year in which global economic crisis followed the collapse of the Western financial system. Despite Western propaganda to the contrary, the effects of that crisis clearly persist. Even so, over the last five years, in that highly adverse international economic environment, Nicaragua has maintained better growth than its Central American neighbours, averaging over 5% a year. That success is the result of socialist inspired policies, responsive to the country’s emphatically Christian culture, based on the fundamental principles of solidarity and shared responsibility in all areas of national life.

The 2013 report of the United Nation’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) places Nicaragua among the more successful regional economies on a variety of indicators. For example, between 2010 and 2013, foreign direct investment more than doubled from US$491m to US$1004m, representing a much greater percentage improvement than in Costa Rica (43.5%), Honduras (8.7%) and Guatemala (40.5%). In El Salvador, the same indicator almost doubled, but at a much lower level from US$117m to US$224m.

Nicaragua’s international trade is now well over twice the value of its exports in 2005. In Latin America and the Caribbean in 2013, only Peru had higher fixed capital growth than Nicaragua as a percentage of GDP. Nicaragua’s figure of 29.2% is about 7% greater than Costa Rica and Honduras and over double that of El Salvador or Guatemala. Price inflation has held at around 7% for the last three years. Foreign external debt is around 31% of GDP. Foreign reserves are over twice those of 2006. In August 2013, two years after Nicaragua exited its last IMF programme, the IMF’s deputy director for the western hemisphere declared Nicaragua’s economy to be solid and stable.

Global context
The current crisis in the West suggests similarities with the prolonged economic crisis in North America and Europe from 1873 to 1896. The Western powers resolved that crisis through a virulent burst of imperialist aggression, setting the stage for the global wars of the 20th Century. Since the end of World War 2 in 1945, the appearance of democracy in the West has depended on externalizing onto the majority world the costs of mitigating and managing inequality in Europe and North America.

A key witness to that fact is former French President Jacques Chirac who in the 2008 documentary “10 mai Africaphonie” stated, with uncharacteristic honesty, “We forget one thing…namely that much of the money in our wallets comes precisely from the exploitatation over centuries of Africa. Not completely, but a lot of it comes from the exploitation of Africa. So we have to show a bit of common sense. I won’t say generosity, but common sense, some justice to render to Africans… you might say ….what was taken from them. As much as necessary, if we want to avoid the worst convulsions or difficulties with the political consequences these might bring in the near future.”

As the West’s neocolonial options recede, most clearly in Asia and Latin America, the United States and its European allies embrace more than ever the logic of fascism, the alliance of corporate interests and coercive government. Domestically, their policies protect wealthy elites while cutting back on provision for education, health care and social security. Overseas, to intimidate Iran, destroy Libya and attack Syria, NATO country governments have allied themselves with feudal tyrannies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

To intimidate Russia, they have funded, trained and supported murderous neonazi groups in Ukraine while deploying military resources including missile systems around Russia’s borders. To intimidate China, they harrass North Korea, encourage Japanese nationalism and increase military deployments in the Pacific. Extensive military deployment is also a key element of Western efforts to reset their countries’ neocolonial control in Africa in response to China’s growing influence there.

The perfidious dollar
Underlying these developments is the end of global dollar hegemony and the steady emergence of multipolar alternatives. China, Russia and various countries in Asia and Latin America are conducting trade more and more in their own currencies or even, in the Latin American and Caribbean ALBA framework, in kind. As Western economic dominance declines, especially relative to Russia and China, the United States and the European Union compensate increasingly overseas with terrorist subversion and outright military aggression. Their corrupt political and economic system staggers like a zombie from one crisis to the next.

The Western powers cling to vestiges of their former global power by continuing to dominate the world’s financial system and through ruthless military barbarism. Their financial dominance persists in large part because commodity prices, especially oil and gas are denominated internationally in dollars. In 1971, the US government floated the dollar in order more freely to fund the Vietnam War and its broader imperialist foreign policy. Since then, in effect, only the United States has been able to use its own credit to fund economic growth and finance deficit spending.

Every other country has needed dollars in order to ensure their people’s economic development, mainly to guarantee energy needs and attract foreign investment. Even the wealthy Eurozone countries and Japan are subject to that dollar hegemony. The US Federal Reserve and its Primary Dealer network manage dollar liquidity in the global financial system. The Primary Dealers are all subsidiaries of crooked, giant North American, European and Japanese global financial corporations, too big to fail and too big to jail. They act in close collusion with the Federal Reserve and the other Western Central Banks, monitoring and managing international financial, currency and commodities markets.

