The Nature of Foxes

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:14 pm

Madeleine Albright is Dead, but Intersectional Imperialism is Alive and Well
Danny Haiphong, BAR Contributing Editor 30 Mar 2022

Image

The late Madeleine Albright was the first female Secretary of State. Her actions in office repeated the U.S. imperative to interfere in the affairs of other countries and resulted in the deaths of thousands of people.

Madeleine Albright’s death brought a firestorm of praise from the corporate media. The New York Times called Albright a “brilliant analyst of world affairs .” CNN advised that the West follow her foreign policy “lessons.” USA Today called Albright a “groundbreaking” Secretary of State and a “feminist icon.” Former staffers, surrogates, and beltway establishment figures provided the bulk of the obituaries which heaped praise onto Albright’s imperialist corpse.

Madeleine Albright was indeed the first woman to be appointed as U.S. Secretary of State. Albright was also a “trailblazer,” but not in the way that the foreign policy establishment would have us believe. The trails that she blazed led directly to the mass destruction of nations and peoples abroad in service of U.S. imperialism. Even mass murderer Colin Powell is known to have balked when Albright asked him, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

Albright was referring to Powell’s reluctance to send U.S. troops to Bosnia as the NATO-instigated crisis in Yugoslavia escalated following the fall of the Soviet Union. An infamous “Serb hater,” Albright is said to have intentionally sabotaged negotiations with Serbia in the lead up to NATO’s bombing campaign in 1999. Her dream of a dismembered Yugoslavia at the hands of the United States would eventually come true in 1999 after a decade of U.S. and NATO meddling culminated in the razing of Serbia, Yugoslavia’s largest and most socialist-oriented republic.

Thousands of civilians, including three Chinese journalists , were killed and billions worth in infrastructure destroyed by NATO bombs because of Albright’s “girl boss” approach to Yugoslavia. Albright would use the war on Yugoslavia to successfully push for NATO expansion into Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. NATO expansion is a root cause of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. Albright thus has a hand in pushing the world further along the path of World War III.

NATO expansion and Yugoslavia’s dismemberment were just a few of the many aspects of Albright’s murderous foreign policy. As a star pupil of Zbigniew Brzezinski , Albright would advise successive Democratic Party administrations from Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton. She fully supported sanctions on Iraq which killed upwards of 500,000 children according to UN estimates, famously telling 60 Minutes that the price of sanctions on the Iraqi people was “worth it.” African lives were equally as worthless to Albright. During the genocide in Rwanda, Albright used her influence to stymie peace-keeping efforts and support their proxy force, the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF), as it slaughtered its way to power with the help of the United States.

Albright ended her life as chair of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), a soft power organization funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Department of State. The NDI carries forth Brzezinski’s legacy of destabilization through public support for regime change operations once seen as the dirty work the CIA. In many ways, Albright’s work in legitimizing regime change is in keeping with intersectional imperialism. Albright’s status as a woman gives the ruling class an enhanced capacity to sanitize her foreign policy record in a similar manner that the NDI is employed to aid so-called “civil society” and “pro-democracy” forces abroad to sanitize regime change.

Albright may be dead, but intersectional imperialism is alive and well. This brand of imperialism reached a climax under the Barack Obama presidency and is spearheaded by the Democratic Party. Under intersectional imperialism, the elevation of a tiny fraction of individuals from oppressed groups into positions of power represents the pinnacle of American exceptionalism. The diversification of empire is equated with a journey toward a more “perfect union.” What makes this process “intersectional” is its emphasis on elevating those in the establishment who supposedly relate to multiple experiences of oppression.

Albright’s identity as an immigrant woman turned war hawk makes her a more than ideal example of the successes of diversity. It is the typical rags to riches story. Albright is said to have escaped from the scourge of communism for the “democratic” West and proceeded to take full advantage of all the opportunities that capitalism has to offer. Her efforts would be rewarded with tenures at the most prestigious universities and eventually the highest ranks of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. And to think, Albright was once a refugee!

Intersectional imperialism’s feel-good stories are meant to conceal the fact that one only rises to the top brass of Washington’s foreign policy establishment through dedicated service to militarist violence. Albright’s hatred of communism was a good start. But her willingness to provide diplomatic cover for the most cruel and destructive U.S. wars was an even greater asset to the empire. To break the glass ceiling in Washington, a woman must be willing to break entire nations. That is exactly what Albright enthusiastically accomplished over her long tenure as political operative and advisor to the imperialists.

Intersectional imperialism is dangerous because it creates role models specifically tasked with the job of marginalizing genuine anti-imperialist and leftist politics. The ruling class understands that the only path to unity among the oppressed classes is through a conscious struggle against racism, sexism, and all forms of oppression. Movements should want to cultivate leaders from all sections of the working class but not at the expense of political substance. Figures like Albright present a barrier to such efforts by directing energy away from class struggle and toward class snuggle or collaboration with warmongers and profiteers. Worse yet, imperialists less interested in virtue signaling to the left have been able to exploit the corruption of the Albrights and Clintons of the world to gain legitimacy among a section of the working class.

Intersectional imperialism is a byproduct of a system, and a U.S. Left, in crisis. Albright’s reputation may be temporarily resuscitated by romantic obituaries but words alone cannot change the dark landscape of imperialism. Propaganda cannot obscure the reality that U.S. imperialism has nothing left to offer humanity but endless war and austerity. At this stage of its life, imperialism is a moribund system holding on to the dictum that it’s “too big to fail.” The Left must confront its enemies within or remain a marginal force in the United States, and that means cutting the cord with any effort to remodel imperialism into a more effective evil.

https://www.blackagendareport.com/madel ... e-and-well

She was a monster, the only sort of person to spearhead an imperial project. Sex, race and creed are no obstacle to success in the capitalist hierarchy, you are only required to grab your humanity by the throat, disembowel it with a dull penknife and then trample it into the dust. Then you're In.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:49 pm

The Real One-World Government Conspiracy Is US Unipolar Hegemony

Image

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has announced that he expects NATO will be deepening its relationship with its “partners” in the Asia-Pacific because China has not condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“We see that China has been unwilling to condemn Russia’s aggression, and has joined Moscow in questioning the right of nations to choose their own path,” Stoltenberg said at a press conference on Tuesday. “At a time when authoritarian powers are pushing back on the rules-based international order, it is even more important for democracies to stand together, and protect our values. So I expect we will agree to deepen NATO’s cooperation with our Asia-Pacific partners, including in areas such as arms control, cyber, hybrid, and technology.”

Some “Asia-Pacific partners” named by Stoltenberg in his speech include “Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea.” He also named “Georgia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina” as additional non-NATO “partners” of the military alliance.

As the late scholar on US-Russia relations Stephen Cohen explained years before the Ukraine crisis erupted in 2014, Moscow sees NATO as an “American sphere of influence,” and the expansion of NATO and NATO influence as expansion of that sphere. As the “North Atlantic” Treaty Organization continues to expand its influence and intimacy with “partners” surrounding China, we can probably expect Beijing to take a similar view.


