Thursday, October 23, 2014

1 Dead Terrorist + 1 Dead Soldier = Increased Police State Power in Canada

So a "terrorist" shot a soldier to death outside a war memorial, and ran into Parliament in Canada, where he was killed. This provides yet another occasion for Western media to go into a paroxysm
of terror-threat hyping. Logically, if you wanted to tamp down terrorism, you wouldn't do this, as obviously all the attention brings publicity to the terrorist, inflates their significance, and acts as a recruiting tool for them. It only encourages MORE TERRORISM. (So-called. Why a murder that is ideologically motivated should get the "terrorism" label is purely a political matter. If the Western media didn't TRY TO SCARE PEOPLE every time an incident occurs, where would the "terror" be?)

A hoary trope of "terrorism experts" used to be "publicity is the oxygen of terrorism." They don't say that anymore. Apparently they're in on the game of the Western power elites. "Terrorism" suits their purposes perfectly. As with "drugs," another excuse for ever-increasing police state power and ever-diminishing citizens' rights, "terrorism" is justification for more and more domestic repression and stripping away of the last rights left to citizens and empowering police to do whatever they want to, with impunity. Lately that includes attacking journalists at unwanted protests here in America.

Interesting how an event in Canada IMMEDIATELY results in headline news in all media forms (television, radio, print, online) not just in Canada, but in the U.S., UK, and etc.

We just saw the same thing after the Terrorism Theatre raids in Australia, which netted one whole sword. That took hundreds of cops, with helicopters, to seize. Talk about deliberate threat inflation!
Immediately after, awful Aussie Prime Minister Tony "The Gnome" Abbott dropped a pre-written police state bill on Parliament there.

The same is happening in Canada. Just check out these headlines on the UK Guardian website today: "Canada signals new powers for security agencies" with the subhead "Prime minister says he plans to strengthen counter-terrorism efforts as parliament returns day after shooting." And this is the top story. And Canada's corrupt and venal boss, Stephen Harper, didn't miss the opportunity to beat his chest: "Canada not intimidated by Ottawa shooting – PM" Well bully for you, Harpman.

This comes at a good time for Harper, whose party is at a paltry 26% in national polls ahead of 2015 elections. [1]

Of course, the sinister fascistic Deep State elements of various Western countries sometimes commit false flag terrorist acts themselves,such as they did in New York September 11, 2001, when they arranged with Saudi Intelligence to allow some Islamic stooges to fly planes into two of three buildings pre-wired with demolition explosives. (Or as they did in several European countries under the Gladio operation, using NATO as cover.) [2]

The propaganda system (aka "the free press") plays its part, including the "liberal" organs, in all this.

George Orwell understood all this well. In his masterwork, 1984, the populace was conditioned to hate and fear external enemies. But in Orwell's fiction, the enemies were large nations which were perpetually at war. The way gangs of cutthroat Islamic fanatics are inflated into an existential threat to powerful nation states testifies to the irrationality of the average person, and to how easy it is for those who control media propaganda systems to emotionally manipulate them.

A sick irony in all this is that we citizens are insecure as long as we are held hostage by fascist terrorists with police state power. Yet they claim they need us to surrender to their power completely in order to be "secure" and "safe." But our safety and security isn't their goal. Our powerless enslavement is. Watch the documentaries I have linked to below, and you will understand what I mean.

1]  "Anybody-but-Stephen Harper trend gains momentum: Hébert," Toronto Star of Canada, Oct. 20, 2014.

2] For the demolition of the three buildings in Manhattan on September 11, 2001, see the definitive work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a group of over 1,000 experts. They have a long documentary on youtube, "9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out (Full)," a shorter version, "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out (Free 1-hour version),"
and a brief synopsis/highlights video on the top of their youtube page, ae911truth.org.

For the Gladio terrorist campaign, which was a series of false flag terrorist bombings and assassinations committed by fascist elements in the military and secret police blamed on leftists with the goal of putting right-wingers in power, there is voluminous evidence. See for example "NATO's Secret Armies (2009)" and  "Operation Gladio - BBC Timewatch."



Thursday, October 16, 2014

Arrests in Murder of Venezuelan Congressman and His Companion

The Venezuelan government has announced two arrests in the murder earlier this month of charismatic Congressman Robert Serra and his female companion in his home. Both were stabbed to death in what was deemed a political assassination. Serra's head of security has been arrested- apparently the hit was in part an inside job. Four more culprits are being sought. The Venezuelan government tied the murdered to Colombian so-called "paramilitaries," that is, fascist death squads long backed by the Colombian government and rich elite.

The murders come at a time when the new Colombian president, Juan Manuel Santos Calderón, has been seeking better relations with Venezuela and a peace agreement with FARC rebels. His predecessor, the vicious cutthroat and major landowner Álvaro Uribe Vélez, who founded the death squads, has repeatedly and hysterically denounced in public the efforts of his successor to achieve an internal peace not based on extermination and normal relations with Venezuela. I have a suspicion Uribe arranged the assassinations to sabotage relations with Venezuela. Violence is what fascists always resort to when something blocks them from getting their way.

Uribe was a darling of the U.S. Government, the Obama regime and Obama personally, and the U.S. media. The New York Times practically had a crush on him.

The earlier post right below this one also deals with the Serra murders.

Saturday, October 04, 2014

Is U.S. Behind Terrorist Assassination of Charismatic Venezuelan Legislator?

Probably.

Robert Serra, a member of the Venezuelan Congress, was murdered in his home in Caracas along with a woman (unidentified in the extremely brief account in the U.S.' self-appointed “newspaper of record,” the New York Times). He was only 27. A member of the governing party despised by the U.S. government and media, the Times described him as “a rising star in Venezuela's governing party” and “a lawyer and former student leader.” [1]

Identifying key leaders and murdering them early is standard operating procedure for the U.S. Of course, it's possible that indigenous fascists did this all on their own, without any U.S. guidance or prompting. But the long historical record of the U.S. directing the fascist forces of Latin America, down to the level of providing them with the identities and whereabouts of people to be victimized, makes it probable that the U.S. has more blood dripping from its fingers. [2]

The New York Times didn't consider this major act of political terrorism against an “enemy” regime particularly noteworthy. (In contrast to the huge display of “shock” and “horror” over the Islamonazis calling themselves the “Islamic State” chopping off the heads of four- so far- Westerners. That's a much bigger deal than the thousands of non-”white” people IS has murdered so far. And by the way, the U.S.' Good Buddies, the Saudi rulers, chop off heads weekly, including those of women they “convict” of “sorcery.” That is happening as I type. But the Saudis, the font of this vicious ideology, are said to be “allies” in the fight against IS. Sure.)

1] “Venezuela: Lawmaker Killed in His Home, Police Say.” October 3rd. The Times devoted all of a column-inch, and five sentences, squeezed into a third of the page-width on the bottom of page A11 for this.

Another unimportant (to the NY Times) story shoehorned into the same bottom corner of the page gives the briefest “coverage” the Kiev regime in Ukraine murdering a Red Cross official by bombarding the Red Cross office in Donetsk with artillery fire. See “Western Client Regime in Ukraine Shells Red Cross Office, Killing Administrator.

2] Five examples, of thousands, come to mind of how the U.S. orchestrates mass political torture and murder. 1: The Phoenix Program in Vietnam, run by William Colby, in which the CIA directly ran U.S. death squads that assassinated around 50,000 Vietnamese. 2: The 1965 massacre of 800,000 in Indonesia, which the CIA instigated. 3: Operation Condor, in which Henry Kissinger gave the fascist military dictators of the “Southern Cone” of South America permission to run an international assassination program against their “enemies.” This included the carbombing assassination in Washington, D.C., of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt. 4: The Chilean coup of 1973, planned and set in motion by the CIA and U.S. military. A U.S. Navy Captain instructed the Chilean military to murder two American citizens, Charles Horman and Louis Teruzzi, considered “leftists.” 5: Phil Agee, the late CIA officer, describes CIA operations of providing names to Latin fascist regimes of people to arrest, torture, and murder.

Western Client Regime in Ukraine Shells Red Cross Office, Killing Administrator

The Kiev regime has been shelling the cities of the eastern Ukraine that it doesn't control for months. Now it has hit the offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the breakaway city of Donetsk with a number of artillery shells, indicating the attack was deliberate. A 38 year old Swiss national, cut down in the prime of life, was murdered in the bombardment. His name was Laurent DuPasquier.

The Kiev regime no doubt wants to terrorize the Red Cross and other organizations out of the east in order to more rapidly starve and freeze the inhabitants of the region into submission.