Low wages and deregulation
The various mechanisms of dollar hegemony necessarily promote deep inequality around the world because international competition to earn dollars via exports encourages low wages, restricting domestic demand in the exporting countries. Ever since the 1980s the pernicious low wage effects of dollar hegemony have been progressively compounded by neoliberal propaganda for radical deregulation, urging low taxes, attacking organized labour and dismantling financial and commercial controls, especially of international capital flows. Incomes in the West began to stagnate as the rate of profit for Western corporations slowed and former well paid jobs were outsourced overseas.

The demise of the Soviet Union signalled a deregulation boom. In Europe and North America, mergers and acquisitions increasingly concentrated corporate power, strengthening the drive for deregulation. The resulting fraudulent financial innovation and free transfer of capital across the world lead to the Long Term Capital Management debacle and the Mexican, Russian and Asian currency crises of the 1990s. Despite these disastrous outcomes and the subsequent Enron and Worldcom scandals, deregulation continued to drive asset bubbles and easy credit so as to compensate for stagnant incomes, especially in the United States, leading directly to the crisis of 2007.

Poverty reduction in Nicaragua
This dead hand of decrepit neoliberal corporate capitalism was choking the Central American economies when Daniel Ortega took office as President of Nicaragua’s second democratically elected Sandinista government in January 2007. In such a dismal international economic context, poverty reduction represented a monumental challenge. Even so, President Ortega’s Sandinista government quickly set out in an extremely determined way to reduce poverty with a policy program whose many components are worth listing, if only because they show what can be done by an extremely poor country despite largely adverse international conditions. Extreme poverty in Nicaragua has been cut from over 17%  in 2006 to just over 5% now.

Addressing intractable balance of payments difficulties, the government sought to broaden Nicaragua’s trade with Latin America, the Russian Federation, Asia  and elswhere. Similarly, the government diversified its development cooperation, maintaining links with traditional partners in North America, Europe and Asia but also deepening its relationships with Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico and Brazil. Attracting greater foreign investment was also a key policy objective. Joining the ALBA framework, led by Venezuela and Cuba, freed up around US$500 million a year to invest primarily in production but also in major social programs.

To give Nicaragua’s overwhemingly agricultural economy much needed domestic stimulus, government programmes have prioritized small and medium producers of basic grains, cattle and coffee. The cooperative sector received support and resources to develop existing production cooperatives and form new ones. Small and medium sized businesses benefited from greater access to credit. The government has prioritized tourism, ensuring that it integrates closely with other sectors of the economy, especially small and medium sized businesses.

Economic democracy
This democratization of the Nicaraguan economy has radically transformed the position of women. Flagship programmes like Zero Hunger and Zero Usury, as well as property titling programmes and social housing are all directed at women beneficiaries. President Daniel Ortega’s insistence on genuine democracy and national reconciliation made possible tripartite agreement on a minimum wage framework between government, labour unions and employers organizations. Since 2010, that framework has ensured an annual increase in the minimum wage several percentage points greater than the rate of inflation.

In the last three years, those domestic stimulus measure were accompanied by administrative measures relating to equitable tax and social security reform which have helped significantly increase government revenue and stabilize the social security system for the foreseeable future. As Nicaragua’s economy generates progressively more formal employment, both tax revenue and social security income benefit. ECLAC reports that while formal employment has declined throughout the rest of the region, in Nicaragua it has grown steadily through 2012 and 2013

One key mechanism reducing inequality has been to use subsidies in the most sensitive areas affecting ordinary families’ costs. Apart from free health care and education, the government subsidizes the cost of public transport. Bus companies in the capital Managua receive preferential prices for fuel, oil, tyres and spare parts in exchange for pegging fares at 10 US cents. Taxis in Managua as well as inter-urban and acuatic transport in the rest of the country also receive similar benefits enabling the Transport Ministry and local municipalities to negotiate favourable fare tariffs for transport users.

Low income families benefit from subsidized electricity for consumers using under 150Kw a month. The government also operates a retail network offering basic food stuffs at preferential prices through local general stores. Over 58,000 families have benefited from subsidized or free housing. Low-income families nationwide have benefited from a free construction materials program enabling impoverished families to repair defective roofs.