Also on Tuesday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley told the House Armed Services Committee that the US needs to prepare for significant conflict with both Russia and China, echoing Stoltenberg’s comments about the “rules-based international order”.

“We are now facing two global powers: China and Russia, each with significant military capabilities both who intend to fundamentally change the rules based current global order,” Milley said. “We are entering a world that is becoming more unstable and the potential for significant international conflict is increasing, not decreasing.”

As we’ve discussed previously, these newspeak terms “rules-based international order” and “rules-based global order” really mean nothing other than “Washington-based global order”. It is wordplay designed to sidestep less convenient terms like “international law”, which is very clearly defined and not nearly as subject to US control as these other terms which mean nothing other than whatever the US empire wants them to mean.

People lost their minds when President Biden uttered the phrase “new world order” last month and were quickly informed by mainstream “fact checkers” that this does not validate longstanding conspiracy theories about an elite agenda to create a one-world government. In reality, though, the real agenda to create a one-world government is not some hidden conspiracy involving secret societies and shadowy figures with Jewish surnames. The US empire is openly working to unite the planet under a single power structure which effectively functions as one government in many ways.


Back when the United Nations was being formed in 1945, Albert Einstein wrote hopefully about the possibility of a future one-world government and believed the primary obstacle to its emergence was the fact that the Soviet Union would resist joining it. Einstein therefore concluded that the best thing would be for other nations to band together under a “partial world Government… comprising at least two-thirds of the major industrial and economic areas of the world.”

And what’s interesting is that this is pretty much what ended up happening. The United States, along with the oligarchs and government agencies who run it, has become the hub of a vast undeclared empire unified not under an official imperial flag but under a network of alliances, treaties, “partnerships”, predatory loans and secret deals which other governments are encouraged to sign on to by varying degrees of coercion, with the understanding that if they don’t join up they will find themselves facing the wrath of the empire. Nations like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Bolivia, Syria and Venezuela have wholly resisted being brought underneath this power umbrella, while the remainder of the world has fallen into varying degrees of membership within the undeclared empire.

The empire’s member states have their own official governments with their own official laws and their own official elections (where applicable), but on international matters they move more or less as a cohesive unit against the nations who have resisted absorption into the imperial blob. This is what unipolar hegemony looks like, and the US has had a standing policy to preserve that unipolar hegemony since the fall of the Soviet Union.

This is the real one-world government conspiracy. The one with the most tangible reality behind it which most directly affects our lives. You don’t need to plunge down a bunch of paranoid rabbit holes to see it, you just have to watch the news with an understanding of which governments are part of this giant power structure and which ones have refused to be absorbed into it. It explains pretty much everything you see on the world stage.


Virtually every major international news story, underneath all the imperial narrative spin, is nothing other than the story of a giant US-centralized power structure working to incorporate more and more nations under its umbrella and smash any nation which refuses by any means necessary. Once you really see this you can never unsee it, because it tracks so consistently all across the spectrum. And once it’s seen, the major international conflicts being focused on by the imperial media will never again be confusing to you.

This is why they are ramping up aggressions against China as they prepare a campaign to stop its rise before its power makes a US-dominated world order a permanent impossibility. This is why they persisted in provocations that experts had long warned would lead to a Russian attack on Ukraine and are now leveraging the invasion to push for regime change in Moscow. This is why nations like Pakistan who get too close to defying the empire are threatened with regime change. This is why the imperial news cycle churns out narratives telling us Saddam needs to go, Gaddafi needs to go, Assad needs to go, Maduro needs to go, Kim Jong-Un needs to go, etc.

The US-centralized empire is continually working to unify the world under one power structure, and if it someday succeeds the result will not functionally be different from a one-world government. The problem, of course, is that some nations are resisting this agenda, and the ones who have been most successful in that resistance are armed with nuclear weapons. The agenda to secure total global domination at all cost is literally risking the life of every organism on this planet, and tensions along this front are only continuing to escalate.


The entire argument for a “rules-based international order” led by the United States is that it makes the world a more peaceful and harmonious place, but this argument is nullified by the omnicidal nature of the very measures which must be taken to secure that world order. US unipolar hegemony doesn’t make the world more peaceful, it makes it more dangerous. It cannot be maintained without nonstop violence and steadily escalating nuclear brinkmanship. “Pax Americana” is a lie.

The competition-based models that have been normalized for humanity are going to wipe us all out if we don’t change them very soon. Nations cannot keep waving armageddon weapons at each other because a few manipulators in the US Beltway convinced decision makers that they should rule the world. We cannot keep feeding our ecosystem into the gears of an insatiable capitalism machine that will collapse if it doesn’t continually expand.

We are going to have to find a way to move into collaboration-based systems with each other, with other nations, and with our environment. This way of living on this planet is utterly unsustainable.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/04/06 ... -hegemony/

Like I been sayin'....
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Tue Apr 12, 2022 2:26 pm

Image

All US Presidents Are War Criminals: Why the Latest Chapter of the Forever War Only Fools the Usual Suspects
April 11, 2022
By Daniel Patrick Welch – Apr 8, 2022

‘This is a US war on Russia. Period.’

We have to be very clear, even to the point of being blunt. By ‘we’ I mean those of us involved who are conscious of being part of an Information War–the propaganda war that we are recipients of—on the receiving end of this tsunami of crap. We have to say things flat without fear and without compromise. This is a US war on Russia. Period. Now why do we have to say this? Why should we say it so bluntly?

The propaganda matrix is so powerful that people, especially within the bubble–that is, within what people call NATOstan. This is the ‘civilized’ world, 15% of the human population. The West. People are so confused and so propagandized that it’s almost as if they have no sense of pattern recognition, or have never read a chapter book. This is a war, a US war against Russia. Why? Because the US is NATO. What is NATO? NATO is a Horribles Parade costume, it’s a Halloween mask. It’s just the US–the extension of the US military around the world by another name. Pure and simple.

Now when you find all of these things that they’re finding, all the material, all of the connections and the proof that NATO is much more involved than they claim. This is to say that the US is involved. This is the extension of the US. Again: why? Because the US is at war with everybody. The US is involved in its forever war against every*body* and every*thing.* Sometimes the mask slips and people see it. But they hide behind proxies, they hide behind local conflicts, they make it seems like they are doing something else. But they are involved.

‘Anglo-US Empire struggling to keep things as they are’

The United States Empire, the inheritors of the UK Empire–so the Anglo-US Empire is involved in a struggle to keep things as they are. They are in the very last throes the death throes I think–of a 500-year history of slaughter and plunder that has kept all of the wealth in the world funneling upwards to them. And the question is not it can they do it, but rather why can’t they see that it’s a completely impossible thing.

This is a war against time, against history. Think of the unimaginable arrogance it takes to think that you can freeze time. Why are they going to fail? Because no Empire has succeeded in freezing time. You’re done! It’s over–leave the stage politely, with a gracious bow and support what’s coming next. But no. The unspeakable hubris it takes not only to try to shape the development of life, but to stop it. and this is how you know that they are at work. They’re at work in Ukraine; but that’s not enough: while they’re doing that, they have to try to overthrow Imran Khan in Pakistan. They have to go and threaten Modi in India not to pay too much in Rubles with Russia. Not to have too much Rupee-Ruble shenanigans because we don’t like that, right?
They try to threaten Orban in Hungary by having the EU accuse them of erosion of democracy. Orban’s great crime is to say he’s going to be closer to Russia. Same with Vuccic in Serbia. You know, these are people who are our increasingly not going to be cowed.