How's that for an atrocity? If the “rebels” (those who reject the coup regime) had done it, you could be sure the Western media would be screeching about it. But it was their boys, so there's barely a mention.

Here's how the self-anointed U.S. “newspaper of record,” the haute bourgeois New York Times “covered” it.

The New York Times ran a one-inch blurb about it. On a page that's 22 inches by 12 inches, one column inch by 3 and a half inches across. It was one of five items under “World Briefing,” a section taking up a sixth of page A11 October 3rd. [1]

If high-handedly dismissing this atrocity as insignificant wasn't bad enough, the Times compounds its crime by trying to disguise the culprits' identities. “It was not immediately clear who fired the shells at the office, which is in the city's center. The fighting in eastern Ukraine has not abated despite a cease-fire agreement.” The End. Bylined “Andrew Roth.”

Yeah, maybe the rebels are shelling the city they control. That makes sense.

On the other hand, it apparently was “immediately clear” that rebels shot down that Malaysian airliner earlier this year. (Only now it's turning out it may have been regime jet fighters. But while the Malaysian press ran that story, the U.S. media didn't.) [2]

Bending over backwards to protect their allies isn't new for the Times. For example, when an American cop egregiously murders a black or Hispanic, the Times explanation is that “the gun went off.” Guns shoot themselves, didn't you know? Likewise, the Times is a big fan of U.S.-backed dictators.

On the other hand, when official enemies are accused of wrongdoing, the shrieks of media outrage rise to the very heavens. We can guess how the Times would handle the story if a rebel shell hypothetically hit a Red Cross office in Kiev. (Kiev of course isn't under bombardment.) The headline would run across the top of Page One.

How do you like your hypocritical double-standards? Straight-up, or with a chaser of moral condemnation for the “bad” guys?

Speaking of atrocities, Reuters posted a video October 1st about the Kiev cabal shelling a school playground. See “Ukraine shelling hits school playground, killing at least 10 people.”

1] The Times managed to commit two crimes in the same “World Briefing” section. Another item mentions in similarly exiguous fashion the terrorist murder of a Venezuelan lawmaker in his home. CIA plot, anyone? Fascist terrorism is one of the “tools” in the U.S. “toolbox.” See “Is U.S. Behind Terrorist Assassination of Charismatic Venezuelan Legislator?

2] See “US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft," August 7th, 2014, in the Malaysian New Straits Times, a paper with close ties to the Malaysian government. The article mistakenly identified Robert Parry as an AP reporter. He was once, in the past. But being too honest a journalist to last there, he has had to become an independent journalist. This Western media has shown its usual incredible lockstep discipline in ignoring the story completely. Who needs a state-controlled media when a “free” press functions exactly the same as one?

Obviously the U.S. corporate propaganda system doesn't want any questioning or doubt about the U.S. line that the rebels shot down the airliner. So far, the public evidence is mixed on what happened. The Russians released radar tracks purporting to show Kiev regime jets chasing the airliner. Stephen Cohen, a retired American professor of Russian history, says that the Kiev regime has never released the recordings of the communications from the airliner crew, and the British won't reveal the black box contents. The Dutch are claiming the rebels shot down the plane. And there's those audio tapes the Kiev regime made public purportedly of rebels talking about their missile shooting down the plane, which in the tapes they express surprise when they discover at the crash site that it was a civilian airliner

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Reaganites in Guinea Murder 8 Ebola Aid Workers

Primitive, superstitious, backward villagers in Guinea, a small African nation, murdered eight Ebola aid workers who had come to aid them. The villagers somehow got it into their heads that the aid workers came to give them Ebola. A mob of young men attacked the workers with hurled stones. The bosses of the group sped away in their cars; other workers fled into the bush. Eight unlucky ones had their throats slit. Their bodies were then thrown down the makeshift latrine by a school, a limepit.

Another primitive, superstitious, backward fellow, an icon of both U.S imperialism and of American “conservatism,” Ronald Reagan, wouldn't have approved, even though the villagers were in effect putting one of his oft-stated beliefs into practice. (The Reagans were believers in astrology, among other nonsense.)

“I think you all know that, I've always felt the, nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help,'” according to Reagan. (Video below.) Guess those words are “terrifying in other languages too.

Reagan said “I think you all know that, I've always felt” that, because for years this was one of his propaganda tropes. Thus he correctly assumed that his audience was familiar with this line. As a servant of corporate masters like GE, for which he worked, he promoted the ideology they preferred. (Reagan was also an FBI spy when he headed the Screen Actors' Guild, aiding the persecution of actors who were considered “left-wing.” Later, secret police chieftain J. Edgar Hoover helped get Reagan elected Governor of California, as recently documented in a book by Seth Rosenfeld. [1]

But we must understand that “government”is code for those parts of government that regulate business or provide for the needs of the average person. The attitude of big business and reactionaries like Reagan toward the military and secret police and other repressive arms of government is exactly the reverse. Those parts of government can never be too big, or too powerful, or too well-funded.

1] The book is "Subversives: The FBI’s War on Student Radicals, and Reagan’s Rise to Power," by Seth Rosenfeld. See also interview with Rosenfeld at democracynow.org, “'Subversives': How the FBI Fought the 1960s Student Movement and Aided Reagan’s Rise to Power,” 8/23/12, part one of a two-part interview that concluded on 8/24 as “Book Reveals Extensive Effort by Reagan, FBI to Undermine California’s Student Movement in 1960s.

An essay based on the book appears as “The FBI's Vendetta Against Berkeley,” August 13, 2012.

If you do an Internet search for “Reagan and J. Edgar Hoover,” you will discover informative information.


video
Reagan "knew" that Government was the most terrifying thing: and yet he wanted its power. As California Governor, President of the U.S., and long-time secret police accomplice. What he used U.S. power to do to the people of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mozambique, and other places certainly was terrifying. I guess government really IS the most terrifying thing when its controlled by fascists like Reagan. Irony, anyone?

Friday, September 19, 2014

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott Shows Toughness-On-Terror, Unleashes 800 Police to Arrest Man With Sword

Well stop the presses. I kid you not. In raids by those 800 heavily-armed, militarized cops, with helicopters, 15 people were arrested- of whom ONE was actually charged, and others released already- and the evidence seized at 16 (or 25- the BBC aired different numbers) locations raided consisted of- a sword. A radioactive atomic bomb terrorist sword maybe, a sword like swords used by Islamic terrorists to behead people in those “gruesome” videos the media can't seem to get enough of. A sword! He had a sword! The guy they charged had a sword!! Do you know how much damage he could have done with that? Why, he could have KILLED someone! This is a NATIONAL EMERGENCY!! TERROR ALERT!! TERROR ALERT!!

Oh yeah, there were some online threats. The usual bluster. Better to nip these things in the bud. With 800 cops to break down doors and strip bare the abodes of “suspects.”

The cheap hysteria the rulers of “Western” countries keep ginning up over “terrorism” has descended into farce and burlesque with this overwrought spectacle.

Of course, regime's like Abbott's in Australia want to enforce a state of Western impunity in their exercise of power. They fear retaliation by Islamofascists for Western attacks on the so-called “Islamic State,” those demented nihilists in Iraq and Syria. Abbott has announced the dispatch of Australian military forces to the region, doing his usual thing of walking loyally in the U.S.' footsteps, as close behind as he can.

Taking a page from the regimes of Bush the Younger and Adolf Hitler, Abbott tried to inspire fear in Australian parliamentarians by saying they were targets of Islamofascist killers and instituting new “security” measures for the legislature. This is similar, if much milder, than the anthrax letters mailed to key U.S. senators to get them to drop their opposition to the PATRIOT ACT, which established the current extremely repressive U.S. police state, and Hitler's torching of the Reichstag (the German legislative building) which the Nazis blamed on Communists, using it as a pretext to imprison the Socialist and Communist legislators in concentration camps and “vote” Hitler dictatorial powers. The anthrax letters were mailed as part of the same Deep State conspiracy by the fascists embedded inside the secret police and military arms of the U.S. power structure that arranged demolition charges to be placed inside the three (not two) buildings demolished in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001. [1]

Oh, did I mention? There's some draconian “anti-terrorism” legislation coming up for a vote in the Australian parliament. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. (Let's imagine: Abbott to secret police bosses; What terrorist plots do you have on tap that we can smash in a splashy public way?[2]

For more on Abbott's malign antics, see “America, the Ingrate Nation,” September 1, and “Tony Abbott Is An Insufferable Jackass,” August 18.