Other social investment programs include assistance for people, especially children, with disability as well as food support for vulnerable groups such as the elderly. The Amor para los más Chiquitos programme has helped around 32,000 very young children at risk, ensuring they enjoy care, education and attention rather than ending up on the streets. That programme has worked with over 420,000 families providing advice and guidance in the care of young children under 6 years old. The government’s efforts to promote social stability also encompass property titling programs that have issued over 180,000 title deeds bringing security of tenure to over 800,000 people.

Health, education, infrastructure
Health and education are crucial expenses for most families in Nicaragua as everywhere else. The availability of free public health care has made a massive difference to low income families who cannot afford private care. The government is steadily equipping the public health system with the resources it needs to improve its services year by year. Emphasising preventive health care, government vaccination programs applied over 4,100,000 doses in 2013. The Casa Materna programme, almost tripling facilities to assist expectant mothers in rural areas, has helped the government reduce maternal mortality, which fell 35% from 2007 to 50 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2012.

Likewise in education, government expenditure improving infrastructure is accompanied by a range of programmes supporting low income families. The Merienda Escolar programme for adequate nutrition for primary school children, ensures provision of meals for over 1,000,000 pre-school and primary school children. Low income families also get help with schooling inputs. Apart from regular primary and secondary education, the government has invested heavily in vocational technical training for young people and improved access to education in rural areas. Follow up to the successful literacy programs of the government’s early years is consolidating the eradication of illiteracy. Education programmes for children with special needs include the integration of children with slight disability into the regular school system as well as dedicated programmes for children whose disability is more severe.

The transformation of government social and economic policy is physically much more obvious in terms of energy and infrastructure. National road, port and airport infrastructure has been almost completely renovated. Construction is on schedule of the new oil refinery being built near León with the Venezuelan State oil company PDVSA. Dependence on oil fired thermal generating stations has dropped from over 80% to less than 50% of the country’s generating capacity thanks to investment in renewable energy sources. Work on the long delayed Brazilian financed Tumarin hydroelectric project on Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast should begin later this year. Also by the end of this year the results of the feasibility studies for the Interoceanic Canal will permit work to begin on that epoch making project and its sub-projects. These include an interoceanic rail link and pipeline, new airports and two deep water ports on the country’s Pacific and Caribbean coasts.

Confidence, security, democracy
Domestic and international confidence has been fundamental in making all this transformational social and economic investment happen. Despite a comparative lack of resources, Nicaragua’s police and army are acknowledged to have the best record in the region combating narcotics and other organized crime. Overseas, Nicaragua’s community oriented policing is recognized as a model, largely because the country has prevented the spread of the gang culture prevalent in neighbouring El Salvador and Honduras. While common delinquency remains a persistent problem, enhanced security in rural areas has been crucial in encouraging the small and medium farm production that has transformed Nicaragua’s agricultural economy since 2006.

The success of the Sandinista government’s economic policies has resulted from consensus-building  with private business organizations and labour unions by means of constant consultation with all sectors of the national economy. Similarly, government social policy has been developed in close collaboration with the country’s municipal authorities. Many resources and implementation of much social and economic policy have been channelled through the country’s 153 local authorities. The positive impact of that strategic partnership is most obvious from investment in improved municipal infrastructure, in sports facilities for young people and in support for local small and medium sized businesses.

Another fundamental component in the success of President Ortega’s social and economic strategy  has been the deliberate and active promotion of the role of women. Previously, women in Nicaragua were in effect structurally excluded from both economic and political life, denied their legitimate role in decision making and as economic agents. Nicaragua is now acknowledged among the world leaders in guaranteeing political representation for women. Less well known is the transformational role of women in Nicaragua’s economy through access to resources via government programs like Zero Hunger and Zero Usury and ensuring property titles to families previously without secure tenure. All those programs prioritize women beneficiaries.

More specific to Nicaragua has been the consolidation of the country’s Caribbean Coast into the national economy. That process has been a continuation of the historic autonomy project for Nicaragua’s Caribbean coast initiated under the first Sandinista government in the 1980s. In the next five to ten years, the economy of the Caribbean coast is likely to change radically. It has become an ever more popular tourist destination. The recovery in 2012 of Nicaragua’s maritime territory, usurped for decades by Colombia, has opened up new commercial opportunities. The Interoceanic Canal and its sub-projects will definitively end the area’s historic and geographic separation from Nicaragua’s Pacific coast.