I don’t know exactly why–within the bubble–why people are so malleable. I mean it’s really incredible how susceptible people are in the Western so-called democracies, where the news is so censored and so filtered that it’s a wonder that they know anything at all. They have this farce–they are pumping up support for this chapter of the Forever War (which they call the Ukraine War) by advertising it in an award show. They have Zelensky prost…ing himself by appearing at the Grammy’s! The National Gallery changes the title of Degas’ work to say Ukrainian Dancers instead of Russian Dancers. Then all the stuff I’ve talked about before, the boycott on Russian vodka, what have you. Whatever. And they are so deep in this–this is inside the bubble–that you cannot talk about any of the real things that are happening.

Yes, there are Nazis! How do we know? Because the US has been working with them since the 1940s. And with their parents and their grandparents. There’s no secret about this. Even these liberal intellectuals and so-called politically conscious and aware types would have admitted this. This was not controversial even a year or two ago. There were articles everywhere about the Nazi problem in Ukraine, about using the Nazis. Again we come back the notion of pattern recognition. Why are they so surprised? Why is it such a shock?

Somoza was a Nazi. In Chile Pinochet was a Nazi. They always use these people as their proxies. Why would Ukraine be any different? Maybe it’s because de-Nazification was never really finished in Germany to begin with. They didn’t really like it too much the first time around because defeating communism became more important. Meh. Nazi, schmazi. We took Werner Von Braun, which Tom Lehrer even wrote a song about. De-Nazification, say in Bavaria: 75% of the Nazis identified were rehabilitated. Then they formed the CSU which was part of the basis for Adenauer’s first government.

It was never taken seriously and there were always greater threats. Communism was a greater threat. Why there a Red Scare in the US but the German Bund was allowed to have its Nazis twenty-five thousand strong at Madison Square Garden? We’ve always known which side they were on. They were never serious about it and they’re not serious now. So what is interesting is how the rest of the world thinks. Because they have never been stupid about any of this.

‘The American Empire is in a war against humanity’

Europeans love to talk about the Cold War. Well, it wasn’t that cold—ask the people in Vietnam whether it was cold or hot. Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar. Or Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador? Argentina–the Dirty War. Chile—the disappeared. Algeria, Uganda, Rwanda with the divisions that were sown by the Empire. Angola, Mozambique, South Africa itself. The Congo with King Leopold’s murderous reign and NATO’s role in the killing of Lumumba. Palestine? I mean seriously? Are these people serious? The US president gets to call the Russian president a thug and a war criminal? All US presidents are war criminals! This is why when people asked why are we so confident not only when we say it’s a US war against Russia, US war against the world. Why then are we all so sanguine that they will lose, these forces that are trying to stop time?

It comes back to all the same philosophers is that Dr. King quoted: William Cullen Bryant, the truth crushed to earth will rise again or Thomas Carlyle no lie can live forever. All these things are still true. Ukraine is NATO is the US. The Africans know it, the Indians know it, the Chinese know it, the South Americans and Central Americans know it. This is 85% of humanity. The American Empire is in a war against humanity.

So how are we so sure, when I hear about the particulars–you have to zoom in every once in awhile. The Maternity Hospital in Mariupol being bombed? Well I don’t know how I’ll wait and see. Then the model appears in an interview and says it was Ukrainians. The ghost of Kiev? Hmmm, I’m not sure…turns out to be a video game. The Snake Island Heroes who died so heroically yet wound up being videotaped later on having surrendered. The Zaporozhie power plant which turned out not to be true. Now this current massacre where bodies are sitting up and waving at the camera. You know, you have to wait because they’ve always use these tricks. It’s not new–pattern recognition! The next chapter–look ahead and sneak a peek at the cliff notes, if you want to stay sane and stay alive.

And then you have the people involved who want us to feel guilty: the pressure! The pressure to be anti-Russia on the people inside the West… Now, outside people are a little bit free or two it’s a push back against that that hubris, having been NATO’s victims. Having been subjects of the hot side of the Cold War and they will just tell the NATO and the US, as my father said, to take a long walk off a short pier. It is absolutely clear, and we have to present it as such. Or, to quote an Afro-Russian poet, Alexander Pushkin: Для меня/ Так это ясно, как простая гамма. this is as clear to me as a simple sum. And we have to stay strong, and keep our eyes on the fight of our lives, the lives of humanity and the life of the whole world. History is on our side.

https://orinocotribune.com/all-us-presi ... -suspects/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Wed Apr 13, 2022 2:34 pm

Who Will Hold the US/EU/NATO Accountable For Its Many War Crimes?
Jacqueline Luqman 13 Apr 2022

Image
George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

U.S. presidents and their NATO counterparts have committed war crimes all over the world. But they exempt themselves from prosecution, and use orporate media to act as their personal advocates. Only the little people end up at the Hague.

The US State-Department-sponsored media apparatus is declaring that there were war crimes committed by Russian troops as they left the town of Bucha, just west of Kyiv. Soon After the Ukrainian army retook the town, there were published reports of bodies with bound hands and feet and of mass graves of civilians in international media, all with accompanying pictures and presumed satellite imagery of those bodies.

I am not going to say that Russian troops committed no atrocities. I do find the accusations dubious and opportunistic since the very same media outlets demanding war crimes charges and tribunals for Bucha have completely ignored the war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces in the 8-year civil war in the country. In 2016, for example, a report by the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) pointed to “summary executions and arbitrary killings” and observed “an apparent lack of motivation to investigate in some cases…especially when it concerns acts allegedly committed by Ukrainian forces.” The report does indicate that the pro-Russian “separatist forces'' in the eastern Ukraine regions fighting against the pro-Western Kyiv government may also have committed atrocities against members of the Kyiv army - the army that started the civil war against the largely ethnic Russian Donbas, and Crimean regions - and pointed out that the use of rocket systems in urban areas could be "recognized" as war crimes.

But there were no demands from the US government or NATO or any of its allies for investigating any of these incidents in the past 8 years, especially not against the Kyiv army and the neo-Nazis in that army, when they aimed those rockets against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. And there never will be because, then the western media would have to acknowledge that there has been a civil war in Ukraine and the reasons for that war, which would force the recognition that the US/NATO instigated a coup in Ukraine in 2014.