1] Specifically, Abbott said there were “reports” of legislators being targeted. That is, some secret policemen whispered this factoid. Great thing about secrecy- you can say anything you want, and people can't check to see if it's true. It only has to be possible, and people are forced to go along with you. Cushy deal, Gestapo-boys!

For the demolition of the three buildings on 9/11/01 (Sept. 11, 2001) in Manhattan, see for example “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out (Free 1-hour version) AE911 Truth.org.” A 2-hour version with more details is “ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version).” Richard Gage, an architect leading a group of over 1,000 architects and structural engineers who say it is impossible for those plane crashes to have caused the suddenly collapse of the twin towers (and nothing hit the third building) has a long presentation with additional details, “9/11: Blueprint for Truth-The Architecture of Destruction-114min.” These are all on youtube.com (search “911 architects for truth” if these links malfunction). 

2] Just a footnote: the U.S. government's national radio propaganda network, NPR, made a passing reference to this legislation, sans any details about its content, referring to it as “controversial.” That's a euphemism for “repressive,” in this context.

I Correctly Predicted Scottish Independence Vote Outcome

(Hey, how's that for a self-serving title?)

Ruling politicians around the world (and the dominant medias of their nations) are expressing smug satisfaction over the defeat of the Scottish independence referendum. As a matter of  "principle," they oppose the idea of people asserting independence (although exceptions can be made for unpopular regimes, such as Sudan, newly divided). Also Britain is an important brick in the wall of U.S. Imperialist power, so all members of the U.S.-bloc were aghast at the idea of a weakening of that nation.

I thought, despite the “Yes” side surging in polls, overtaking the “No” side just before the voting on the referendum took place, that independence would lose, mainly because of people's innate conservatism, in the proper use of the word conservative; resistant to change. (As opposed to conservative as a euphemism for right-wing, reactionary, even fascist. Sometimes a clue that U.S. establishment propagandists are referring to fascists is indicated by front-loading the word conservative with ultra.)

British Prime Minister and typical toff David Cameron gave a gracious victory speech as soon as the outcome was tallied (55-45%, a solid rejection by a ten point margin, belying the polls, with turnout of 84%, highest in a UK election since 1951) in which he reiterated the nice promises of more local powers and goodies for Scotland. He bragged about British democracy. He claimed to believe in giving people a say and voting on big issues. (So I would ask him: why the repeated avoidance of a long-promised UK-wide referendum on EU status?) I think the British ruling elite was smug and overconfident of victory until the last few weeks, thinking the issue would be put to bed by a vote their way (the only reason they allowed a vote was because they were sure they would win). Then, when the polls showed a tie, they got alarmed and came out with a public relations campaign, brilliantly branded “Better Together,” including Cameron's speech likening the British Union to a marriage, and threatening a bitter breakup. [1]

“It would have broken my heart, to see our United Kingdom come to an end,” Cameron also said. He

referred to “our United Kingdom” as “our country of four nations,” presumably England, Scotland, Wales, and the piece of Ireland the British empire managed to hang on to, Northern Ireland. Rather idiosyncratic use of the word “nation” for that last bit of turf especially. Seems to me it's four countries bolted or welded together in one nation. Basically England took over and dominated Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (now just the northern 6 counties of Ireland). (Ireland was conquered by force about 500 years ago.) [2]
The British would have lost a big chunk of national territory had the Scots gone their own way. The Scottish National Party also expressed its opposition to having Britain's ballistic missile nuclear subs based in Scotland. On the oil issue, I think Britain simply would have refused to let Scotland take the lion's share of it, and Scotland would have been forced to embark on a long, unenforceable legal campaign in international courts. Trouble is, international courts have no marshals to send out to enforce its verdicts.

What remains unchanged is the exploitative class system, under which the majority are getting progressively poorer in Britain, and high finance has social, economic, and political hegemony, just as in the U.S., although the “lower” classes in America are much worse off, mainly because of the terrible “social safety net” in the U.S. This in turn stems from the class unconsciousness of the lower classes in the U.S., and their very confused and elementary political understanding.

While we're at it, what's the difference between nationalism and patriotism? Nationalism BAD, Patriotism GOOD! [3]

Just a half-hour after airing Cameron's speech on the outcome, a reporter on the British government global radio propaganda network, the BBC, predicted no action on the rejiggering of power promised by the political bosses, in part because they'll be busy competing and plotting and campaigning against each other in the upcoming Parliamentary election. If he's wrong, however, the Scots actually will have a pretty good deal. Independence would have been fraught with problems, no least because the British state would have devoted itself to making life difficult for Scotland, as they all but vowed to do. The currency, control of undersea oil, diplomatic and trade ties with Europe- all would have been fraught for an independent Scotland. The marriage analogy is valid in the sense that the “husband,” the so-called “United Kingdom,” had to offer promises of bribes to convince the “wife” not to leave.

One observation on the technicality of the voting: Scots voted the “old-fashioned” way, on paper ballots. They managed to count about 4 million ballots in a few hours. In the U.S., expensive and defective digital voting machines are used by Republicans to steal elections. That's the “modern” way to vote!

The Scottish referendum was also different from U.S. elections in apparently being a fair, and not a stolen, election, unlike Bush the Younger's two presidential “victories,” and the “elections” of various Republican U.S. Senators (Chuck “Wagon” Hagel, who owned a digital voting machine company that got him elected to the U.S. Senate- he's now the U.S. War Secretary- and Saxbe Chambliss) and many local GOP officials, such as Wisconsin Supreme Court judges. It also allowed people as young as 16 to vote. It allowed everyone living in Scotland to vote (very unlike the U.S.). And over 90% of eligible people registered to vote, vs. roughly 60% in the U.S. And as noted, turnout was 84%. In U.S. presidential elections, turnout typically is 55% of the electorate. In “off year” Congressional elections, it's under 50%. In elections for lesser offices, it can be well under 10%, such as in Ferguson, Missouri, site of recent unrest stemming from the wanton murder of a black male by a white cop, an almost daily occurrence in the U.S., which is a town that is 70% black with an all-white local government, because only 5% of blacks there vote in local elections. The town has a police force of 53, of whom 50 are white non-residents, armed with armored vehicles, sniper rifles, tear gas and all sorts of military gear, which they rolled out to suppress the unrest (with help from other police forces, the Missouri State Police, and Missouri National Guard, a military reserve force).

Anyway, good luck to you Scotland, in getting the British ruling class toffs to make good on their promises to you of more power and control over revenues! (I'll be waiting for the double-cross.)

1] See “UK Prime Minister Begs Scotland on Bended Knee: Please Don't Go! And Adds a Threat,” September 17th, where I predicted thusly: “I think the referendum will probably fail, however, because of the fear-mongering and threats from the opponents, and because people are innately conservative, by which I mean they fear change. But we will see shortly,” last sentence of essay.

The pro-independence side actually increased its support by 50% over the course of the campaign, starting at 30% and ending up with 45% of the actual vote. (15% is half of 30%, thus a 50% increase.) All numbers on Scottish referendum from BBC.

If not for the bribes and cajolery the poohbahs of Westminster offered up as blandishments, the outcome may well have gone the other way.

2] Notice that the United Kingdom is a KINGdom, a monarchy. A monarch is a “divine” dictator. Of course, now the UK is a “constitutional monarchy,” even though it doesn't actually have a constitution! What it is now is a bourgeois class dictatorship clinging to aristocracy as a relic. In addition to the continuation of hereditary privilege by the ancien aristocracy, bourgeois people get “titles” to make them nouveau aristocrats. Truly a bizarre affectation, to long for medievalism like that. This bourgeoisie consists of competing factions organized in political parties that vie for power in elections manipulated by media barons like Rupert Murdoch.

3] In U.S. parlance, patriotism is ONLY in America. Every other nation's patriotism is “nationalism.” Patriotism IS U.S. nationalism.

We could define the words differently from each other. We could say patriotism is love of country, and nationalism is love of one's country's power. But in practice patriotism is for chumps, used to get people to fight imperialist wars for “their” country. They feel obligated, and virtuous, to be used as cannon-fodder for the power-mongering schemes of their imperialist rulers in nations like the U.S. (And not just the U.S.)

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

UK Prime Minister Begs Scotland on Bended Knee: Please Don't Go! And Adds a Threat

Please Don't Go- But if you do go, don't come back!

