What's going on?

(yeah, I'm a little outta the loop)

Ill start with this


http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/iran-j04.shtml

Iranian presidential election: candidates debate strategic shift
By Sahand Avedis and Alex Lantier
4 June 2009

The campaign for Iran’s June 12 presidential elections has been dominated by debate over national strategy between the four candidates allowed by the clerical Guardian Council to run. Amid a global economic crisis and expectations of a shift in US foreign policy after the election of President Barack Obama, significant sections of the Iranian bourgeoisie are seeking to change the social and diplomatic policies pursued by incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad scored an upset victory in the 2005 election after denouncing the “oil mafia” of powerful officials who control Iran’s oil revenues. He has since become one of the Washington’s main antagonists in the Persian Gulf. His government has supported Islamist organizations and parties targeted by US imperialism, such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and pursued a nuclear program denounced by Washington. He has stoked tensions with Israel, while repeatedly calling into question the mass extermination of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust. He has been demonized regularly in Western mass media, and the Bush administration refused to publicly negotiate with his government.

In the current campaign, a broad consensus has emerged among all the candidates in favor of closer relations with the US, as well as for imposing austerity measures against the working class. This includes Ahmadinejad and the ex-commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Mohsen Rezaei—the candidates of the conservative, religious “principlist” faction—and the more Western-oriented reformist candidates, ex-Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi and ex-Speaker of Parliament Mehdi Karroubi.

Ahmadinejad himself signaled support for a shift, sending a letter to Obama on November 6 congratulating him on his victory. He appealed to Obama, writing that “The great civilization-building and justice-seeking nation of Iran would welcome major, fair and real changes, in policies and actions, especially in this region.”

Karroubi, who declared his candidacy last August, has criticized Ahmadinejad for his administration’s repressive measures, especially against university students. He also confronted Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei after the 2005 presidential elections, alleging electoral fraud. In a May 21 speech on Iranian public television, he said: “One major reason I have felt impelled to enter the election is that those in the state are infringing on the freedom of the people, more specifically by filtering the candidates and the presence of organized military forces in the past elections.”

In the same speech, Karroubi criticized Ahmadinejad’s relations with other countries: “It is not either confrontation or surrender. We can have interaction with them based on our national interest. What we see is that our Republic is also under threat because of these irrational policies.”

Soon after Obama’s inauguration in January, reports emerged that the US State Department was drafting a letter to Iran, proposing negotiations. On February 10, Ahmadinejad announced that he was willing to negotiate with the US “in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect.”

On February 8, ex-President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who held office from 1997 to 2005 and pursued a free-market policy of opening Iran to European and Asian investors, joined the race temporarily. However, he withdrew five weeks later in favor of Mousavi, apparently calculating that Mousavi’s more conservative image would create fewer expectations in reformist voters and less opposition from principlists.

The New York Times quoted reformist analyst Saeed Laylaz, an economist who edits the business daily Sarmaye (which translates as Capital): “There are many who think even if Khatami gets elected, he will face the same obstacles that he did when he was president before.” Laylaz added, “There are serious concerns that they won’t let Mr. Khatami win under any circumstances, even if it means rigging the elections.”

As he withdrew his candidacy, Khatami told the Mehr news agency: “Opponents want to divide my supporters and supporters of Mousavi. It is not in our interest. Also, some conservatives are supporting Mousavi.... Mousavi is popular and will be able to execute his plans, and I prefer he stays in the race.”

As prime minister from 1981 to 1989, Mousavi oversaw social austerity measures imposed to finance the Iran-Iraq war. At the time, he was a proponent of normalizing relations with the US and recognizing Arab regimes. In the lead-up to the American Iran-Contra scandal in the late 1980s, as the US and Israel sold weapons to Iran, Mousavi organized arms purchases from Israel and oversaw the repression of opposition to the negotiations with US officials on weapons—including the execution of prominent Iranian politician Mehdi Hashemi, who had led a Tehran demonstration against these covert arms deals.

In the Western press, Mousavi is widely treated as the most viable challenger in the elections.

In a May rally, Mousavi explained his appeal: “Our people are looking for stable management skills and stable policies that can bring them a sense of relief and freedom.” Speaking in Isfahan, he criticized Ahmadinejad for “doing things that defame Iranians throughout the world. The nation has not given you that right.... You’ve undermined the might of the nation through your uncalculated actions and have taken us to the point where the value of our passports is equal to that of a country like Somalia.”

In March, Ahmadinejad signaled his willingness to carry out further social cuts against working people. He submitted a budget to the Iranian parliament calling for the elimination of government subsidies that keep water, gasoline, natural gas, and electricity prices low. This would ostensibly allow the government to implement “targeted subsidies” that would be given only to the poorest layers of the population, thereby reducing state spending.