And the fact that the State-Department sponsored media outlets are posting pictures of the gruesomeness of war to document these allegations of war crimes against Russia is interesting because they never published pictures of the Highway of Death in Iraq. You know about the Highway of Death, right? After Iraqi forces invaded and annexed Kuwait (and its oil reserves) in 1990, the UN Security Council, at the urging of the Western countries angry that they no longer had access to Kuwait’s oil, urged all necessary means to compel Iraqi forces to withdraw from Kuwait.Operation Desert Storm was launched on January 17, 1991 in response, which decimated the Iraqi forces. The Iraqis realized they had no choice but to retreat from Kuwait and were reported to have committed atrocities against Kuwaiti resistance fighters themselves. But during their retreat from Kuwait, beginning on the night of February 26, 1991, the US and its allies (France, England, and Canada) launched a combined ground, air, and sea assault on Highway 80 - the main artery out of Kuwait - targeting Iraqi vehicles as they left Kuwait along that highway. The Iraqi army was retreating. US coalition forces targeted those retreating vehicles and bombed the highway incessantly for 10 hours.

Hundreds of vehicles were destroyed and left burning on the road, creating a huge and deadly traffic jam. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers were trapped in the carnage and burned to death.

The international community was outraged, but not one war crime charge or tribunal convened against the perpetrators - the US and its coalition. But whenever the Highway of Hell is brought up, we’re reminded of Iraqi army atrocities with the quickness.

It’s probably easy to recount that Trump pardoned war criminals who were tried and convicted in military court for their crimes: Seven former platoon members have accused one of the men, Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, of routinely targeting women and children as a sniper in Iraq, as well as murdering a teenage captive in cold blood. Nicholas Slatten is a mercenary who is, so far, the only man convicted of any war crimes in Iraq, found guilty of committing a massacre of 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007.

But let’s not act as if the war crimes committed by the US government and its NATO allies are limited to those two men and their actions. The whole reason Julian Assange is still in prison in England, and why Chelsea Manning was imprisoned by the US government, was because they released information exposing all the civilians the US military were killing in Afghanistan, including the horrific “Collateral Murder” video of two US helicopter gunships killing a dozen people, among them many civilians and two Reuters journalists in a 2007 strike.

Or how about the war crimes committed by the US/NATO allies in Libya. The “Report of the Independent Civil Society Fact-Finding Mission to Libya ” was published by The Independent Civil Society Mission to Libya, which was established by the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) in cooperation with the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). The report calls for the investigation of evidence that NATO targeted civilian sites, causing many deaths and injuries. Civilian facilities targeted by NATO bombs and missiles included schools, government buildings, at least one food warehouse, and private homes. The report presents evidence of systematic murder, torture, expulsion, and abuse of suspected Gaddafi loyalists by the NATO-backed “rebel” forces of the National Transitional Council (NTC). The NTC is the opposition group that seemed to declare itself the legitimate opposition to Quadaffi in Libya, saying that they spoke for all Libyans, even though the organic protests in opposition to Gaddafi which emerged in February 2011 were unorganized locally-based groups without any discernible connective structure. The NTC quickly became the darlings of Western forces, receiving training from NATO forces - those nebulous advisors that always seem to be present. The report describes the forced expulsion of the mostly Black inhabitants of Tawergha and the ongoing persecution of Black African migrant workers by forces allied to the NTC and its transitional government. Those are the slave markets, folks, that the NATO-Trained NTC perpetrated.

And let’s not forget that the US military is the largest polluter on the planet. That, as far as I am concerned, is also a war crime since the pollution the US military produces negatively affects the lives of millions of people around the world.

All of these are war crimes. All of these have been documented to have been committed by the US/NATO and their European allies. Should it be found that Russian troops have committed these heinous acts they were accused of in Bucha, they should absolutely be made accountable for them.

But who will prosecute or sanction or even hold accountable the US/EU/NATO in any of their war crimes? Already the UN has voted to remove Russia from the Human Rights Council in an unprecedented move, doing so without a shred of evidence that Russian forces have committed the alleged atrocities in Bucha. This was done at the demand of the US and its puppet Volodymyr Zelensky, who threatened that the UN should dissolve itself if it did not deal with Russia .

When the alleged human rights court of the world operates at the whim of the United States and its puppets and proxies, who will ever hold the United States accountable for its enumerable war crimes?

No one. And that in itself is a crime against humanity.

https://www.blackagendareport.com/index ... war-crimes

************************************

McCarthyism re-emerging stronger than ever in Ukraine policy debates

Zealous anti-Russia voices are actually demanding that anyone opposing their views be silenced, and even criminally prosecuted.

APRIL 11, 2022
Written by
Ted Galen Carpenter

A troubling pattern has developed over the decades in which foreign policy hawks smear their opponents and thereby seek to foreclose discussion of questionable U.S. policy initiatives.

The late Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his followers used that tactic to perfection during the Cold War. They branded anyone who suggested that Washington should consider adopting a less confrontational policy toward the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of China as communist sympathizers or even outright traitors. Journalists and educators found themselves on blacklists, and dissenting officials found themselves in the ranks of the unemployed.

It was not until the late 1960s, when street protests erupted over the Vietnam War, that the atmosphere of intimidation began to weaken. When Richard Nixon’s administration pursued détente with Moscow and began to establish a normal relationship with China in the early 1970s, Americans could once again challenge U.S. policies without automatically being labeled as traitors.

The stifling of debate throughout the 1950s and much of the 1960s, though, facilitated the adoption of several unwise policies, not the least of which was the disastrous Vietnam military intervention.

In the aftermath of 9-11, McCarthy-style attacks made a strong reappearance. Efforts to oppose the repressive Patriot Act, which enabled intelligence and law enforcement agencies to violate civil liberties with impunity, drew immediate accusations of being “soft on terrorism.” So did criticism of the thoroughly unwise Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which gave the president virtually a blank check to wage military interventions around the world in the name of a “war on terror.” Hawks successfully broadened that tactic to inhibit badly needed discussion of George W. Bush’s campaign to initiate a regime-change war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. David Frum’s infamous article in National Review, “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” was the most flagrant example of the new McCarthyism, but it was far from being the only one.

The same pattern has emerged again with respect to U.S. policy toward Russia. Indeed, the smears were plentiful from a de facto alliance of neoconservatives and liberal hawks long before the Kremlin launched its current, brutal invasion of Ukraine. Experts who made the case that Washington’s meddling to help demonstrators unseat Ukraine’s elected, pro-Russia president in 2014 led to Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea found themselves targets of that alliance’s vitriol.

Princeton University Professor Stephen F. Cohen, a longtime distinguished scholar of the Soviet Union and its successor states, was a prominent early target. Critics impugned Cohen’s motives and sullied his reputation. Epithets such as “Putin’s American apologist” and “Putin’s Pal” were among the routine labels they applied.

Those tactics became even more flagrant as the crisis between Russia and Ukraine (and between Russia and NATO) deepened in the years after 2014. Analysts who dared argue that NATO’s expansion eastward to Russia’s border had needlessly provoked Moscow were derided as “Putin’s apologists,” “stooges,” “Russian trolls,” “patsies,” and “useful idiots.” Writing in Slate, William Saletan labeled Fox News host Tucker Carlson “America’s most watched Kremlin propagandist.” Anti-interventionist progressive journalists, such as Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, also became frequent targets.