That's what right-wing British Prime Minister David Cameron said to Scottish voters, beseeching them to reject independence from the so-called “United Kingdom:”
 
"It’s my duty to be clear about the likely consequences of a 'yes' vote. Independence would not be a trial separation, it would be a painful divorce. So this is our message to the people of Scotland: We want you to stay. Head, heart and soul, we want you to stay. Please don’t mix up the temporary and the permanent. Please don’t think: I’m frustrated with politics right now so I’ll walk out the door and never come back. If you don’t like me, I won’t be here forever. If you don’t like this government, it won’t last forever. But if you leave the United Kingdom, that will be forever.” (Cameron's emphasis.)


Actually there's no reason- politically, legally, economically, or any other way- that Scotland and Britain couldn't reunite in the future, if both entities were willing. What Cameron said is Please don't go- but if you do, we'll hold a grudge.


The threat doesn't bode well for the independence supporters' plans to join the EU and NATO. Britain has a veto on new EU members (as do all EU members). Oddly, the BBC noted that Spain might block Scotland entering the EU, because of hostility to their own separatists in Catalonia and the Basque region, but they didn't mention that Britain would block Scottish EU membership.


The British power structure was smug and sanguine about the referendum outcome until the past few weeks, when polls suddenly showed a shift from defeat for independence to a tie. Showing signs of desperation, the UK political establishment has suddenly offered various blandishments. First came PROMISES of more autonomy (they've had years to actually DO that if they were serious), the bosses of the three Brutish ruling class parties even signing a scrap of paper with promises of new powers and money for Scotland! (The same phonies have been promising the British public a referendum on European Union membership for a decade- and have yet to make good on it.)


Of course they're frantic to preserve their power, so they want to hang on to the territory and population- and the nuclear submarine naval base and several “Royal “ Air Force bases in Scotland. Also Scotland makes a nice ocean chokepoint to stick it to Russia. (But NATO has Norway for that purpose anyway.) Other nations are similarly ruled by power-mongers, who hate the example of a secessionist movement. China has put in its two cents, expressing hostility to Scottish independence- no surprise, given their need to keep the Uyghurs and Tibetans oppressed.


Margaret Thatcher wrecked the economy of Scotland with her all-out class warfare; deindustrialization, union busting, favoritism for high finance uber alles- in other words, vicious attacks on the working class.

Food banks are growing in Scotland- while the UK elite budgets $100 million equivalent for Trident nuclear submarines to nuke- who? Russia? Is that necessary? Can't the U.S. nuke Russia for you? Is the UK really going to nuke Russia on its own? Does having “strategic” nuclear weapons- weapons whose ONLY use is mass murder- make you feel better about losing your empire, British toffs?

Anyway, the independence movement is progressive, wants the nuclear ballistic missile subs out, wants more social services. Scotland has had to fend off attacks on the National Health Service from the toffs who rule Britain. They will have more money from North Sea oil if they become a separate nation. (The opposition keeps harping on the fact that the oil will run out someday. So?)


Without Scotland, Britain will become even more reactionary, as forty of the Labor MP's are from Scotland. But Labor is almost as bad as the Tories ever since that brigand Tony Blair did a (Bill) Clinton on the party.


I think the referendum will probably fail, however, because of the fear-mongering and threats from the opponents, and because people are innately conservative, by which I mean they fear change. But we will see shortly.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

U.S. Practicing for War with Russia in Ukraine

On September 4th, the Pentagon, the global headquarters of the U.S. military leviathan, announced military “exercises” (practicing for war, in this case against Russia) with Kiev regime forces. This rehearsal, called Rapid Trident, will also involve military units from various U.S. lackey nations. Another rehearsal with Ukrainian regime troops will take place on a U.S. warship sailing in the Black Sea. (Maybe Russia should start sailing naval vessels in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Florida keys, with Cuban forces. See how the U.S. likes that! You'll hear the screeching and outraged fulminations then!)

No doubt there are other U.S. military operations in Ukraine that are being kept secret.

We already know that the U.S. secret police are running “operations” in Ukraine. No less than the head of the CIA himself, John “Cutthroat” Brennan, turned up in Kiev after the coup earlier this year. The U.S. media has maintained a total blackout on what the CIA (and other U.S. “intelligence” agencies) are doing in Ukraine.


The Western-installed president of Ukraine, Petro “Billionaire Candyman” Poroshenko, has publicly stated his intent to press Obama to sign a military alliance agreement when he sees Obama in Washington, D.C., the Imperial City, later this month. This “security” pact is to drag the U.S. into wholesale military intervention in Ukraine, Poroshenko hopes.


And the U.S.-chosen prime minister of Ukraine, Arseniy “Yats” Yatsenyuk, shrilling screeched to a crowd of Western politicians and big business bosses that Russia wanted to gobble up all of Ukraine and Putin was recreating the Soviet Union. (Apparently the Soviet Union is such a great bogeyman that capitalist demagogues can't let it die. Like a zombie, or the Freddy Krueger character in A Nightmare on Elm Street, the Soviet Union is indestructible.) According to Yatsenyuk, “I clearly understand the final goal of Putin. He doesn't want to take just Donetsk and Luhansk. He is trying to take all of Ukraine. He wants to re-form the Soviet Union.” Seeking to alarm his audience with the ghost of the Soviet Union, Yatsenyuk continued to lobby for NATO membership for Ukraine, which he believes would force NATO to attack Russia on his regime's behalf.

“We are still in a state of war and the key aggressor is the Russian Federation,” squawked Yatsenyuk, completely ignoring the reality of an internal rebellion and civil war, with Russia aiding one side and the U.S. bloc the other. Then he made his oft-repeated pitch for NATO military intervention: “NATO in this particular circumstance is the only vehicle to protect Ukraine.” From a section of its own populace, not just Russia. And for “Ukraine,” read “the Kiev regime.” [1]


Other than kill some people and blow things up (“give the Russians a bloody nose” in U.S. imperialist parlance), violent U.S.-NATO interventions can't defeat Russia militarily in Ukraine. (Unless the U.S. starts a nuclear war- which would mean everyone loses and no one wins. Although there have always been American madmen inside and high up within the “national security state” who believe nuclear war is “winnable.”) The success of the violent mob coup in February made the U.S. overconfident. It thought, with the installation of a comprador regime of collaborators, that it had successfully ripped Ukraine out of the Russian orbit and added it to the U.S. domain. The almost immediate signing of an onerous “loan agreement” with the International Monetary Fund, including the usual economic “restructuring,” cemented the new relationship of subservience to Western high finance. [2]


The “agreement” mandates the impoverishment of the Ukrainian people, in effect, in order to pay off Ukraine's “debt” to the West. And here's an example of outrageous hypocrisy: Ukraine owes Russia for Russian natural gas Ukraine has consumed but not paid for. Russia's demand for payment, and warnings- called “threats” in Western media- to cut off the gas flow, is deemed to be economic blackmail and a form of pressure. Not so Western extortion of Ukraine with the forced impoverishment of its people. That's just sound economics, in the Western propaganda version of reality!


1] Yatsenyuk was personally anointed for his position by the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, the neocon imperialist Victoria Nuland, whose pet name for him is “Yats.” See “U.S. Enlisted UN Stooges in Ukraine Subversion.


Yatsenyuk's yammerings rate entire articles in the New York Times, as that U.S. ruling class bulletin board sees things. “Yats's” latest war-mongering ravings rated a whole article in that paper on Sunday (probably Saturday online). “Putin Intent on Taking 'All of Ukraine,' Leader Says.” September 14, 2014, page 4. Nice inflammatory headline there, Times!


2] In addition to the IMF imposing the usual class warfare policies on Ukraine, raising taxes on the people, raising the prices they have to pay for the necessities of life, and cutting social services, as part of Ukraine's “association agreement” with the Western vultures the Ukrainian comprador rulers agreed to let Monsanto flood Ukraine with its Genetically Modified Organisms (special food crop seeds made to withstand heavy doses of Monsanto's agricultural poisons, mainly the herbicide Round Up), as a camel's nose under the tent to break into the European market. See “Monsanto in Ukraine: EU Association Agreement and IMF loan for Ukraine opens the backdoor for GMO into EU.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

U.S. and Its Eurolackeys Punish Russia for Arranging Ukraine Ceasefire


Well, file this one under No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.

Just a week after Russia helped arrange a ceasefire in the Ukrainian civil war (which is what it is, a fact Western media and political bosses refuse to acknowledge) which despite constant Western carping and criticizing and pissing on it, has held, the U.S. and its European Union stooges are attacking Russia with more economic warfare sanctions.

The sectors of the Russian economy targeted for damage are finance (Russian banks and credit), energy (including a blockade of oil drilling equipment and technology) and defense.