Some reformists supported the budget cuts. Leylaz said he considered the budget a “very great decision,” adding that if it had been proposed by a reformist, “there would be so much opposition and disruption that the plan would be doomed to failure in its earliest stage.” However, several reformist newspapers criticized the measure. It ultimately foundered in the face of opposition by Ali Larijani, the conservative speaker of parliament who was also Iran’s nuclear negotiator. Larijani rewrote the budget bill without the subsidy cuts, and defeated an appeal by Ahmadinejad at the Guardians Council.

The other principlist candidate, Mohsen Rezaei, announced his candidacy only on April 22. Famous for his victory at the 1981 battle of Khorramshahr during the Iran-Iraq war, Rezaei has mainly attacked Ahmadinejad on foreign policy issues, calling for a more pro-US line. In a May 11 interview with the German daily Der Tagesspiegel, he said that “the foreign policy change of Obama should be trusted.”

He continued: “The US is no longer interested in military adventures throughout the globe and this creates a healthy atmosphere for dialogue. When the US changes we should change our attitude as well. We can play our role in the peace process in the Middle East, for example.” In a previous press conference cited by the Wall Street Journal, he described Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy as “provocative” and “adventurous.”

For the Iranian bourgeoisie, the possibility of improving relations with Washington poses a sea change in its global prospects. Though Iran carries out most of its trade and investment with US capitalism’s European or Asian rivals, Tehran’s confrontational relations with Washington plays an even larger role in the country

’s economic and political life. Currently, the US strangles foreign investment in Iran’s infrastructure, limits the development of its energy trade, blocks its access to international financial markets, and threatens it with military attack. It occupies two of Iran’s neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan, and is preparing to intensify an undeclared war in a third—Pakistan.

The Iranian bourgeoisie may hope to improve its currently bleak economic situation through access to US investment. Since Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, the annual inflation rate has increased from 11 to 25 percent, as the rise in energy revenues due to high oil prices has flooded the stagnating Iranian economy with cash. Industrial output has consistently declined amid high unemployment. Inflation in prices for food and other basic commodities, together with a wave of plant shutdowns, have caused a number of demonstrations throughout Iran.

Tehran has already provided valuable support to Washington both in Iraq, where in 2007 it isolated the anti-US Mahdi Army militia of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and in Afghanistan. A Shiite country, Iran is hostile to the bitterly anti-Shiite Taliban, which the US occupation displaced.

A US-friendly regime in Tehran would eliminate substantial fears that have arisen in recent years about US access to the region’s energy supplies. There have been concerns in Washington that China may obtain direct overland pipeline access to Middle Eastern oil and gas through Central Asia or Pakistan to Iran; or that India might succeed in arranging a proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline. If the regime in Tehran were aligned with US strategic and energy interests, such developments would pose less of a threat to Washington.

The Obama administration’s actions suggest that it is currently considering an improvement in relations with Tehran, and the Western press has called attention to US plans for negotiations with Tehran.

In a May 20 article, the New York Times commented, “Mr. Obama’s strategy is based on a giant gamble: That after the Iranian elections of June 12 the way will be clear to convince the Iranians that it is in their long-term interest to strike a deal, trading their ability to produce their own nuclear fuel for a range of tempting rewards. For months, White House and State Department strategists have been debating just what incentives to offer the Iranians up front, and in what order. But they start with the prospect of opening the spigots of investment in Iran’s decrepit oil infrastructure, and even recognizing—and aiding—a civilian nuclear capability for Iran, as long as the country kept its hand off the nuclear fuel.”

The Times added that, should Iranians refuse to negotiate, the Obama administration was preparing to negotiate sanctions with China and European countries to totally isolate the Iranian economy. As the US media—notably investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s pieces in the New Yorker—have repeatedly reported in past years, the Pentagon has prepared a number of plans for military action against Iran under such conditions.

Close US-Iranian ties would not be unprecedented—under the Shah, from 1953 to 1979, Iran was Washington’s main proxy state in the Middle East. However, this bitter history points to an important factor in US-Iranian relations: US imperialism has always insisted that the oversight and distribution of Iran’s oil revenues be subordinated to the profit interests of the US-based energy conglomerates.

In 1953, US and British intelligence arranged the overthrow of Iranian Premier Mohammed Mossadeq after the latter arranged passage of a law nationalizing Iran’s oil industry in 1951. They installed the Shah, who ruled through military dictatorship until his overthrow in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, spearheaded by powerful strikes, especially among the oil workers. At this point, the US isolated Iran commercially and diplomatically, in a vindictive policy pursued to this day.