Andreas Umland, one of Ukraine’s most ardent advocates and a notorious Russophobe, directed his fire at me, even though I had never said a single favorable word about Vladimir Putin. “Carpenter’s talking points would be instantly recognizable to Russian TV viewers, who have encountered similar disinformation on a virtually daily basis for the past seven years. One can only guess at Carpenter’s motives.” The echoes of McCarthyism were unmistakable—and loud.

Yet an array of reputable scholars had warned since the 1990s that NATO’s expansion toward Russia would poison East-West relations and ultimately lead to a new cold war (if we were lucky), or a hot war (if we weren’t). Those scholars included George Kennan, the intellectual architect of Washington’s Cold War containment policy toward the Soviet Union, and John Mearsheimer, the dean of realist international relations scholars. The mob of character assassins rarely bothered even to acknowledge that such sober critiques existed, much less tried to address their substantive points.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the mass suffering that it inflicted on innocent Ukrainian civilians, caused the level of intolerance toward advocates of U.S. restraint to spike. Hawks have exploited that shift in sentiment to the hilt. Zealous anti-Russia types demand that anyone who opposes their views be silenced and even criminally prosecuted. The hosts of “The View” lobbied their viewers to insist that the Justice Department investigate (and hopefully charge) Tucker Carlson and former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for being Russian agents and committing “treason.” Host Whoopi Goldberg observed that “they used to arrest people for stuff like this.”

Furthermore, pundit Keith Olbermann called on the military to arrest Carlson and Gabbard as “enemy combatants” and hold them in jail to await trial for “participating in a campaign of [Russian] disinformation.” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), accused Gabbard, a distinguished veteran who had served in combat zones, of circulating “treasonous lies.”

Such rhetoric goes well beyond the usual innuendoes and smears directed against opponents of Washington’s crusade against Russia. They even exceed the stark McCarthyism of Max Boot, another alumnus of the crew that worked so hard to prevent meaningful debate during the build up to the Iraq War. The latest episodes pose outright threats against dissenters, and they’re reminiscent not just of the McCarthy era, but of the even worse domestic repression in World War I. On that occasion, the federal government embraced the “logic” that Goldberg, Olbermann, and Romney use and prosecuted more than 2,100 opponents of the war, sending most of them to prison.

It is especially important that advocates of a foreign policy based on realism and restraint not let such an atmosphere of intolerance prevail again. Not only might it do irreparable damage to America’s already frayed commitment to freedom of expression, but it would prevent discussion of a crucial foreign policy issue — perhaps the most important one since the dawn of the atomic age. The United States already is flirting with dangerous policies that could bring the country into a direct military collision with Russia. Such a clash could easily escalate to the use of nuclear weapons, the ultimate nightmare scenario.

The stakes are far too high to stand by while practitioners of the new McCarthyism again silence dissent. Advocating a policy of caution and restraint does not imply the slightest sympathy for Vladimir Putin or his war of aggression, and we must not allow reckless, unprincipled hawks to get away with asserting that it does.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/ ... y-debates/

'The Hegemon is responsible to no one.'

And it ain't a "full scale invasion" as Russia has committed only up to 200K troops while Ukraine has (on paper anyway...) 600K, which is one of the reasons many of us with some little knowledge of military affairs did not expect Russia to attack as textbook requirement is at least 3:1 superiority to attack. But whadda we know?
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Fri Apr 15, 2022 2:10 pm

US Congressmen get rich from war
chinadaily.com.cn | Updated: 2022-04-15 14:41

Lockheed Martin stocks have grown 20% since the start of the Ukraine crisis.

US Congressmen bought stocks of weapons contractors just days before the Russia operation in Ukraine started.

We've got a list of US politicians who've profited from the war and who will financially benefit from a prolonged conflict.

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202204/ ... 573d3.html

Video at link. Verry interesting...I should like to see this in print.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Sun Apr 17, 2022 2:25 pm

Operation Gladio: How NATO Conducted a Secret War Against European Citizens and Their Democratically Elected Governments
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on APRIL 15, 2022
Cynthia Chung

Image
Operation Gladio – 1980 Bologna massacre

Everyone is aware of the Iron Curtain speech delivered by Winston Churchill. However, it is not Churchill who is the originator of the phrase.

“You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, unknown people far from any political game. The reason was quite simple – to force the people to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

– Vincenzo VinciguerVincenzo Vinciguerra, convicted Italian terrorist, former member of the Avanguardia Nazionale (“National Vanguard”) and Ordine Nuovo (“New Order”)


This is part 3 to a five-part series. [Refer here for Part 1 and Part 2, the latter which goes over how the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement Post WWII was Bought and Paid for by the CIA.]

Nazi Germany: The Bulwark of the West against Communism

“By destroying communism in his [Hitler’s] country, he had barred its road to Western Europe…Germany therefore could rightly be regarded as a bulwark of the West against communism.” (1)

– The Earl of Halifax, aka Lord Halifax (British Ambassador to the U.S. 1940-1946, Secretary of State for British Foreign Affairs 1938-1940, Viceroy and Governor-General of India 1926-1931)


Everyone is aware of the Iron Curtain speech delivered by Winston Churchill, who was no longer British Prime Minister by then, on March 5, 1946.

However, it is not Churchill who is the originator of the phrase, but rather Nazi German Foreign Minister Count Lutz Schwerin von Krosigk who made a speech in Berlin on May 3, 1945, which was reported in the London Times and the New York Times on May 8, 1945. In the speech, Krosigk uses the Nazi-coined propaganda phrase “Iron Curtain,” which was used in precisely the same context by Churchill less than one year later.

Following this German speech, only three days after the German surrender, Churchill wrote a letter to Truman, to express his concern about the future of Europe and to say that an “Iron Curtain” had come down. (2)

This sharing of policy between Nazi Germany and England should not come as a complete surprise.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed August 23rd, 1939 is what has gone down in history in notoriety. However, an important fact is often left out, that this notorious pact was signed a full 11 months after UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the appeasement deal with Hitler on September 30th, 1938 known as the Munich Agreement (aka the Munich Betrayal).

Historian Alex Krainer writes:

“The story we were taught in school was that the British government agreed to partition Czechoslovakia only as a desperate measure to avoid a greater European war. This view is based on the idea that Germany was already an overwhelming military power that could easily crush Czechoslovakia’s weak defenses. However, this idea is patently false.” [emphasis added]

Alex Krainer continues:

“Created in 1919, Czechoslovakia was the most prosperous, most democratic, most powerful and best administered of the states that emerged from the Habsburg Empire… the idea that the Germans had a military advantage and that Czech’s security was weak were both fabrications of a sustained propaganda campaign, which was orchestrated by the British media and government representatives to mislead the British and European public…

In terms of quality, armaments and fortifications, the Czech army was known to be the best in Europe and was superior to German army in every way except for air support. On September 3rd 1938 the British military attaché in Prague wrote a cable to London, stating: “There are no shortcomings in the Czech army, as far as I have been able to observe…”

In addition, Czech security was supported by strategic alliances with France and the Soviet Union both of whom were at that time very keen on holding Germany in check and both of whom were significantly superior to Germany in terms of military strength.” [emphasis added]


That is, Czechoslovakia did in fact capitulate without resistance, but this was not because her defenses were weak. Rather, it was because her government had been given false promises and was ultimately played in favour of Germany by the treacherous scheming of Britain’s secret diplomacy.