It's not just the EU ducks lined up in a row behind their U.S. master. It's also Norway, Canada, and Australia. Interestingly, not Israel. And not the Latin American nations, most of which over the past decade have broken free of their formerly utter subservience to the U.S. hemispheric hegemon.

The U.S. and its lackeys are still demanding total surrender from Russia. Complete withdrawal from Ukraine. Complete abandonment of the vulnerable Russian-speaking Ukrainian population. Complete cessation of all Russian influence in a nation on its own border.

But there's no reason to be surprised by this. Arrogant demands are nothing new for Western imperialist powers. And when you think you have the right to be the boss of the entire planet, as U.S. elites are convinced they have, this sort of outrageously overbearing and unreasonable behavior has to be expected.

The Western client regime in Kiev is still issuing belligerent statements, and the U.S.-bloc politicians, from Obama on down, continue to speak in bellicose terms whenever mentioning Ukraine. At the same time the U.S. is attacking Russia and threatening one of its core strategic interests, it still demands that Russia do its bidding in other foreign policy arenas, such as strong-arming Iran into giving up its nuclear enrichment program, battling the Islamic terrorists who are taking over parts of the Middle East, and providing a transit route for the U.S. evacuation of its military forces from Afghanistan. Bowing to the U.S. and doing its bidding as a willing stooge is what's called “being a responsible international player.” To be part of the so-called “international community” means being a loyal member of the U.S. “team.”

The fact that a cessation of fighting isn't enough to satisfy the demands of the U.S. bloc is telling. They don't want compromise, or peaceful resolution. They want the fascist forces to crush the secessionists, and can't even abide limited autonomy, it seems. Hence their attacks on and sabotage of the ceasefire along with the negotiations for more rights for the eastern Ukrainian provinces.

And just to show how stupid and short-sighted the U.S. is, consider this: the Ukraine is a core strategic interest for Russia. It is a distant and unimportant country for the U.S. The rise of China, on the other hand, is THE major strategic challenge facing the U.S. (Their obsession with Islamic terrorism apparently distracts U.S. imperialist elites from seeing this obvious fact. Obama at one point seemed to notice it, when he announced a “pivot” to Asia away from the Middle East. As so often with Obama, his follow-through was feeble.) The U.S. needs Russia to be part of a containment alliance against China. Yet the U.S. is driving Russia and China together. The two are making deals for Russia to supply oil and natural gas to China- which counters the attacks on Russia's energy industry by the West, including constant talk about finding alternate supplies.
The U.S. is so very powerful, not only in its own right, but also because of the constellation of subaltern states it dominates, which greatly magnifies its ability to work its will. This allows it to get away with one destructive blunder after another, such as the Vietnam War, the empowering of Islamofascists to punish the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The question is, how much arrogant stupidity can the U.S. get away with before the consequences for the U.S. become serious?

Murderous Athlete and Erstwhile Media Darling Oscar Pistorius Beats Murder Rap

Formerly media-feted South African runner Oscar Pistorius just got away with murder, mostly.

The judge bought his story. His very tall tale, that is. A tale that flies in the face of the facts- except as the judge sees them. Of course, she had to discard most of the facts in the process, as she explained from the bench.

The judge, Thokozile Matilda Masipa, is one of the few people on earth who believes Pistorius' claim that he thought a phantom intruder (who apparently screams like a terrified woman) locked himself in Pistorius' bathroom, leaving Pistorius no choice but to fire four shots through the locked door (instead of, say, calling the security detail in his walled community, or calling the police, or banging on the door and demanding to know who was in there). Obviously he had chased his terrified girlfriend, the very unlucky-in-love Reeva Steenkamp, into the bathroom, mostly likely at gunpoint.

Pistorius was living in a walled community, with security guards, who he could have summoned if a Spiderman-like “intruder” had locked himself in Pistorius' bathroom, as he claimed.

The judge actually claims to believe his ridiculous story that he thought his girlfriend, who locked herself in a bathroom to escape him, was an intruder. Why he thought there was an intruder locked in his bathroom is unexplained. The judge explicitly discarded the witnesses' evidence of hearing a woman screaming in terror from his apartment, as she explained from the bench. She actually claimed the evidence supported Pistorius' absurd alibi!

Pistorius executed his girlfriend in a rage, firing four shots through the bathroom door after she locked herself in there to try and protect herself from his murderous fury.

Judge Masipa opined: "I am of the view that the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force. In the circumstances, it is clear that his conduct was negligent." Thus Pistorius was guilty of “culpable homicide,” which South African law defines as killing through negligence, not intent. So like if you were laying bricks and one accidentally fell on someone and they died, you'd be guilty of that. Pistorius murdering his girlfriend was just a careless accident. He shouldn't have been shooting that gun through a door, that's all.

This verdict is so bad that even a prominent South African defense attorney bemoaned it, saying “It sends a terrible message about how we tolerate crime in South Africa. The message is that you can just kill someone and get away with it.” (Martin Hood.) [1]

Oscar Pistorius, formerly the subject of much adoring puffery in U.S. media (and presumably elsewhere) based on the fact that he's missing his lower limbs and runs competitively on special leg extensions that give him an unfair advantage over people with natural legs, was finally revealed as a violent, self-centered, egotistical lout when he murdered his girlfriend. (His prior history of violent assaults was previously covered up in the U.S. media, at least. Somehow even a bright “media spotlight” doesn't reveal things in plain sight that contradicts the stories concocted by cynical media propagandists.) [2]

Pistorius has a violent history, including firing a gun in a restaurant and a number of violent assaults. Finally went “all the way” and murdered his girlfriend. The incident in the restaurant happened in 2013, the year before he murdered his unlucky girlfriend. (He has a history of violence against women.) That should have been a warning sign. But Pistorius was protected by celebrity privilege. The court got around to convicting him of firing that shot in the restaurant.

He's not off the hook entirely. Basically the judge found him guilty of negligence for firing a gun through his locked bathroom door. This constituted “culpable homicide” since someone died. For that, he could get a maximum 15 years in prison- or a minimum of “community service” (wonder what “service” he could do for any community!).

Now his lawyers are arguing for release on bail pending sentencing. (And maybe there will be appeals, and more freedom on bail for Pistorius.)

This judge, obviously a fool, was previously the subject of a puff-piece in the New York Times. Guess she's not as smart as they made her out to be. [3]

I was afraid Pistorius would worm his way out of it. Every time I thought about the case until now, I had a twinge of anxiety that he'd get off. Now my fear has come to pass. It pays to have money, to buy sharp lawyers who are good at muddying waters and obfuscating reality. Skilled sophists who can cloud men's (and women's) minds with their mendacious narratives and legal legerdemain.

The judge dismissed the prosecution's evidence, dismissed the witnesses' testimony to hearing arguing, female screams, and then gunshots. Instead she chose to believe Pistorius' unbelievable claim that he thought there was an intruder locked in his bathroom. Even though she herself opined from the bench that he was a poor and evasive witness. She even pronounced from the bench that because a defendant is “untruthful, does not mean he is guilty.” But LADY, if you think he is UNTRUTHFUL, why are you BELIEVING his CLAIM that he THOUGHT an INTRUDER was in his bathroom! You believe him to be untruthful, but you take his word on that, with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to substantiate his claim!!

What the judge did was ignore the actual evidence and accept Pistoriius' baseless claim, in order to get him off the hook. What a bitch.

Well, one thing this shows is that having female judges in no way guarantees justice for female crime victims. Here's a young woman obviously murdered by a violent boyfriend, and he gets off despite overwhelming evidence against him- and all he had to do was make a nonsensical claim that was contradicted by the actual evidence. And white racists and male sexists can point to this and claim (falsely) that it proves black women aren't qualified to be judges. That makes this awful verdict damaging in more ways than one.

If that cretinous judge doesn't sentence him to 15 years, she's disgusting. I have a bad feeling she's not going to.

In South Africa, the average person in the street had no trouble seeing Pistorius' guilt. A well-(over?)educated judge was able to have the wool pulled over her eyes. Contrary to her assertions in court, the evidence DID prove he knowingly murdered his girlfriend. Preposterously, she asserted that the evidence supported his ridiculous story! No it didn't, lady.

It didn't.

1] South Africa isn't the only country where you can get away with murder- if you're a celebrity and/or rich. The U.S. is another such place. Murderers who got away with it in the U.S. include O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Claus von Bulow, and Robert Durst. Durst actually murdered a neighbor for no reason, cut his body into pieces, and strewed the chunks of flesh and bone along a beach. At trial he pleaded self-defense, and a Texas jury acquitted him! Texas! Where they regularly send innocent people to death row! Go figure! Durst also murdered his wife years ago and wasn't even charged for that crime.