A rapprochement with Washington would doubtless mean an acceleration of the moves underway by both Ahmadinejad and the reformists to cut subsidies and concentrate oil revenues even more tightly in the hands of the Iranian ruling elite, in preparation for deals with US corporations and finance capital. In the end, closer relations between Tehran and Washington will only be cemented at the expense of the Iranian masses, who will see further cuts in their living standard, and of American working people, who would pay for it through continuation of the ruinous American military expenditures in the Middle East and Central Asia.

and then this

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/iran-j12.shtml

Iranians voting in presidential poll
By Peter Symonds
12 June 2009

Iranian voters go to the polls today in the first round of the presidential election after a boisterous campaign that has involved hundreds of thousands in rallies and street demonstrations for and against incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

All four candidates—Ahmadinejad, former commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) Mohsen Rezaei, ex-prime minister Mirhossein Mousavi and former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karroubi—have longstanding ties to the Iranian political establishment and were vetted by the unelected Guardian Council.

Moreover, there is a broad consensus among the candidates in favour of improving relations with the US as a means of ending the country’s diplomatic and economic isolation. Confronted with a dramatic fall in oil prices from last year and a deepening global recession, the economy is slowing and in desperate need of investment. All the candidates understand that the brunt of the crisis has to be imposed on working people. [See: “Iranian presidential election: candidates debate strategic shift”]

Nevertheless, sharp tactical differences have emerged during the campaign over Ahmadinejad’s policies, reflecting divisions within the political establishment itself. Over the past week, Mousavi has criticised Ahmadinejad’s anti-US posturing and his appeals to anti-Semitic sentiment by questioning the Nazi Holocaust.

During a live TV debate last week, Mousavi warned that Ahmadinejad was moving Iran toward “dictatorship” and based his foreign policy on “adventurism, illusionism, exhibitionism, extremism and superficiality”. He continued: “For the past four years you kept saying that the United States is collapsing. You said Israel is collapsing. France is collapsing. Your foreign policy has been based on such illusional perceptions.”

Mousavi speaks for sections of the Iranian ruling elite who believe that an opportunity exists with the Obama administration to ease tensions with the US, and regard Ahmadinejad’s confrontational style as a barrier. Mousavi, who has emerged as the leading challenger, has the backing not only of the reformers, but also layers of the conservatives.

Ex-president Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who held office between 1997 and 2005 and pursued a free-market policy of opening Iran up to European and Asian investors, withdrew from the election and endorsed Mousavi at a rally in Tehran last month. Mousavi also has been supported by former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a conservative who heads the powerful Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts, which oversees the office of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ahmadinejad scored an upset win over Rafsanjani in the second round of the 2005 presidential election by portraying himself as a man of the people fighting a corrupt establishment that was betraying the principles of the 1979 Islamic revolution that overthrew the Shah. Rafsanjani, as well as being a powerful political figure, is one of Iran’s wealthiest men and notorious for his corruption. Ahmadinejad was also able to capitalise on the deepening poverty and unemployment caused by Khatami’s pro-market policies.

During last week’s debate, Ahmadinejad lashed out at Rafsanjani and his sons, accusing them of corruption and financing Mousavi’s campaign. “These three were together from the beginning, Mousavi, Khatami and Hashemi. They cooperated against me,” he declared. Four years on, however, Ahmadinejad’s demagogy has less impact, as he is well known for handing out lucrative construction contracts to the Revolutionary Guard Corp with which he has close ties.

In an open letter this week calling on supreme leader Khamenei to rein in Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani lashed out at the president’s “lies and distortions of the truth, which were against religion, law, ethnics and fairness and were aimed at the achievements of our Islamic system”. The letter alluded to the danger of “volcanoes” of anger erupting, including over the alleged disappearance of $US1 billion in oil revenues owed by the government to the treasury. A further open letter from 50 clerics from Qom, an important religious centre, criticised Ahmadinejad along similar lines.

Rafsanjani’s son Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani is in charge of a sophisticated and expensive election operation based at the Islamic Azad University, founded by his father, aimed at helping Mousavi over the line. The Los Angeles Times reported last week that, according to several political insiders, the elder Rafsanjani brokered a deal with Khamenei several months ago to encourage Khatami to pull out of the election, in return for the supreme leader not throwing his support behind Ahmadinejad.

Mousavi is running a well-oiled campaign through the Internet and mobile phones, designed to mobilise the urban middle classes who are deeply hostile to the anti-democratic strictures of the Iranian regime. Festooned in green—the campaign colour—tens of thousands of supporters this week stretched out in a human chain running the length of Valiasr, a major 30-kilometre road through Tehran.

The Los Angeles Times noted other signs indicating that sections of the conservative establishment were quietly assisting Mousavi’s campaign. In March, the country’s powerful parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani, foiled a proposal by Ahmadinejad to cut price subsidies on water, petrol, gas and electricity—a move that would have allowed the president more money to spend on election pork barrelling.