Lord Halifax, who was quoted earlier, was among the British negotiators of the Munich Agreement. For the rest of the story refer to Alex Krainer’s excellent paper here.

What in fact happened as a result of the Munich Agreement was that Hitler’s Germany acquired Czechoslovakia’s superior army and transformed Germany into a colossal threat that would be much more difficult to defeat.

In addition, the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements, through BoE Governor Montague Norman, allowed for the direct transfer of 5.6 million pounds worth of gold to Hitler that was owned by the Bank of Czechoslovakia.

Questionable actions from England indeed.

Germany had been allowed to become an ultra-supreme force through direct British intervention. It was only 11 months later that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed as a means to forestall what was clearly the inevitable; a German attack on Russian soil, with the backing of Britain. [For more on this refer here.]

Operation Gladio: NATO’s Dagger

“The NATO axis of domestic terror hinged on the military-industrial complex controlled by the Pentagon, the cultivated revival of neofascism, and hired hands drawn from the Mafia criminal underworld.”

– Richard Cottrell, “Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe”

With WWII won, the world was very much under the impression that we were to take the phrase “Never Again” to heart. Unfortunately, those in charge of forming western policy and geopolitical strategy post-WWII could not have disagreed more.

Operation Unthinkable is a prime example of the sort of thinking that was ruminating within Britain and the United States post-Roosevelt. Though the operation would be shelved with the new government under Clement Attlee, this remained a predominantly governing mindset for British and American intelligence and has remained so till this very day.

During WWII preparations were made in the case of a possible German victory and “stay-behind” guerilla warfare units were stationed throughout Europe. The model was the British Special Operations Executive, or SOE, a top-secret guerilla-commando force established in 1940. It was the brainchild of Winston Churchill and was called “Churchill’s secret army.” This would eventually be adopted into NATO. (3)

Image
Above image: During the Second World War, the British Special Operations Executive carried out clandestine missions to support resistance organizations, inspiring the later Operation Gladio.

After the Allied victory, these “stay-behind” units were not disbanded but rather were strengthened and expanded in almost every European country, with direct aid and encouragement from the United States.

Member of the European Parliament (1979-1989), who was also tasked by the European Parliament with formal investigations, Richard Cottrell writes in “Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe”:

“After NATO was established in April 1949, the secret armies gradually came under the direct control of the new military alliance. NATO carefully established departments of clandestine warfare which managed the secret armies and allocated their tasks. Only a few trustworthy intimates were to know of their existence. As each secret unit was eventually exposed, the name Gladio came to be applied to all of them.”

However, the expected Soviet invasion never occurred. And thus, these secret armies found another purpose, they were to be used against the people.

The desire was that by staging false-flag operations that were blamed on communists, this would in turn invoke panic and revulsion and would send voters flocking to the welcoming arms of a secure Right-wing government.

Richard Cottrell writes:

“Bands of secret soldiers and their cohorts were ordered to shoot, bomb, maim and kill their own citizens. The United States forbade any sovereign European states to seat communist ministers in government. All movements of the Left fell under suspicion as cloaks for Moscow.”

Italy, who had the largest and most powerful communist party in Europe, would be first on the list.

The Communist Party of Italy, admired for leading the fight against Mussolini, was expected to win in Italy’s first post-war election in June 1946. This, of course, was considered intolerable under the Iron Curtain diktat.

Investigative journalist Christopher Simpson writes in his book “Blowback,” how a substantial part of the funding for the opposition to the Communist Party of Italy, which was the Christian Democratic Party, came from captured Nazi assets, (largely held by the Americans). This intervention tipped the balance in favour of Italy’s Christian Democratic Party, which hid thousands of fascists in its ranks.

The Christian Democratic Party would be the dominating party in Italy for five decades, during the Operation Gladio years, until it was dissolved in 1994.

In order to ensure that no further communist support were to arise in Italy, Operation Gladio, with knowledge and support by the CIA, MI6 and European intelligence agencies, led a campaign of brutal violence against Italians that stretched the better part of two decades known as the “years of lead,” the anni di piombo.

In 1959, an internal NATO briefing minute (dated June 1st, 1959) slipped into the hands of a British newspaper, revealing the task of the stay-behind units had been formally switched to confronting “internal subversion”. The secret armies were henceforth to play a “determining role…not only on the general policy level of warfare, but also on the politics of emergency.” (4)

What this meant was that a secret army of stay-behind units, under the direction of NATO, in absence of a Soviet threat, were to direct their actions to internal matters which would include espionage and acts of terrorism on the citizens of Europe with the support and cover of those nations’ police units. This would be used to further centralise control within Right-wing governments who supported the NATO apparatus.

Operation Gladio, which used the tactic Strategy of Tension, functioned on three basic levels. The first was a guerilla war to be fought primarily on the streets, in order to stiffen loyalties away from the Soviet Union.

The second level, was the political front and would involve NATO inspired conspiracies, such as claiming certain governments were in secret cahoots with the USSR, in order to evict democratically elected governments unfriendly to the NATO state apparatus and replace them with more pliable puppet regimes.

The third level was the assassination (hard and soft) of figures who were deemed obstructive to NATO’s aims. Examples of these include the assassination of Italy’s ex-Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978, Sweden’s Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1986 (known as Sweden’s JFK), Turkey’s Prime Minister Adnan Menderes in 1961 along with two cabinet colleagues, and U.S. President Kennedy in 1963. As well as the soft assassination (character assassination) of UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. These assasinations would be followed by a NATO and U.S. support putsch.

Attempted assassinations from Operation Gladio include President de Gaulle (more on this shortly) and Pope John Paul II (for details refer to Richard Cottrell’s book).

The architect of Operation Gladio was Yves Guerin-Serac, a mastermind in black ops.

Yves Guerin-Serac: the Black Ops Grandmaster behind Operation Gladio

“He [Yves Guerin-Serac] was in thrall to his personal vision of a Christian-Fascist New World Order. He was also the intellectual mentor of Gladio terrorism. He wrote the basic training and propaganda manuals which can be fairly described as the Gladio order of battle.”

–Richard Cottrell, “Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart to Europe”

Guerin-Serac was a war hero, Algerian rebel, agent provocateur, assassin, bomber, intelligence agent, Messianic Catholic, and intellectual grandmaster behind the Strategy of Tension/Operation Gladio.

Guerin-Serac published via Aginter Press the Gladio manual, including “Our Political Activity” in what can aptly be described as his First Commandment:

“Our belief is that the first phase of political activity ought to be to create the conditions favouring the installation of chaos in all of the regime’s structures…In our view the first move we should make is to destroy the structure of the democratic state under the cover of Communist and pro-Soviet activities…Moreover, we have people who have infiltrated these groups.” [emphasis added]

Guerin-Serac continues:

“Two forms of terrorism can provoke such a situation [breakdown of the state]: blind terrorism (committing massacres indiscriminately which cause a large number of victims), and selective terrorism (eliminate chosen persons)…

This destruction of the state must be carried out under the cover of ‘communist activities.’ After that, we must intervene at the heart of the military, the juridical power and the church, in order to influence popular opinion, suggest a solution, and clearly demonstrate the weakness of the present legal apparatus. Popular opinion must be polarized in such a way, that we are being presented as the only instrument capable of saving the nation.” [emphasis added]

Anarchic random violence was to be the solution to bring about such a state of instability thus allowing for a completely new system, a global authoritarian order.