Daniel Ortega – Central America’s leading regional statesman
Based on broad consultation and consensus, President Daniel Ortega has implemented strategic policies through a ministerial team led operationally by Rosario Murillo, successfully managing all the various complex factors in relation to social investment, the macro and domestic aspects of economic policy, infrastructure development and energy policy, fiscal and administrative reform, trade and agricultural renewal and security. He has done so constrained by the continuing international economic crisis and in the face of relentless, vicious national and international disinformation campaigns. But the results speak for themselves and explain why Nicaragua’s political opposition have been unable to muster more than 10% support nationally for well over a year, while support for President Ortega is consistently well over 60%.

Aside from the incomparable figure of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega is the most outstanding statesman of Central America and the Caribbean of the last thirty years. Rosario Murillo stands with Dilma Rousseff and Cristina Kirchner among Latin America’s women leaders transforming the region’s societies and economies. Under the leadership of Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo, Nicaragua’s government team has proved by any measure to be among the most effective in Latin America and the Caribbean. Many Western government officials will acknowledge that in private. Multilateral organizations have recognized it publicly for years now. It is long past time for the Western corporate and alternative media to recognize it too.

Video News Roundup

Posted on by
Reply

5/7 RT interviews a survivor of the Odessa massacre who witnessed police complicity in the violence:

5/6 Mark Dice on the NSA and freedom of speech:

5/6 A NextNewsNetwork report on a test of the limits of religious freedom in Oklahoma:

5/5 Before Snowden there was NSA whistleblower Russ Tice, who has had suspiciously less corporate media coverage. Fortunately WeAreChange and other independent journalists are helping to get his message out:

5/5 GlobalResearchTV posted this PressTV report linking chaos in Ukraine to US policy:

5/5 Lee Camp on the military-industrial complex:

 

America: The Country that Wrote the Playbook on the Destabilization of a Neighbor

Posted on by
Reply

By Wayne Madsen

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

 

A nuclear-armed superpower deployed intelligence operatives to a neighboring country. The intelligence agents immediately set about the infiltrate a radical secessionist movement in order to push it toward committing acts of kidnapping, assassination, and other violence. After the kidnapping of a foreign diplomat, the central government invoked draconian national security and war measures statutes, suspending civil liberties. The secessionists, who demanded their language, cultural, and political rights within a supposed «federal» system, were demonized by the foreign-led infiltration and radicalization of their movement.

This scenario is not Ukraine in 2014 but Canada, and, particularly Quebec, in 1970. That year, the Quebec Liberation Front (FLQ) launched a campaign of violence against the Quebec provincial government and the federal government in Ottawa. The radicalization of the FLQ was largely carried out by agents of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency who were infiltrated into Quebec in an effort to portray Quebec nationalists as radical «terrorists». Today, the United States falsely accuses Russia of carrying out a similar scenario in Ukraine. However, what the United States is claiming is coming from one of the most hypocritical nations in recent world history. And, as far as the Obama administration is concerned, what the CIA carried out in Quebec and Canada in 1970 is a long forgotten footnote of history, however, the same destabilization playbook being used by the United States and Canada in the late 60s and early 70s is being copied today by the CIA and its partners in Kiev.

By the late 1960s, the CIA became concerned about the possibility that the majority French-speaking province of Quebec may opt for independence from the rest of Canada. An independent Quebec, which the CIA believed would drift to the left and withdraw from NATO, was a nightmare for the trans-Atlantic status quo enthusiasts at the CIA and its affiliated think tanks, as well as the Pentagon brass and the Wall Street minions of the Bilderberg Group.

The warnings signs for the CIA included a series of events. On July 24, 1967, French President Charles de Gaulle, declared «Vive le Québec libre!» (Long live free Quebec!), from the balcony of the Montreal City Hall. That same year, de Gaulle withdrew France from the military command structure of NATO and ordered NATO headquarters and other activities to leave France. De Gaulle, arriving in Montreal on the French warship «Colbert» to help celebrate the opening of Expo 67, bypassed the federal capital Ottawa, and was wildly cheered by Quebecois who used the occasion to loudly boo the Governor General of Canada during the playing of «God Save the Queen».

De Gaulle’s proclamation gave a morale boost to Quebec’s nascent separatist movement. However, in Ottawa, the French-speaking Justice Minister and future Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, along with Prime Minister Lester Pearson, grew alarmed at what they considered French involvement in the domestic affairs of Canada. Secretly, the Security Service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, at the time, Canada’s primary foreign intelligence agency, contacted their colleagues in the CIA for assistance to deal with what was perceived as an existential threat to Canada posed by the Quebec nationalists.