Broad layers of the country’s political and business establishment have become increasingly hostile to Ahmadinejad’s populist economic policies of keeping interest rates low and “squandering” the country’s oil wealth on handouts, particularly in rural areas. The so-called reformers Mousavi and Karroubi, as well as the conservative Rezaei, have attacked Ahmadinejad for economic mismanagement.

In last week’s debate, Ahmadinejad was clearly on the back foot as he tried to dress up his economic record. Attacking the statistics that Ahmadinejad presented, Karroubi exclaimed: “Do you think I came from the desert, and that I don’t know anything about figures?” The Central Bank reported inflation of 23.6 percent this week, not 14 percent as claimed by Ahmadinejad. Rising prices are a source of widespread popular anger that sections of the ruling elite are seeking to exploit to push through their own pro-market agenda. Karroubi is advocating a dramatic speeding up of the privatisation of state-run monopolies.

The outcome of the election is far from clear. If no candidate receives over 50 percent in the poll today, a second round run-off between the two leading contenders will take place on June 19.

Mousavi is drawing his support from sections of the urban middle class and from young people. State-run Press TV reported that Mousavi led Ahmadinejad in a poll last month in 10 major cities by 38 to 34 percent. Around 70 percent of the population is under the age of 30 and many students and youth, especially in cities, are backing Mousavi. This support, however, is far more an expression of hostility to Ahmadinejad and the regime, than positive endorsement for Mousavi, who even his promoters acknowledge is a rather drab public figure.

The US and international media have made no secret of their bias toward Mousavi and his slick campaign promising reform. The presence of his wife Zahra Rahnavard, an academic, on the election platform and her challenges to Ahmadinejad have been promoted as a sign that Mousavi will ease the regime’s anti-democratic restrictions on women and the population more broadly. While he may make cosmetic changes, Mousavi’s agenda is to patch up relations with the US and to impose the burden of the economi

c crisis on working people—policies that will provoke opposition, which, as in the past, will be met by state repression.

Ahmadinejad’s supporters are invariably painted in the international media as religious zealots and the ignorant poor. The president certainly draws support from the most conservative layers of the Iranian political establishment, especially the military, the Revolutionary Guard and associated militias. His populist rhetoric and limited financial handouts are also aimed at sections of the urban and rural poor who have been hard hit by the economic crisis and among whom there is a deep distrust of the regime and the wealthy elite, personified in the billionaire Rafsanjani.

The election campaign has revealed a far deeper alienation with the entire political establishment. Three decades after the Iranian revolution, a theocratic state ruling on behalf of the country’s wealthy elites presides over a deepening social gulf between rich and poor by enforcing conservative social mores and suppressing any independent opposition. It regards even the limited popular involvement in rallies and demonstrations during the election campaign with deep suspicion.

In an ominous sign, the political chief of the Revolutionary Guard, General Yadollah Javani, warned this week that there would be no colour revolutions in Iran—referring to the US-backed political movements in countries like Lebanon and the Ukraine. “There are many indications that some extremist [reformist] groups, have designed a colourful revolution ... using a specific colour for the first time in an election.... Any movement for a velvet revolution in Iran will be nipped in the bud.”

While warning was directed against Mousavi’s “green” campaigners, the threat is aimed more broadly against any movement against the regime. There is no doubt that in the event of a social upheaval of the working class all sections of the ruling elite—conservatives and reformers alike—would quickly come together to demand a ruthless crackdown

Try this thread on PI:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=95275

We're providing a little "lend-lease" to that website at the moment. Not sure where it will all shake out (my favorite is still PopI).

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:7PG2NUbqh_qa1M:http://www.geocities.com/~shovalfilm/images/popeye-yam-spin.gif

I support Ahmadinejad.

I support Ahmadinejad.


That guy would throw you in prison in a minute (me too). I know what you mean, though. At least he doesn't buy into Pax Americana. The other guy is a world class tool with blood on his hands.

The choices we get these days...

Come to think of it, it feels like home.

Shoot the messenger.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5850814#5851162

Iranians (?) Twittering to shut the flow of information down.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/twitteriranhackers.jpg


No better than those who worked for The Shah...

CIA Twitters too, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/cia-following-bin-laden-o_b_170586.html)

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/iranprotestinenglish.jpg



Anybody who doesn't think all the "news" coming from Iran isn't a propaganda cover for the repeat of the 1953 US-backed overthrow of Mossadegh, note that the sign in front of the camera is written in English ... in a country where the primary language is Farsi!

What's going on?