Yves Guerin-Serac, who was an open fascist, would not be the first to use false-flag tactics that were blamed on communists and used to justify more stringent police and military control from the state.

On the 27th February 1933, Hermann Göring, Hitler’s second-in-command, shouted outside the burning of the Reichstag:

“This is the beginning of the Communist revolution! We must not wait a minute. We will show no mercy. Every Communist official must be shot, where he is found. Every Communist deputy must this very day be strung up!” (5)

It is quite incredible that western people seem to never get tired of this form of drama, no matter how many times they have heard it played.

The line of obvious patsies is also something that seems to never grow tiring. In the case of the Reichstag fire, now widely acknowledged as a false-flag, it was some befuddled Dutch Jew that was instantly accused.

The day after the fire, six days before the scheduled general election, Hitler persuaded the elderly and confused President von Hindenburg (the icon of WWI) that the crisis was of such profound gravity it could only be met by complete abolition of all personal liberties.

The “Reichstag Fire Law” conferred by Hindenburg gave Hitler many of the instruments that he required for a total seizure of power. Within two weeks, parliamentary democracy was also reduced to the smoking embers of history.

It would not be the only false-flag to be orchestrated by Hitler.

Cottrell writes:

“SS units forced a small group of concentration camp victims ‘released’ from Buchenwald and disguised in Polish uniforms, to stage a false flag mock attack on the main radio tower in the Nazi controlled free state of Danzig. Citing provocation by the Poles, the German invasion of Poland followed.”

Guerin-Serac spent his life in thrall to a new Black Empire which he dreamed would combine the universal divinity of the Roman church with the United States and Europe as successor to the Holy Roman Empire. This was Christian fascism.

He belonged to several old gangs, including the first generation of ex-Nazis and fascists. He also belonged to a veteran clan of French officers blooded in the Indo-Chinese and Korean struggles, and was member of the elite troop of the 11ème Demi-Brigade Parachutiste du Choc, which worked with the SDECE (French intelligence agency).

His connection to French Intelligence would be key in his becoming a founding member of the Organisation Armée Secrète (OAS), a French terrorist group, made up of disaffected French officers, based in Spain which fought against Algerian independence.

Guerin-Serac would form an intricate paramilitary and terrorist network throughout Europe, as well as training facilities to service Operation Gladio, via the cover of Aginter Press.

Richard Cottrell writes:

“Guerin-Serac arrived in Lisbon in 1966 with an inspirational blueprint for the next stage of the struggle against godless liberalism. He proposed…an organization that would act as nothing less than an international travel agency for terrorists. The principal funding was supplied by the CIA, according to the Pellegrino Commission established in 1995 by the Italian Senate to investigate the anni di piombo [years of lead]. Guido Salvini was the magistrate appointed to examine the 1969 bombing of the agricultural bank in Milan’s Piazza Fontana. He pinned the blame firmly on Guerin-Serac’s Aginter Press. Salvini told the senators that Aginter operatives were active in Italy from 1967 onwards, instructing local militant neo-fascist organisations in the use of explosives. From this nugget, the CIA is positively connected to the Gladio wave of terrorism sweeping Europe.”

Aginter Press, behind the plain business shopfront lay an invisible network designed to shuttle terrorists around Europe, Latin America, and Africa providing false documents and passports for killers posing as reporters and photographers including Guerin-Serac.

Cottrell continues:

“Aginter… was a Gladio finishing school, where recruits to the secret armies from all over Europe were trained in the arts of bomb making, assassination, psychological operations, destabilisation and counter-insurgency. Much of this was borrowed from the textbooks of the U.S. Army’s centre for covert warfare at Fort Bragg. Guest instructors from time to time included members of Britain’s SAS, the Green Berets and…French Army officers turn mercenaries…Guerin-Serac was blithely summoned to next door Spain to organise the death squads crushing resistance to the Franco regime. Aginter activities have been traced to all those countries where the Strategy of Tension operated at peak volume: Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Germany and Belgium.”

De Gaulle vs. NATO

“France is determined to regain on her whole territory the full exercise of her sovereignty.”

–President of France Charles de Gaulle

After WWII there was increasing pressure for European nations to commit to the NATO diktat. President of France (1959-1969) Charles de Gaulle disagreed. One of the major points of this disagreement was over the force de frappe (nuclear striking force), which de Gaulle believed should be kept firmly outside of NATO’s control. He refused the prospect of France getting automatically dragged into a shooting war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

Cottrell writes:

“So deep were these frictions that France left the alliance integrated command structure in 1960, the first step on the road to resuming full military independence.”

De Gaulle’s relentless pursuit of French nationalism and independence in foreign and military policies was clearly incompatible with the North Atlantic charter.

When de Gaulle began talk of delivering Algeria her independence, it was decided by former allies, and members of his own military and police that de Gaulle had to go.

On April 21, 1961, a plot to overthrow President de Gaulle, organised by the OAS, swung into action.

Cottrell writes:

“On that day, four disaffected generals known as the ‘ultra group’ staged a coup in Algiers. The civil caucus in Washington, Pentagon and NATO headquarters in France were all implicated in the plot to eliminate the president and secure Algeria for the West. The coup leader, air force general Maurice Challe, was formerly commander of NATO’s forces in Central Europe.” [emphasis added]

Cottrell continues:

“Challe’s forces in Algeria were secretly primed with finance using channels closely connected to the French Gladio…On the eve of the coup, Richard Bissell, deputy head of the CIA’s covert operations wing, bore glad tidings to a secret pow-wow with Challe held in Algiers. Challe was told that if he could get the country under control inside 48 hours, then the U.S. government would formally recognise his regime…

The first outlines of the coup were agreed in the summer of 1960, when the former governor of Algeria, Jacques Soustelle, had a secret tete-a-tete with Bissell. In the same year, Challe stage-managed his resignation from NATO. In January 1961…the main plotters…assembled…the chief item on the agenda was to form the OAS as an alternative government, to follow de Gaulle once he had been toppled. Key figures in Plan Bleu were all present.” [emphasis added]


There would be over 30 assassination attempts on de Gaulle’s life during his presidency.

President de Gaulle was under no doubt that the real threat to his life came from the secret soldiers gathered under the umbrella of NATO.

According to Cottrell, it was Jacques Foccart, a chief advisor of de Gaulle, who informed him of the Permindex/World Trade Center (WTC) connection with OAS. Foccart had Permindex and WTC operations on Swiss soil shut down. [Part 4 will discuss the role of Permindex and WTC in greater detail.]

The NATO/CIA coalition had sponsored at least two attempts to eliminate de Gaulle. General Lyman Lemnitzer, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (1963-1969) was among the key agitators.