The CIA was fearful of the leftward drift of Quebec nationalism, as shown by the nationalization of Quebec’s hydro-electric resources by Hydro-Quebec, owned by the province of Quebec, and the rising popularity of Rene Levesque, a former Liberal Party member of the Quebec National Assembly, who, in the euphoria surrounding De Gaulle’s 1967 visit and proclamation, founded the Mouvement Souveraineté-Association that same year. Levesque merged his party with another autonomist party, the Ralliement National, forming the Parti Québecois (PQ).

The RCMP Security Service and the CIA decided to begin infiltrating a small radical Quebec secessionist movement, the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ). Almost overnight, the FLQ, which had only been a nuisance, began carrying out serious bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations, culminating in the «October Crisis» of 1970. Targeted for kidnapping by the FLQ were James Cross, the British Trade Commissioner to Canada, and Pierre Laporte, a vice premier in the Liberal government of Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa. Laporte was murdered a few days after his kidnapping.

Not only Bourassa, but clandestinely, the CIA and RCMP joint Quebec task force convinced Prime Minister Trudeau to invoke the War Measures Act in Quebec. Canadian rule of law was suspended and police began rounding up Quebecois who were strong supporters of Quebec independence. Of the 497 people detained by police, 435 were later deemed to be innocent and were freed. The invocation of the War Measures Act by Trudeau proved to the CIA that the vocally anti-U.S. prime minister could be counted on to support a status quo that was beneficial to the United States and NATO. Trudeau’s son, Justin Trudeau, the leader of the opposition Liberal Party today, is viewed in much the same light as someone who will continue to carry Washington’s water domestically and internationally if the sycophantically pro-U.S. Stephen Harper ever leaves office.

Although the FLQ collapsed after the October Crisis, the damage sought by the CIA and RCMP to the cause of Quebec sovereignty was accomplished. Levesque’s PQ failed to win control of the Quebec National Assembly in the 1970 and 1973 elections and Levesque, himself, failed to win a seat in the assembly in both elections. However, in 1976, Levesque and his PQ won control of the National Assembly and the new government and carried out a plebiscite on sovereignty association with Canada in 1980. After a concerted propaganda barrage by Ottawa, Washington, and Montreal’s influential Jewish community, the referendum resulted in a 60 percent vote against and 40 percent vote for the sovereignty-association status. The following year, federal Justice Minister Jean Chretien hammered out a new Canadian constitution with the agreement of all the provincial premiers except for Levesque, the British Parliament and Queen Elizabeth, and the Canadian Supreme Court, which ruled that a new constitution of Canada was legal even though it did not have the approval of Quebec. To this day, Canada’s constitution was never approved by Quebec.

In 1995, the PQ, once again in power, held another referendum on independence. It failed with a 50.6 percent vote of «no» and a «yes» vote of 49.4 percent. A clear majority of French-speakers voted for separation from Canada but the same coalition of English-speakers and Montreal Jews who were able to defeat the 1976 plebiscite did so again.

This year, PQ Premier Pauline Marois and her party lost the election to the Liberal Party, although most major polls predicted the PQ would easily win re-election. There were suspicions in a number of political quarters that the Harper government in Ottawa, working with the U.S. and the Mont Royal clique, pulled off a massive election fraud. But with the defeat of the PQ and Marois, who lost her own seat, the notion of Quebec independence was, once again, dead on arrival.

The repeated repression of the PQ in Quebec is directly tied to CIA activities. A CIA agent named Jules «Ricco» Kimble was later reported to have not only infiltrated the FLQ in the 1960s but maintained a CIA station in the Mont Royal neighborhood. Kimble said he committed two murders that were pinned on the FLQ, although it is not known if one of them was the assassination of Laporte.

In 1991, a former Quebec minister, who spoke anonymously, confirmed Kimble’s status as a CIA agent. The ex-minister said, «I heard about this place on Mont Royal and its work with the CIA».

In 1971, the Montreal Star published a TOP SECRET CIA memorandum dated October 16, 1970, which stated that the CIA was behind the violence committed in the name of the FLQ. The memo stated, «Some sources recommend that we take urgent measures to temporarily cease contacts with the measures of FLQ militants because of Canadian undesirable consequences with the Canadian government». In other words, the CIA admitted to have conducted «false flag» terrorist operations in Canada. Expectedly, the Richard Nixon administration and Trudeau denounced the CIA document as a forgery.

The chief of counter-intelligence for the RCMP Security Service, Leslie J. Bennett, confirmed, in 1973, that Montreal was infiltrated by a number of CIA agents during the October Crisis of 1970. Shortly after he made this statement, Bennett was falsely accused by the RCMP of being a Soviet KGB mole and he was forced to move to exile in Australia. It was not until 1993 that the Canadian government admitted that its charges against Bennett being a Soviet double agent were a fabrication.