(yeah, I'm a little outta the loop)


Another 'spontaneous' color revolution. Shortly before leaving office, Bush got $400 million from Congress to pump up the Iranian dissident groups and youth. The same Soros' Open Democracy groups, that got all those young monks slaughtered in Burma, have been all over the place providing 'assistance'. There's a tie too a place called the Albert Einstein Institution that trains, in the native languages, how to


• Dismantle dictatorships
• Block coups d’état
• Defend against foreign invasions
• Expel foreign occupation
• Provide an alternative to violence in extreme ethnic conflicts
• Challenge unjust social and economic systems
• Develop, preserve and extend democratic practices, human rights, civil liberties and freedom of religion
• Resist genocide

Here are their 198 principles


THE METHODS OF NONVIOLENT PROTEST AND PERSUASION

Formal Statements
1. Public Speeches
2. Letters of opposition or support
3. Declarations by organizations and institutions
4. Signed public statements
5. Declarations of indictment and intention
6. Group or mass petitions

Communications with a Wider Audience
7. Slogans, caricatures, and symbols
8. Banners, posters, and displayed communications
9. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books
10. Newspapers and journals
11. Records, radio, and television
12. Skywriting and earthwriting

Group Representations
13. Deputations
14. Mock awards
15. Group lobbying
16. Picketing
17. Mock elections

Symbolic Public Acts
18. Displays of flags and symbolic colors
19. Wearing of symbols
20. Prayer and worship
21. Delivering symbolic objects
22. Protest disrobings
23. Destruction of own property
24. Symbolic lights
25. Displays of portraits
26. Paint as protest
27. New signs and names
28. Symbolic sounds
29. Symbolic reclamations
30. Rude gestures

Pressures on Individuals
31. "Haunting" officials
32. Taunting officials
33. Fraternization
34. Vigils

Drama and Music
35. Humorous skits and pranks
36. Performances of plays and music
37. Singing

Processions
38. Marches
39. Parades
40. Religious processions
41. Pilgrimages
42. Motorcades

Honoring the Dead
43. Political mourning
44. Mock funerals
45. Demonstrative funerals
46. Homage at burial places

Public Assemblies
47. Assemblies of protest or support
48. Protest meetings
49. Camouflaged meetings of protest
50. Teach-ins

Withdrawal and Renunciation
51. Walk-outs
52. Silence
53. Renouncing honors
54. Turning one's back


THE METHODS OF SOCIAL NONCOOPERATION

Ostracism of Persons
55. Social boycott
56. Selective social boycott
57. Lysistratic nonaction
58. Excommunication
59. Interdict

Noncooperation with Social Events, Customs, and Institutions
60. Suspension of social and sports activities
61. Boycott of social affairs
62. Student strike
63. Social disobedience
64. Withdrawal from social institutions

Withdrawal from the Social System
65. Stay-at-home
66. Total personal noncooperation
67. "Flight" of workers
68. Sanctuary
69. Collective disappearance
70. Protest emigration (hijrat)


THE METHODS OF ECONOMIC NONCOOPERATION: (1) ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS

Actions by Consumers
71. Consumers' boycott
72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods
73. Policy of austerity
74. Rent withholding
75. Refusal to rent
76. National consumers' boycott
77. International consumers' boycott

Action by Workers and Producers
78. Workmen's boycott
79. Producers' boycott

Action by Middlemen
80. Suppliers' and handlers' boycott

Action by Owners and Management
81. Traders' boycott
82. Refusal to let or sell property
83. Lockout
84. Refusal of industrial assistance
85. Merchants' "general strike"

Action by Holders of Financial Resources
86. Withdrawal of bank deposits
87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments
88. Refusal to pay debts or interest
89. Severance of funds and credit
90. Revenue refusal
91. Refusal of a government's money

Action by Governments
92. Domestic embargo
93. Blacklisting of traders
94. International sellers' embargo
95. International buyers' embargo
96. International trade embargo


THE METHODS OF ECONOMIC NONCOOPERATION: (2)THE STRIKE

Symbolic Strikes
97. Protest strike
98. Quickie walkout (lightning strike)

Agricultural Strikes
99. Peasant strike
100. Farm Workers' strike

Strikes by Special Groups
101. Refusal of impressed labor
102. Prisoners' strike
103. Craft strike
104. Professional strike

Ordinary Industrial Strikes
105. Establishment strike
106. Industry strike
107. Sympathetic strike

Restricted Strikes
108. Detailed strike
109. Bumper strike
110. Slowdown strike
111. Working-to-rule strike
112. Reporting "sick" (sick-in)
113. Strike by resignation
114. Limited strike
115. Selective strike

Multi-Industry Strikes
116. Generalized strike
117. General strike

Combination of Strikes and Economic Closures
118. Hartal
119. Economic shutdown


THE METHODS OF POLITICAL NONCOOPERATION

Rejection of Authority
120. Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
121. Refusal of public support
122. Literature and speeches advocating resistance