2] Pistorius was born missing the leg bones below the knees, so his lower legs were amputated in infancy. This allowed him to grow up adapting to that condition and he pursued a career as a professional runner. The media loves concocting stories of people “overcoming handicaps to excel,” which is supposed to prove, what? That physical limitations aren't really limiting? That people can do anything they want if they are just determined enough? It's bullshit of course, but it's catnip for media propagandists who love promoting those concepts. These attitudes have an implied corollary: that any failure is the fault of the individual, that society doesn't hold people back, that existing power structures can't be blamed for the individual's condition in life since anything can be overcome with pluck and grit.

That also was one of the tropes in the New York Times puff piece on the judge, how she “overcame” apartheid. Except the one in a million who can manage to beat the odds and find a way to maneuver around an oppressive system or crippling life conditions DOESN'T PROVE that “anyone can do it.” It proves just the opposite- that very few can do it!

3] The judge is a black woman who lived under apartheid. Does she subconsciously see Pistorius as some kind of underdog, like she was? Does she subconsciously resent pretty white women, like the model Pistorius murdered? Probably not. For now, it's a mystery to me how she could get it so wrong.

Friday, September 05, 2014

Russian Intervention Saves Lives of Eastern Ukrainians

That is the objective conclusion from the latest news from Ukraine. Yet you won't hear it in U.S. or EU media. Instead it's still frenetic chattering about Russian "aggression" and "destabilization" and specious speculation about Putin's "plans" and "goals" and his alleged secret plan to invade the Baltic states and more and make them part of Russia again.

But the U.S. government's own national radio propaganda network, NPR, just reported this afternoon that the boss of the Western-installed Kiev cabal, the billionaire candy magnate Petro Poroshenko, has agreed to a ceasefire- a ceasefire that the NATO war-mongering militarist Secretary General, U.S. puppet Anders Fogh Rasmussen, contemptuously dismissed as a Russian ruse just a few days ago, demanding instead that Russia abandon the eastern Ukrainians to whatever fate the Kiev regime had in store for them. The ONLY REASON Poroshenko has agreed to stop trying to wipe out the separatists is that Russian military intervention turned the tide and made it obvious that the Kiev regime's military offensive would fail.

NPR also reported that Poroshenko pledged some autonomy for the east, and respect for cultural and ethnic rights. This is exactly what Moscow has been insisting on for months. What, exactly prevented the Kiev cabal from agreeing to this months ago, BEFORE they killed almost 3,000 Ukrainian civilians in artillery and aerial bombardments? The eastern cities have been partially reduced to rubble, with basic services like water and electricity cut off. There are now a million internal and external Ukrainian refugees. (American propaganda never refers to them as "Ukrainians," but as "pro-Russian separatists" or "rebels." the words "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians" are reserved to references to the Kiev cabal and their forces.)

So the Russian military support for the separatists is actually an example of a humanitarian intervention! Unlike the U.S. invasions of Grenada, and Panama (in which four thousand poor Panamanians were slaughtered when the U.S. military wiped out entire neighborhoods- carefully avoiding the areas where the rich live) or the invasion of Vietnam (never called an invasion in the U.S., but an "intervention" or "involvement in," sometimes a "mistake," never the criminal invasion it was) or of Cambodia, or Lebanon, or Afghanistan or IRAQ, where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died, possibly a million.

Emperor Obama just explicitly sneered at the NATO summit in Wales what Russia did "is not a humanitarian intervention." Interesting that he made a point of saying that. How often are the words of U.S. elites and diametrical opposite of the truth.

Of course Russia isn't necessarily motivated by humanitarian concern. That does not change what the action objectively is. But it would be churlish to think that Russian concern for ethnic Russians in Ukraine is feigned.

By the way, one of the first acts of the new, fascist-dominated parliament in Kiev after the coup was to pass a law banning the Russian language. That law was hastily withdrawn on instructions of their U.S. masters, who are more savvy about public relations than their new protégés.

For Poroshenko, going to the NATO summit was the last roll of the dice. His last-ditch attempt to get NATO to send its military forces to help him crush the resistance to his rule in the east failed. The U.S. is in no position to get into a shooting war with Russia. Nor are its European lackeys. They talk tough, they wage economic warfare, they threaten to create "rapid response forces," they clench a fist at Russia and say Don't You Dare Invade the Baltics! (which Russia has shown not the slightest inclination of doing) but at the end of the day incorporating Ukraine into NATO is NOT a vital strategic interest of theirs, whereas having access to the Black Sea and a nation that is not a threat on its border IS a vital interest to Russia. This endgame was predictable from the start. But Western arrogance, and the U.S.' delusion that it is entitled to rule the entire world, has led to needless bloodshed and suffering. (Not for the first time, and it won't be the last, unfortunately.)


Thursday, September 04, 2014

Anders Fogh “Foghorn” Rasmussen Rattles NATO's Saber Again

The Secretary General of NATO, the Danish reactionary and former prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is sabotaging the latest Russian effort at resolving the Western-created Ukraine “crisis.” [1]

Rasmussen has contemptuously brushed off Putin's call for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement in the Ukrainian civil war as not sincere. Rasmussen prefers creating a NATO “rapid reaction force” and stationing it in the Baltic states, which would do absolutely nothing to resolve the Ukraine imbroglio. In fact, it would only encourage the Kiev regime in its intransigence. Rasmussen wants Europe, in the midst of recession (and depressions in Spain and Greece, with the attendant mass misery) to direct its economic resources to increasing the militaries of the NATO states.

Both the U.S. and UK government radio propaganda networks, NPR and the BBC, treated us to Rasmussen's belligerent remarks.

Here are some of the latest bayings of the U.S.' barking dog, Rasmussen, as he opened a NATO get-together in Wales, to which nominal Ukrainian president Petro O. “Candyman Billionaire” Poroshenko was invited, even though Ukraine isn't a NATO member (yet):

“Russia has attacked Ukraine.”

Lumping Russia in with the Islamofascist “Islamic State,” Rasmussen vowed, "We will take important steps to counter these threats."

Then he demanded Russian surrender as the road to “peace,” just as “peace” is Israeli code for “Palestinian surrender and subjugation.” But he made it sound oh-so-reasonable:

"Let me stress we welcome all efforts to find a peaceful solution ... (but) what counts is what is actually happening on the ground," Rasmussen said.

"We continue to call on Russia to pull back its troops from Ukrainian borders, stop the flow of weapons and fighters into Ukraine, stop the support for armed militants in Ukraine and engage in a constructive political process.

"That would be a genuine effort to facilitate a peaceful solution," he said.

In other words, completely abandon the eastern Ukrainians, cut them off so their resistance can be crushed and the armed separatists annihilated, and then they'll be a “peaceful solution,” namely the conquest of eastern Ukraine by the Kiev cabal. Sounds like a plan, Rassy!

Recall that before Russia intervened, the “offer” the Kiev regime publicly made to the separatists was this: put down your arms, and then we'll negotiate. Literally, that's what Poroshenko “offered.” Guess what would have been “negotiated” once the rebels surrendered? Do you prefer death by firing squad or by hanging? Remember, the Kiev cabal is STILL calling the separatists “terrorists” (as one of their apparatchiks just did a couple of days ago on the BBC radio show “Hard Talk”). What do you do with terrorists? You kill them. Besides, the Kiev cabal sees themselves as the legitimate government of All Ukraine, therefore the separatists are traitors- another capital crime. And the Kiev cabal has already shown its ruthlessness in bloodily crushing opponents, not just in the systematic shelling of cities it doesn't control, killing over 2,000 civilians so far, but also in the 40 or so dissidents its street goons burned alive in a building a few months ago. (Even hear what became of the “investigation” that was promised after that?) And the Russians just found the body and burned out car of a Russian journalist who went missing in Ukraine a month ago when the column of Ukrainian refugees was was accompanying was attacked by Kiev's military forces. Don't hear any moaning and gnashing of teeth in Western media about THAT murder of a journalist! (Unlike with the “Islamic State” executions of two American hostage-reporters in recent days.)

                                                                              
                                                                       
U.S. lapdog Anders Fogh Rasmussen bares his fangs and growls at Russia.