It has also been revealed by arrested members of Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel, in addition to CIA and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sources, that the CIA has been busy destabilizing by shipping weapons to Mexican drug cartels using the U.S. Justice Department’s «Fast and Furious» operation as cover. Some sources claim that the Obama administration authorized weapons transfers to the two main Mexican drug cartels, the Sinaloa and Los Zetas gangs, in order to generate a national security crisis in Mexico, thus paving the way for the election in 2012 of globalist and pro-privatization and pro-American candidate Enrique Pena Nieto and the defeat of the leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Many of the paramilitary leaders of the Los Zetas and Sinaloa cartels were trained under the watchful eyes of the CIA, by the infamous U.S. Army’s School of the Americas, now the Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in Fort Benning, Georgia.

The entire gamut of false flag operations currently being waged in eastern and southern Ukraine by the CIA and its Ukrainian partners should be viewed through the lens of the CIA’s sordid activities in committing terrorist acts, libeling innocent people, and, perhaps, illegally manipulating elections in Quebec from the early 1960s to the present day. There is only one nuclear-armed country that has destabilized one neighboring nation that has demanded linguistic, cultural, and political rights and another seeking to wrest itself from domination by its more powerful northern neighbor. That country is the United States.

 

US Backed Fascist Thugs Unleashed in Ukraine

Posted on by
Reply

Photo: BBC

Source: Collapse.com

With the American minds now fully inundated with anti-Russian propaganda and lies as to the composition of the US backed coup government in Ukraine the time has finally come to unleash the goons. After weeks of threats, military buildups and visitations by high US officials to the neo-Nazi/fascist backed “Yats” regime all hell broke loose on Friday. The point of no return – if not already crossed by the duplicity of the US-EU-NATO triad was reached when the occupying government in Kiev sent forth military helicopters against civilians and extremist shock troops began a pogrom in the city of Odessa. Now it is on like Donkey Kong!

It is another of those sick ironies that plague this country, especially since the September 11, 2001 attacks allowed for the Deep State to give birth to The Homeland that German Chancellor Angela Merkel appeared with Barack Obama at the White House to bash Russia hours before fascist thugs burned down a trade union hall and roasted or asphyxiated everyone inside. Merkel incidentally holds the same gig as a certain German leader did the last time that things like this happened. Obama as yet has not condemned the violence – after all, the USA, USA, USA is on the same side as the neo-Nazis and fascists this time.

As for those murdered by Kiev’s illegitimately installed government in Odessa there is zero remorse coming from Obama and Kerry today – it’s rare to see this level of callous indifference when brown-skinned non-Christians are not involved. In fact Kerry, like the finger-wagging, overbearing horse’s ass that he is launched into yet another diatribe blaming Russia and issuing even more threats. According to a story in The Guardian:

Kerry said it was important Russia withdrew support for such separatists, who have seized government buildings in about a dozen cities and towns in Ukraine, and raised the prospect of additional Western sanctions if there were indications of continued interference by Russia.

Kerry also said he and Lavrov discussed the violence in Odessa, where at least 42 people died on Friday.

“All of this violence is absolutely unacceptable,” Kerry said, “and Russia, the United States, Ukrainians, Europeans, the OSCE all of us bear responsibility to do everything in our power to reduce the capacity of militants and extremists who are armed to be carrying out these terrorist and violent activities.

“They must end, and everybody with any influence on any party has an obligation to try to bring an end to this violence.”

But Kerry lies in that “everybody” doesn’t include the US-EU-NATO Axis of Aggression. Emperor Obama won’t call off his neo-Nazis nor the Contra style death squads that will be stocked with drooling members of Pravy Sektor and other fascist groups to conduct their counter-insurgency sprees of murder, rape and torture. There is only one way for this to end without consequences of a history altering manner and that is for Putin to surrender and crawl on his belly to lick Obama’s boots. That ain’t going to happen so we are now heading towards something that will end in misery for all involved. I regularly read the great work of former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Treasury, former Wall Street Journal editor and economist Paul Craig Roberts who has long been predicting doom for this system, it has taken a little bit more time to get here but now we find ourselves being force marched to the gates of Hell itself. In his latest piece which is entitled “Washington Intends Russia’s Demise” Dr. Roberts writes:

Washington has no intention of allowing the crisis in Ukraine to be resolved. Having failed to seize the country and evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base, Washington sees new opportunities in the crisis.