Citizens' Noncooperation with Government
123. Boycott of legislative bodies
124. Boycott of elections
125. Boycott of government employment and positions
126. Boycott of government depts., agencies, and other bodies
127. Withdrawal from government educational institutions
128. Boycott of government-supported organizations
129. Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents
130. Removal of own signs and placemarks
131. Refusal to accept appointed officials
132. Refusal to dissolve existing institutions

Citizens' Alternatives to Obedience
133. Reluctant and slow compliance
134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision
135. Popular nonobedience
136. Disguised disobedience
137. Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse
138. Sitdown
139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation
140. Hiding, escape, and false identities
141. Civil disobedience of "illegitimate" laws

Action by Government Personnel
142. Selective refusal of assistance by government aides
143. Blocking of lines of command and information
144. Stalling and obstruction
145. General administrative noncooperation
146. Judicial noncooperation
147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents
148. Mutiny

Domestic Governmental Action
149. Quasi-legal evasions and delays
150. Noncooperation by constituent

governmental units

International Governmental Action
151. Changes in diplomatic and other representations
152. Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events
153. Withholding of diplomatic recognition
154. Severance of diplomatic relations
155. Withdrawal from international organizations
156. Refusal of membership in international bodies
157. Expulsion from international organizations


THE METHODS OF NONVIOLENT INTERVENTION

Psychological Intervention
158. Self-exposure to the elements
159. The fast
a) Fast of moral pressure
b) Hunger strike
c) Satyagrahic fast
160. Reverse trial
161. Nonviolent harassment

Physical Intervention
162. Sit-in
163. Stand-in
164. Ride-in
165. Wade-in
166. Mill-in
167. Pray-in
168. Nonviolent raids
169. Nonviolent air raids
170. Nonviolent invasion
171. Nonviolent interjection
172. Nonviolent obstruction
173. Nonviolent occupation

Social Intervention
174. Establishing new social patterns
175. Overloading of facilities
176. Stall-in
177. Speak-in
178. Guerrilla theater
179. Alternative social institutions
180. Alternative communication system

Economic Intervention
181. Reverse strike
182. Stay-in strike
183. Nonviolent land seizure
184. Defiance of blockades
185. Politically motivated counterfeiting
186. Preclusive purchasing
187. Seizure of assets
188. Dumping
189. Selective patronage
190. Alternative markets
191. Alternative transportation systems
192. Alternative economic institutions

Political Intervention
193. Overloading of administrative systems
194. Disclosing identities of secret agents
195. Seeking imprisonment
196. Civil disobedience of "neutral" laws
197. Work-on without collaboration
198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government

There are about 7000 languages in this world. They focus on a coincidental few.

Chavez accused them specifically of being being one of the coups against him.


Sheesh, I could have saved myself the trouble. Just found this for you: The Albert Einstein Institution: non-violence according to the CIA http://www.voltairenet.org/article30032.html I haven't read particular article yet but they worked in Burma, Thailand, Tibet, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Serbia, and the Occupied Territories. They're tied to Harvard (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/21_spring95-1.pdf which I find interesting because one of the main websites being used to relay a lot of the pro-Mousavi propaganda is allegedly coming from Princeton.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i190/bootieslaya/PrincetonservesTehran.jpg

I found that screenshot on whatreallyhappened but I'm not sure how they tied that into Iran. I was going to dig into that some more.

This whole thing just reeks.

When in doubt, I look at places like DU to see who's beating the drums. In this case it was initially low-post, unknown propagandists like Kurska and our Israeli friends.

I think all these things have been scripted for a while. In some CIA backroom, there's a map with plastic colored magnets on a ton of countries and boxes of shiny I-phones I'm sure.

That pic Eattherich posted is correct but doesn't even begin to convey the fraud that's going on on Twitter. I looked at it the first 2 days and it was the same hysterical, exagerated posts all day long being cut and pasted by different monikers. Out of 20 messages on a page, the majority of them were exactly identical.

And ALL written in English. Go figure. People are fighting a revolution and they're taking the time to "translate" their urgent cries for help in another language.

The whole thing is so unbelievable.

Another color revolution. Fade to black.

Thanks Megan. Now I'm late for a med appt.

The same Soros' Open Democracy groups, that got all those young monks slaughtered in Burma, have been all over the place providing 'assistance'.

Lets try to keep some perspective. Its not as though the junta was averse to slaughtering protesters, whatever their origins or backing. Gotta be really careful on these things.

The same Soros' Open Democracy groups, that got all those young monks slaughtered in Burma, have been all over the place providing 'assistance'.

Lets try to keep some perspective. Its not as though the junta was averse to slaughtering protesters, whatever their origins or backing. Gotta be really careful on these things.


Yep, especially hard to discuss these sort of things at DU, ya gotta be 'for or agin'. Seems to me that the Iranian people are in the pan or in the fire, the only question is who profits. They got the choice of a local dickhead or another local dickhead pimping for US Inc.