1] To U.S.-bloc political elites, the “crisis” in Ukraine is that Russia doesn't roll over and play dead while the U.S. and its lackey-nations rip the country, with its vital Russian naval base on the Black Sea, out of the Russian sphere of influence and enlist it as a member in the anti-Russian military alliance, NATO. The real crisis in Ukraine is the killing of over 2,000 civilians by Kiev's military incursions and bombardments in the eastern part of the country, and the creation of a million “displaced people” (presumably temporary refugees, although some will turn out to be permanent). 

Some of these Ukrainians have fled across the border into Russia, creating a burden for that nation. So that is another Russian interest in settling the unrest and conflict in Ukraine. Naturally this interest goes unmentioned in Western media propaganda, which instead portrays Russia as an invading power intent on conquering Ukraine and then moving on to occupy the three Baltic states and even other states beyond.
The U.S.-bloc has consistently rejected every Russian compromise offer, including before the U.S. engineered the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime, when Russia offered to enter into a three-way economic arrangement between the EU, Ukraine, and Russia. When the EU stiff-armed Russia, Putin made clear to Yanukovych that Ukraine would face economic retaliation if it cut off Russia and entered into a sweetheart trade deal with the EU, so Yanukovych didn't go through with signing the EU treaty. For this “crime,” he was overthrown.

This demented propaganda is a baseless hoax, but it's hopeless to inform the brainwashed American and European populations of this. The only check on U.S.-EU aggressiveness is the unwillingness of their publics to support any war generally. This limits the U.S. and its NATO underlings to “special operations,” sneaky killings and so on, and to supplying and “advising” proxy forces such as the Kurds in northern Iraq (who deserve support, but that is not why the U.S. is giving it to them).

Al-Qaeda, Islamic State, the United States- What They Have In Common


Al-Qaeda's Supremo, Ayman al-Zawahiri, just announced the supposed formation of a franchise in India. (Apparently just a call to Muslim fanatics to start a cell there.) He insists that India was part of the Caliphate until “infidels” illegitimately wrested it away. (That will come as news to the close to 1 billion Hindus living there.) Guess he didn't like being upstaged by the former ISIS, neé ISIL, now simply “IS” for “Islamic State.”

The “Islamic State” just declared a “caliphate” in Syria and Iraq and declared itself the rulers of all Muslims everywhere. (Since Muslims live on every continent, that's quite an extensive writ. And the most populous Muslim country on earth happens to be several thousand miles away, namely Indonesia.)

And the U.S.? It's outraged that Russia objects to the U.S. taking over Ukraine, with an eye to adding it to its collection of NATO members. It's still trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government, after probably murdering President Hugo Chavez. It imposes its own laws on other nations and their corporations and citizens, forcing them to join in an economic siege of Iran for example. It also drags foreign “drug” dealers who have never been in the U.S. to the U.S. for “trial” and long imprisonment for violating U.S. drug laws. There are numerous other examples of this arrogant global pseudo-legal writ. Oh, and it just opened another drone base, this one in Niger, Africa. Drones are Emperor Obama's favorite way to assassinate people.

So all three of these violent and hyper-aggressive entities think they are entitled to the entire world. All have no doubt of this. All are incredibly arrogant.

If the Islamic State manages to last, it will have another thing in common with the U.S. It will have been founded on genocide, as the U.S. was.

Iran Making Major Concession on its Nuclear Program: Not “Newsworthy” To U.S. Media

See the story at propagandaanalysis.blogspot.com, essay dated September 4, 2014.

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Horrible Verdict In Blackwater Butchers' Trial Seems To Loom

Almost seven years have passed since the September 16, 2007 Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad, Iraq, by psychopathic killers in the employ of Eric Prince, scion of a rich and extremely reactionary American family who founded a company of military mercenaries which he called at the time Blackwater. Seventeen Iraqi civilians, including two doctors and a young child, were slaughtered as they sat trapped in their cars in a traffic jam while Blackwater murderers indulged themselves in a killing spree just for the hell of it. (In criminal parlance, a thrill kill.)

I'm not going to rehash the horrendous details here, as they are readily available and there is only one side to this story. The Blackwater “side” is and has always been pure fantasy. There was no “combat,” no “shootout,” no “attack” on them, period.

Throughout this matter, the U.S. government has dragged its feet and the State Department has done its best to protect the Blackwater butchers it employed. Now four of the culprits are awaiting a jury verdict. Only one is even charged with murder- the others are charged only with manslaughter. (The Federal prosecutors, highly skilled, elite lawyers, deliberately threw the case at the outset so a judge dismissed the original charges. Political pressure eventually forced a second round of charges to be brought.) The U.S. media of course has kept this horrible atrocity well buried, mostly ignoring it except when dry stories are offered devoid of the human details and couched in much obfuscation to give credit to the Blackwater goons' preposterous lies.

We had an advance indication of the expected verdict in the form of a New York Times article on the trial that read like a defense lawyer's brief for the Blackwater butchers. Utterly sickening, it omitting all details of the slaughter, deliberately obfuscating what happened with stunning clarity on that day in that place, stressing “chaos” (the old “fog of war” alibi for U.S. atrocities), the article clearly was meant to prepare public opinion to accept an acquittal as reasonable, if not entirely just. But an acquittal would be a grotesque travesty- but not unexpected, given the nature and history of the United States and the political uses of its judicial system.

An Internet search of “Nisour Square massacre” will lead you to plenty of information. (“Nisoor” in some spellings.) I can recommend “As Jury Takes Up Blackwater Massacre in Nisoor Square, a Grieving Iraqi Father Recalls Son’s Death,” Democracy Now!, Sept. 2, 2014.

For a synopsis of the massacre, see “The Blackwater/Nisoor Square Massacre,” about.com news.

See also “Blackwater leader threatened to kill State Dept. official before Nisour Square massacre: NYT,” The Raw Story, June 30, 2014. The New York Times' article cited by that story has the anodyne title “Before Shooting in Iraq, a Warning on Blackwater,” June 29.

"Islamic State" Murders 2nd Journalist, But Still Lags Behind U.S.

With the execution of an Israeli-American journalist, Steven Sotloff, "IS" has tallied its second dead journalist. But the U.S. has wracked up many more dead journalists. IS will have to hustle to close the gap and catch up with the U.S.'s lead.

The U.S. has been killing journalists for years, of course, such as Al-Jazeera employees in Afghanistan and Iraq, when it deliberately bombed their headquarters in those places (which Al-Jazeera naively provided the locations of to the Pentagon, hoping they wouldn't be bombed "by mistake"). Then there was the infamous U.S. army attack on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, targeting "unembedded" journalists.

Maybe IS thinks they did something special by killing American journalists? Hell, the U.S. has killed at least as many American journalists as IS has! Danny Casolaro and Michael Hastings are two that the U.S. killed, and they were inside the U.S.

Then there are the scores of journalists still being killed with U.S. blessing by the Colombian and Honduran governments, oftentimes horrendously mutilated.

We've heard over and over in the U.S. media the words "horrible," "horrendous," "brutal," and so on, about the IS murders. I can relate. But I have this sneaking suspicion that these particular executions are "horrendous" and "horrifying" and all the rest because of WHO DID IT. After all, the U.S.' Good Buddy Saudi Arabia is RIGHT NOW chopping off people's heads, exactly the same as IS. The U.S. media is keeping it secret.

Amusing discussing of those awful IS people on a radio propaganda show that originates in the capital city of the empire, Washington, D.C., called the Diane Rehm show. Her habitual guests are members of the D.C. "opinion leader" set: "inside the Beltway" "journalists" and "think tank" habitues and the occasional government apparatchik. Today Rehm wondered if IS would ever do anything so horrible as to behead a woman. One of her guests opined that such an act would be upping the ante by IS. Rehm and her guests conveniently pretended not to be aware that Saudi Arabia routinely beheads women- and not for murder, but for "witchcraft" and other such "crimes." "Apostasy" is another such capital offense- that is, refusing to believe in the awful Wahhabi religion of Saudi Arabia.

We're hearing from "terrorism experts" that IS is deliberately advertising their barbarism to spread terror. "That's why they're terrorists" one said today on another program. Would that be anything like how U.S.-sponsored military death squads in places like El Salvador and Guatemala dumped the mutilated bodies of their victims in the streets, to create terror? NAH! That was "defending freedom" and "anti-communism."

Well, consistency is never the strong point of propagandists. And moral integrity isn't much in evidence among imperialists. Rank hypocrisy and the most stunning double-standards are, along with shameless dishonesty in suppressing facts, twisting facts, and inventing facts when it's convenient.