One is to restart the Cold War by forcing the Russian government to occupy the Russian-speaking areas of present day Ukraine where protesters are objecting to the stooge anti-Russian government installed in Kiev by the American coup. These areas of Ukraine are former constituent parts of Russia herself. They were attached to Ukraine by Soviet leaders in the 20th century when both Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country, the USSR.

Essentially, the protesters have established independent governments in the cities. The police and military units sent to suppress the protesters, called “terrorists” in the American fashion, for the most part have until now defected to the protesters.

With Obama’s incompetent White House and State Department having botched Washington’s takeover of Ukraine, Washington has been at work shifting the blame to Russia. According to Washington and its presstitute media, the protests are orchestrated by the Russian government and have no sincere basis. If Russia sends in military units to protect the Russian citizens in the former Russian territories, the act will be used by Washington to confirm Washington’s propaganda of a Russian invasion (as in the case of Georgia), and Russia will be further demonized.

AND

The time is approaching when Russia will either have to act to terminate the crisis or accept an ongoing crisis and distraction in its backyard. Kiev has launched military airstrikes on protesters in Slavyansk. On May 2 Russian government spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Kiev’s resort to violence had destroyed the hope for the Geneva agreement on de-escalating the crisis. Yet, the Russian government spokesman again expressed the hope of the Russian government that European governments and Washington will put a stop to the military strikes and pressure the Kiev government to accommodate the protesters in a way that keeps Ukraine together and restores friendly relations with Russia.

This is a false hope. It assumes that the Wolfowitz doctrine is just words, but it is not. The Wolfowitz doctrine is the basis of US policy toward Russia (and China). The doctrine regards any power sufficiently strong to remain independent of Washington’s influence to be “hostile.” The doctrine states:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

The Wolfowitz doctrine justifies Washington’s dominance of all regions. It is consistent with the neoconservative ideology of the US as the “indispensable” and “exceptional” country entitled to world hegemony.

Russia and China are in the way of US world hegemony. Unless the Wolfowitz doctrine is abandoned, nuclear war is the likely outcome.

Not since the days when the halls of power were stalked by fanatics like  Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay has there been such a lack of disregard for the nuclear consequences of an escalating and insane pushing of hostilities with Russia.

The state-corporate media completely abandoned any pretense of honesty in allowing this once great nation to be dragged into the debacle that was Iraq yet that failure pales in comparison to the lies about Ukraine and the pushing of a new Cold War. The ramifications of hostilities with Russia, thanks largely to our vainglorious ass of a leader and his crackerjack foreign policy team will be minor in the long run when compared with Iraq. This has civilization level damage written all over it and the way that Barry and the boys are continuing to double down to lure Putin into sending troops into Ukraine the best that we can hope for is collapse.

 

Will Ukraine Be NYT’s Waterloo?

Posted on by
Reply

propaganda_corporatenews

By Robert Parry

Source: Consortium News

For Americans interested in foreign policy, the New York Times has become the last U.S. newspaper to continue devoting substantial resources to covering the world. But the Times increasingly betrays its responsibility to deliver anything approaching honest journalism on overseas crises especially when Official Washington has a strong stake in the outcome.

The Times’ failures in the run-up to the disastrous Iraq War are, of course, well known, particularly the infamous “aluminum tube” story by Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller. And, the Times has shown similar bias on the Syrian conflict, such as last year’s debunked Times’ “vector analysis” tracing a sarin-laden rocket back to a Syrian military base when the rocket had less than one-third the necessary range.

But the Times’ prejudice over the Ukraine crisis has reached new levels of extreme as the “newspaper of record” routinely carries water for the neocons and other hawks who still dominate the U.S. State Department. Everything that the Times writes about Ukraine is so polluted with propaganda that it requires a very strong filter, along with additives from more independent news sources, to get anything approaching an accurate understanding of events.

Screen shot of the fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014. (From RT video)

From the beginning of the crisis, the Times sided with the “pro-democracy” demonstrators in Kiev’s Maidan square as they sought to topple democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, who had rebuffed a set of Western demands that would have required Ukraine to swallow harsh austerity measures prescribed by the International Monetary Fund. Yanukovych opted for a more generous offer from Russia of a $15 billion loan with few strings attached.