The same Soros' Open Democracy groups, that got all those young monks slaughtered in Burma, have been all over the place providing 'assistance'.

Lets try to keep some perspective. Its not as though the junta was averse to slaughtering protesters, whatever their origins or backing. Gotta be really careful on these things.


Yep, especially hard to discuss these sort of things at DU, ya gotta be 'for or agin'. Seems to me that the Iranian people are in the pan or in the fire, the only question is who profits. They got the choice of a local dickhead or another local dickhead pimping for US Inc.


The issue is still National Independence - some of it an artifact of decolonization and some of it a response to the "new" globalization. In the old bipolar world, it was easy. Everybody was some kinda "socialist". It got you leverage, trading partners, a means to defend yourself, etc. Everybody from Nyerere to Nasser to Sukarno to Nehru was some kinda socialist. The movements themselves were a mixed bag. They were often led by a nascent "national bourgeoisie", but in a lot of countries it barely existed... the difference being made up by army officers, former colonial officials, lawyers and the rest. Often, they were quite radical.

With the end of that world, you still have the very same pressures but no outlet. Everything flows into the vacuum and it is hard to tell what's what. In the middle east and south Asia, religion further complicates the picture. It is entirely possible for Democratic-minded forward looking "young people" to be allied with the most reactionary elements in the country in order to fight for the right to be American tools... while "national patriotic forces" wrap themselves around a 17th century program.

It's kind of a mess but it will change.

The issue is still National Independence - some of it an artifact of decolonization and some of it a response to the "new" globalization. In the old bipolar world, it was easy. Everybody was some kinda "socialist". It got you leverage, trading partners, a means to defend yourself, etc. Everybody from Nyerere to Nasser to Sukarno to Nehru was some kinda socialist. The movements themselves were a mixed bag. They were often led by a nascent "national bourgeoisie", but in a lot of countries it barely existed... the difference being made up by army officers, former colonial officials, lawyers and the rest. Often, they were quite radical.

With the end of that world, you still have the very same pressures but no outlet. Everything flows into the vacuum and it is hard to tell what's what. In the middle east and south Asia, religion further complicates the picture. It is entirely possible for Democratic-minded forward looking "young people" to be allied with the most reactionary elements in the country in order to fight for the right to be American tools... while "national patriotic forces" wrap themselves around a 17th century program.

It's kind of a mess but it will change.



You covered a lot of ground in that post.

The issue is still National Independence - some of it an artifact of decolonization and some of it a response to the "new" globalization. In the old bipolar world, it was easy. Everybody was some kinda "socialist". It got you leverage, trading partners, a means to defend yourself, etc. Everybody from Nyerere to Nasser to Sukarno to Nehru was some kinda socialist. The movements themselves were a mixed bag. They were often led by a nascent "national bourgeoisie", but in a lot of countries it barely existed... the difference being made up by army officers, former colonial officials, lawyers and the rest. Often, they were quite radical.

With the end of that world, you still have the very same pressures but no outlet. Everything flows into the vacuum and it is hard to tell what's what. In the middle east and south Asia, religion further complicates the picture. It is entirely possible for Democratic-minded forward looking "young people" to be allied with the most reactionary elements in the country in order to fight for the right to be American tools... while "national patriotic forces" wrap themselves around a 17th century program.

It's kind of a mess but it will change.



You covered a lot of ground in that post.


Agree?

The same Soros' Open Democracy groups, that got all those young monks slaughtered in Burma, have been all over the place providing 'assistance'.

Lets try to keep some perspective. Its not as though the junta was averse to slaughtering protesters, whatever their origins or backing. Gotta be really careful on these things.





The same Soros' Open Democracy groups, that got all those young monks slaughtered in Burma, have been all over the place providing 'assistance'.

Lets try to keep some perspective. Its not as though the junta was averse to slaughtering protesters, whatever their origins or backing. Gotta be really careful on these things.


Very true about the junta, about the people in charge having no qualms about crushing rebellions but in their place, it makes no sense to tolerate rebellions fuelled by outside meddling. You're probably already aware of all of this but I thought I'd post it here for the record.

Re Burma. That was Soros/NED/IRI meddling all the way.

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=230&topic_id=3237&mesg_id=3237

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=230&topic_id=3237

Without even reading the links, you can look at which countries the Albert Einstein Institution focused on from 2000-2004. I kid you not:


Serbia………………………………………………………….................. pages 16-18
Venezuela………………………………………………………................ pages 18-19
Belarus…………………………………………………………................ pages 19-21
Zimbabwe…………………………………………………….................. pages 21-22
Tibet………………………………………………………….................... page 22
The Baltic States: Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia………….................. page 23
Burma................................................................................................. page 24
Iran... page 24
Iraq... page 24



Burma
Since the late 1980s, the Albert Einstein Institution has provided
translated materials, briefings and workshops to various
Burmese opposition groups. AEI’s relationship with Burmese
pro-democracy activists continues. In August 2000, Robert Helvey conducted
a week-long course on strategic planning of political defiance for the
National Council of the Union of Burma Political Defiance Committee in
Mae Hong Song, Thailand. Helvey also met with Karen National Union
Leaders and the Chairman of the Democratic Party for a New Society, Aung
Moe Zaw. These consultations were sponsored by the International
Republican Institute.