Readers of my essays already know I consider IS nihilistic scum, and I have tagged them Islamonazis for their genocidal behavior and intentions towards Yazidis, Christians, Shiite Muslims, and everybody else, so I don't have to be defensive about any of this- I'm using the word "murder" to describe their killings of the two journalists. Of course, the kneejerk defense of establishment propagandists towards anyone who exposes their crap is to accuse the analyst/critic of being on "the other side," in this case, "the terrorists' side." They impose a Manichean, black and white worldview. You're either with them or against them. You either drink their poisoned Kool-Aid and fall in line behind their imperialist acts or you're an enemy. (They did it to Edward Snowden recently, branding him a Russian spy. One jackass even compared him to Kim Philby in a public debate.)

As far as IS vs. the U.S., a pox on both their houses. Both need to be destroyed for the sake of humanity. We should rejoice when our enemies fight each other. Leftists who wring their hands and squeal in protest when U.S. warplanes bomb IS columns are cretins, morally and politically. I hope the U.S. keeps bombing them, AND I hope IS gets its hands on some anti-aircraft weapons and shoots down some U.S. planes and drones. THAT would be good news.

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Bad History: The Myth that the Versailles Treaty Caused Nazism and World War II

One of the pernicious myths of “history” as created by ideologues called historians is that the blame for the rise of Hitler and the ensuing Second World War is down to the “unjust” and “harsh and punitive” Treaty of Versailles. That is to say, when dealing with obvious criminal psychotics like the Germans, if you are only NICER to them, they’ll leave you alone.

But who made Germany attack an invade France in 1890? Who made the Germans ravage and lay waste to France from 1914-1918? They won the previous war with France, and got what they wanted. Wasn’t that “fair” and “generous” enough for them? No, they went on and did it again in 1914, on the pretext of some Austrian aristocrat getting bumped off by a Serb nationalist! (“Grand Duke Ferdinand,” was the puffed-up title of the imperialist parasite who bit the dust.)

Does appeasing aggressive psychopaths placate them? I think the evidence of concession after concession handed to Hitler disproves that. And the Germans only paid a small fraction of the reparations they agreed to pay for the destruction they wreaked when they signed the Treaty.

Remember that in World War I Germany invaded neutral Belgium, to carry out the Schlieffen plan, a grand flanking maneuver aimed at annihilating the French army. While in Belgium, they busied themselves committing atrocities, murdering civilians, and committing cultural genocide But the Germans were “provoked,” you see. The Belgian army had the effrontery to resist the invasion of their country. What arrogance! Why, the Germans HAD to kill Belgian civilians and burn a historic library down, destroying irreplaceable manuscripts, to teach the Belgians a lesson. The lesson being, don’t resist invasions by psychopaths.

The fact that British propagandists during the war invented fake atrocity stories has for years been trotted out by U.S. (and other) “historians” to discredit the FACT that Germany committed REAL atrocities in Belgium- not to mention the crime of aggression by invading a neutral country in the first place. This is mendacity disguised as history. People who do that should be called propagandists, NOT historians. When you deliberately falsify history to advance a covert political and ideological agenda, that makes you a propagandist, not a historian. Unfortunately, most well-known “historians” seem to fall into this camp to some degree. This creates a huge burden on people who want an accurate understanding of the world. You have to read so much, and study for years, just to find out more or less what really happened. Needless to say, the average person does not do this and is thus an easy mark for the professional brainwashers to dupe. And professional brainwashers are what propagandists really are.

And what about the Holocaust? Did the Treaty of Versailles cause the Holocaust? I guess the “historians” should say yes- although few seem to have the nerve to do so. But if the Treaty “caused” the rise of Hitler, and "caused" the Second World War, then it must follow that it is to blame for all of Hitler’s works, including the Holocaust. Now you truly enter the arena of ludicrousness.

But it has been in the interest of Zionists to lay the blame for the Holocaust on historical anti-Semitism (obviously appropriately, but that isn’t sufficient explanation by itself), and the Zionists have dibs on Holocaust-causation. And there’s the uncomfortable fact that the “Western democracies” barely lifted a finger to save Jews, and in fact blocked their escape from the Nazis’ clutches for the most part.

Now what was the motive for the distortion of history claiming Versailles as causative for World War II? It is to exonerate Germany, because Germany after World War II was part of the U.S.-bossed anti-Soviet bloc in Western Europe. The former German enemy had to have a heavy coating of ideological make-up applied to make it attractive to Western publics who had been put through two major, costly wars by Germany. (The Soviet Union, on the other hand, NEVER invaded Western Europe, NEVER declared war on the U.S. or bombed its ships at anchor as Japan did- another rehabilitated foe turned subaltern nation to the U.S. The Soviet Union was invaded by two dozen western nations right after the Bolshevik revolution, in a failed attempt to reverse that revolution. And of course Germany invaded in 1941 and caused horrendous carnage and wreckage. But the Soviet Union was the Bad Guy.)

The end of the Cold War has changed nothing, since now Russia is still viewed as an adversary- apparently because it won’t let itself to be so reduced in power that its influence ends at its own national boundaries. For this it is faulted for “behaving like the Soviet Union” and “restarting the Cold War” or “acting like the Cold War never ended.” (Hey, Western imperialist propagandists, would you like me to lend you a mirror?)

In fact, to accept the Versailles Treaty as leading to World War II, because it embittered fanatical German nationalists like Hitler, is to imply Germany had a legitimate grievance to start World War II.
Well then, given that Germany suffered far worse destruction in World War II (its cities weren’t systematically bombed into rubble in the First World War, nor was it occupied), plus Germany was shrunk in size, permanently lost Prussia (the heartland of its militarism), Danzig, and more, and the truncated remainder was divided into two, logically Germany had an even BIGGER grievance after World War II than after WW I. So they should have armed themselves with nuclear weapons and started World War III!

The thing is, taking the irrational grievances of fanatical German nationalists at face value is like taking their stated grievances against Jews as having “caused” the Holocaust. I don’t hear those historians who blame World War II on Versailles (because German fascists used it to rile people up) blaming the Jews for the Holocaust. But by the same logic, they could. The point is, Versailles was just an excuse, used as agitprop by the Nazis, the same way they used anti-Semitic propaganda as agitprop. Quite simply, the Germans (many or most of them) were pathological people with burning imperialist ambitions combined with a virulent sense of “racial” superiority. They dehumanized most of the rest of humanity and had no compunction about slaughtering and enslaving most everybody else on the planet. Versailles had NOTHING to do with it. If there had been NO Versailles Treaty, Hitler would STILL have risen to power, and STILL have started World War Two in Europe. It’s idiotic to argue otherwise if one has read deeply about Germany between the wars (as I have). Who could seriously believe that the Versailles Treaty made Germany invade Russia yet again, killing twenty million of the people there, with the intention to ultimately annihilated fully THREE QUARTERS of the “subhuman” Slavs and make slaves of the rest, working on giant German plantations? Russia didn’t impose the Versailles conditions on Germany. Germany defeated Russia in World War I, and imposed onerous peace terms on it! So by the logic of “Versailles made Germany do it,” the Soviet Union should have invaded Germany in World War II, not the other way around. After all, Germany imposed an unfair peace treaty on Russia. Whereas the Versailles Treaty was fair, and should have been enforced. Hitler should not have been allowed to break it by increasing the size of the German army and by remilitarizing the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty. [1]

No, the fault lay in the pathological German character. Thankfully that character has changed to a large degree, mainly in the younger generations.


1] World War I started in 1914. Russia was defeated in 1917. The U.S. then entered the war, because New York bankers fretted about getting their war loans to Britain and France repaid if Germany won. With fresh U.S. troops on the Western front, Germany sued for peace in fall 1918. The slimy and cowardly German general staff, headed by Field Marshals von Hindenberg (who appointed Hitler chancellor in 1933, opening the door to Nazi dictatordship) and von Ludendorff (who participated in the 1923 coup attempt by Hitler to overthrow the Weimar Republic government, for which he was not prosecuted for treason and subversion, not imprisoned or shot- as Hitler should have been) pulled the weaselly and cunning move of making civilians take the rap for the defeat, claiming the military was never really defeated and promulgating the “stab in the back” canard, that traitors at home (in a dictatorship- remember Germany was a monarchy headed by the Kaiser, or “king,”) made Germany surrender. The Nazis heaped a lot of the blame for the “betrayal” and “treason” on “the Jews.” In World War II this was a big factor in the Allies insistence on unconditional surrender, and occupation, so the Germans wouldn’t once again pretend that they weren’t actually defeated.