Along with almost the entire U.S. mainstream media, the Times cheered on the violent overthrow of Yanukovych on Feb. 22 and downplayed the crucial role played by well-organized neo-Nazi militias that surged to the front of the Maidan protests in the final violent days. Then, with Yanukovych out and a new coup regime in, led by U.S. hand-picked Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the IMF austerity plan was promptly approved.

Since the early days of the coup, the Times has behaved as essentially a propaganda organ for the new regime in Kiev and for the State Department, pushing “themes” blaming Russia and President Vladimir Putin for the crisis. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine, Though the US ‘Looking Glass.’”]

In the Times’ haste to perform this function, there have been some notable journalistic embarrassments such as the Times’ front-page story  touting photographs that supposedly showed Russian special forces in Russia and then the same soldiers in eastern Ukraine, allegedly proving that the popular resistance to the coup regime was simply clumsily disguised Russian aggression.

Any serious journalist would have recognized the holes in the story – since it wasn’t clear where the photos were taken or whether the blurry images were even the same people – but that didn’t bother the Times, which led with the scoop. However, only two days later, the scoop blew up when it turned out that a key photo – supposedly showing a group of soldiers in Russia who later appeared in eastern Ukraine – was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the premise of the entire story.

Soldiering On

The Times, however, continued to soldier on with its bias, playing up stories that made Russia and the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine look bad and playing down anything that might make the post-coup regime in Kiev look bad.

On Saturday, for instance, the dominant story from Ukraine was the killing of more than 30 ethnic Russian protesters by fire and smoke inhalation in Ukraine’s southern port city of Odessa. They had taken refuge in a building after a clash with a pro-Kiev mob which reportedly included right-wing thugs.

Even the neocon-dominated Washington Post led its Saturday editions with the story of “Dozens killed in Ukraine fighting” and described the fatal incident this way: “Friday evening, a pro-Ukrainian mob attacked a camp where the pro-Russian supporters had pitched tents, forcing them to flee to a nearby government building, a witness said. The mob then threw gasoline bombs into the building. Police said 31 people were killed when they choked on smoke or jumped out of windows.

“Asked who had thrown the Molotov cocktails, pro-Ukrainian activist Diana Berg said, ‘Our people – but now they are helping them [the survivors] escape the building.’”

By contrast, here is how the New York Times reported the event in its Saturday editions as part of a story by C.J. Chivers and Noah Sneider focused on the successes of the pro-coup armed forces in overrunning some eastern Ukrainian rebel positions.

“Violence also erupted Friday in the previously calmer port city of Odessa, on the Black Sea, where dozens of people died in a fire related to clashes that broke out between protesters holding a march for Ukrainian unity and pro-Russian activists. The fighting itself left four dead and 12 wounded, Ukraine’s Interior Ministry said. Ukrainian and Russian news media showed images of buildings and debris burning, fire bombs being thrown and men armed with pistols.”

Note how the Times evades placing any responsibility on the pro-coup mob for trying to burn the “pro-Russian activists” out of a building, an act that resulted in the highest single-day death toll since the actual coup which left more than 80 people dead from Feb. 20-22. From reading the Times, you wouldn’t know who had died in the building and who had set the fire.

Normally, I would simply attribute this deficient story to some reporters and editors having a bad day and not bothering to assemble relevant facts. However, when put in the context of the Times’ unrelenting bias in its coverage of the Ukraine crisis – how the Times hypes every fact (and even non-facts) that reflect negatively on the anti-coup side – you have to think that the Times is spinning its readers, again.

For those who write for the Times – and the many more people who read it – the question must be whether the Times is so committed to its prejudices here that the newspaper will risk whatever credibility it has left. The coup regime from Kiev may succeed in slaughtering many ethnic Russians in the rebellious east — as the Times signals its approval — but will this bloody offensive become a Waterloo for whatever’s left of the newspaper’s journalistic integrity?

 

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

The Alleged Assassination of Osama Bin Laden

Posted on by
Reply

400px-Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden

Today marks the 3rd anniversary of the alleged assassination of Osama Bin Laden. I emphasize the word “alleged” because claims from medical experts such as Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik assert he died in 2001 from Marfan syndrome. Others such as Pakistan President Benazir Bhutto (who was later assassinated) claimed Bin Laden was assassinated in 2002 by Omar Sheikh. Though it remains inconclusive exactly how Bin Laden died, what we may conclude with certainty is that the official story of his death is a lie. Ample evidence dismantling the official story of how Bin Laden died as well as some of the evidence “proving” Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11 are contained in the following articles from WhatReallyHappened.com:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bin_laden_death.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/galleryoffakebinladens.php