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/2000-04rpt.pdf


They'd been working on it for a while . This is from their 1993 - 1999 Annual Report. Page 9 is full of the speaking engagements they gave in Burma and along the Burmese border.


The Albert Einstein Institution helped print more than 23,000 copies of the Burmese edition of Gene
Sharp’s From Dictatorship to Democracy in a small, inconspicuous format, which are now circulating
inside Burma. We also supervised the translation of From Dictatorship into languages of some of the major ethnic
groups in Burma, namely Karen, Mon, Jinghpaw, and Chin.

Which Way to Freedom?, a concise, elementary text that highlights key concepts of nonviolent struggle to achieve
liberation, which the Albert Einstein Institution helped produce with the Political Defiance Committee, has also
been translated into Burmese and up to 15,000 copies are circulating inside the country.

One telling repercussion of the Albert Einstein Institution’s work in Burma—in addition to the spread of the core ideas of nonviolent struggle—has been the aggressive retaliation by the junta-controlled media. Since early 1995 regimecontrolled radio and newspapers have launched a series of denunciations against “political defiance” (equating it with terrorism) and specifically against Albert Einstein Institution representatives Gene Sharp, Robert Helvey, and Bruce Jenkins. Photographs, biographical information, personal addresses, and phone numbers have appeared in the junta-controlled newspaper New Light of Myanmar and on its Web site. While these denunciations reveal the risky nature of the Albert Einstein Institution’s work, they are clear indicators that the regime is aware of the revolutionary potential of nonviolent struggle against tyranny.

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/1993-99rpt.pdf


Another thing about monks is that they're, for the most part, young men doing a one year obligatory service as a monk. It's not a lifelong thing unless they want it to be but all young men are required to do one year. Soros and institutions like the NED were pouring serious money into supporting young monk organizations. I don't know if I still have those bookmarks but right after the uprising I went to check, and sure enough...

We're none too pleased about the Sino-Burma oil pipelines that will get more even oil to Yunan in much less time the tankers do.

The regime in Burma is reprehensible but people like Soros are stirring hornets' nests and those young monks woud still be alive if he hadn't filled their heads with shiny words like democracy.

====

After all that typing.... What Anaxarchos said. I wish I'd read that before typing this all up.

I wasn't taking a dig Tin, just thought a reminder in order that this isn't about being pro-Ahmadinejad politically. As a parallel example, documenting what happened in the election here in 2000, wouldn't entail that you were pro-Gore (or Kerry in 04). I realize the analogy is a bit strained but nevertheless..

We're pro-Iran on the question of self-determination, but that doesn't extend to every bullshit proclamation of the Mullah or anything else.

I wasn't taking a dig Tin, just thought a reminder in order that this isn't about being pro-Ahmadinejad politically. As a parallel example, documenting what happened in the election here in 2000, wouldn't entail that you were pro-Gore (or Kerry in 04). I realize the analogy is a bit strained but nevertheless..

We're pro-Iran on the question of self-determination, but that doesn't extend to every bullshit proclamation of the Mullah or anything else.



No worries. I didn't take it as dig. These external manipulations and how brilliantly they work, using the same tired script everytime, just get to me- Burma especially because of the way those young monks were savagely slaughtered- sacrificed to some imperial Moloch.

I wasn't taking a dig Tin, just thought a reminder in order that this isn't about being pro-Ahmadinejad politically. As a parallel example, documenting what happened in the election here in 2000, wouldn't entail that you were pro-Gore (or Kerry in 04). I realize the analogy is a bit strained but nevertheless..

We're pro-Iran on the question of self-determination, but that doesn't extend to every bullshit proclamation of the Mullah or anything else.



No worries. I didn't take it as dig. These external manipulations and how brilliantly they work, using the same tired script everytime, just get to me- Burma especially because of the way those young monks were savagely slaughtered- sacrificed to some imperial Moloch.


At the risk of sounding New Agey -- EVERYBODY is in the maw of the Moloch. Moral sanction is about the least of our problems or concenrs, but that extends to assuaging feelings of guilt too. The monks and billions of others devoured are a testament to the ongoing struggle. Funny that its the most visceral message possible, yet so many insist that the vitality and legitimacy of the struggle revolves around the question of "getting it".