In 1965 de Gaulle learned of yet another NATO-inspired conspiracy to have him shot. It would be the final straw. De Gaulle gave NATO headquarters immediate notice to quit altogether within 6 months. In addition, General Lemnitzer had received summary orders from de Gaulle to quit NATO. For the second time in his illustrious career, he would be fired (the first was by President Kennedy). [Further details in Part 4].

The withdrawal forced the relocation of NATO’s headquarters SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) from Rocquencourt, near Paris to Casteau, Belgium by October 16th, 1967.

After 43 years, in 2009 France would rejoin NATO, a decision made by President Nicolas Sarkozy. Cottrell adds that Sarkozy has had an interesting record of winning elections with dramatic perfectly timed post-terror interventions…

In the Quiet of a Small Town

“Sex trafficking, industrial paedophilia, the reports of snuff movies made for political and financial blackmail, or just for profit, were all entangled in a black cobweb of spies, officially connived drug running, the secret paramilitary network, and the constant meddling of NATO’s high command in the internal affairs of the country.”

– Richard Cottrell, “Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe”

Belgium is made up of a Flemish and French ethnic population. During WWII, many Flemings either openly or symbolically sided with the Germans, in hopes of Flemish nationhood – even within a Nazi commonwealth – doing away with Belgium altogether.

Cottrell writes:

“A residue from wartime fraternisation with the Germans led to Nazi-style paganistic symbolism and mystical blood bonding ceremonies within the Belgian stay-behind network and elements of the national armed forces, which in any event inclined to the Right. This mystical streak was set for a chilling significance in shaping many of the perversion yet to be wrought on Belgium.” [emphasis added]

When the nascent EU institutions began searching for a home, they selected Brussels precisely because of its neutral, small country image as the “cockpit of Europe.” And that Belgium was wholly unequipped to deal with its foreign impostors and what would follow.

Cottrell writes :

“And what came next was NATO, evicted in insalubrious circumstances from France. The incoming warriors went about transforming this already schizophrenic state into the Kingdom of NATO. Hot on their heels came the rapid expansion of European federal institutions and the inward rush of huge corporations, eager to edge as close as possible to the councils of these two great caliphates, the most powerful military and economic alliances the world has seen since the Roman Empire.”

Little Belgium soon had the second most powerful and intrusive crime cartels in western Europe. In a very short time, Europe’s cockpit was also its chief narcotics and illegal arms hub, with a sideline of sex trafficking.

According to Cottrell, the CIA had recruited Belgian Nazis – mostly, but not exclusively, Flemish – as soon as the war ended, and selected them for high offices at state and provincial levels. Such “former” Belgian Nazi figures were protected from justice and released from prison under the protection of the CIA.

NATO’s machinations along with General Lemnitzer’s imported experts in counter-insurgency were responsible for the formation of the Belgian Gladio operations; divided scrupulously along politically correct lines into SDRA-8 (French) and STC/Mob (Flemish) divisions.

Cottrell writes:

“According to journalist Manuel Abramowitz – a leading investigator of the far Right in Belgium – neo-Nazis were egged on to infiltrate all the mechanisms of the state, with special attention reserved for the police and the army. By the 1980s, this level of penetration had become so deep – thanks to fascist fronts such as the neo-Nazi militia Westland New Post and its French speaking counterpart, Front de la Jeunesse – that Belgium’s military forces could be said to have fallen almost entirely under extremist control. Not once in the wake of the many false-flag operations over the coming decades, did convincing proof ever appear of a credible coordinated Left-wing subversive force operating on Belgian soil, while seditious organisations of the Far Right flourished openly.” [emphasis added]

Senator Hugo Coveliers chairman of the special investigating committee probing gangsterism and terrorism in Belgium (1988-1990) tracked the presence of incriminating materials to a special unit called the “judicial police.”

Here is what Coveliers said on what became known as the “scandal of the X-Dossiers”:

“Imagine, everywhere you hear that story about a blackmail dossier in which organisations of the extreme right are in the possession of pictures and videos on which a number of prominent people in and around Brussels have sex with young girls; minors it is said. The existence of this dossier has always been vehemently denied. Until it was proven that testimonies and videos of this affair indeed were in the possession of the police services.

The at first non-existing dossier turns out to exist. The videos without substance then turn out to be interesting enough after all to be handed over to the examining magistrate tasked with the investigation into the Gang of Nivelles [held responsible for some of the shop massacres]. But this person is subsequently afraid to testify about that! What do you think is going on here!” (6)


Cottrell explores these avenues in great detail in his book. He concludes that these sex-trafficking rings within Belgium, involving the abuse and murder of children, are encouraged among public officials for two reasons.

The first is to produce incriminating blackmail making political retreat impossible. The second possibility is that some of these activities that were recorded and retained in top secret files, were part of cultist initiation ceremonies.

Cottrell writes :

“It was alleged these involved paganistic neo-Nazi traits such as blood rituals, practised by elements within the state’s secret forces, as well as the orthodox military structure.”

In the context of this, NATO’s recent twitter scandal posting the Black Sun Nazi occult symbol this past international women’s day, might not have been a slip-up after all…



Italy’s Secret Parallel State

“We were a single body – bandits, police, and Mafia, like the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

–Testimony of Gaspare Pisciotta during the trial for the Portella della Ginestra massacre

In June 1981, an astonishing discovery was made that made the headlines worldwide, including with TIME magazine. A list had been found naming nearly 1,000 individuals from the respected Italian Establishment as part of a secret quasi-Masonic group, the Propaganda Due (P2) Lodge, “a state within a state.”

The P2 scandal provoked the fall of Prime Minister Forlani’s cabinet, who it was discovered had members in the P2 lodge.

The list was found on the premises of prominent Italian financier Licio Gelli during a police raid. Gelli being the grandmaster of the P2 lodge and prominent acolyte of Benito Mussolini. His sole aim was the restoration of Italian fascism.

Among the blacklist of nearly 1000, were the gentlemen (members of Propaganda Due) who were planning to seize power and install a fascist republic.

Descriptions of the Propaganda Due lodge in Italy were heavily overlaid with reports of mystical ceremonies, and the swearing of oaths of fealty and bonding vows.

Gelli fled to South America via Switzerland. Interestingly he was reportedly in Chile during Pinochet’s reign. Gelli would go through several trials, some in absentia, in Switzerland and Italy, charged with acts of terrorism among others crimes. [Refer here for more details.]

Another item Gelli left at his mansion when he fled was il piano di rinascita democratica, the Plan of Democratic Renewal, describing in detail every step of the intended NATO-backed Gladio putsch and the rise of the Italian deep state as an American and subsequently NATO protectorate. (7) The chief architect was Gelli himself.

It was through Gelli, that the CIA funded the Christian Democratic Party, which held numerous fascists within its membership.

Federico D’Amato was an Italian secret agent, who led the Office for Reserved Affairs of the Ministry of Interior (Italy) from the 1950s till the 1970s, when the activity of the intelligence service was undercover and not publicly known.

D’Amato became the head of the North Atlantic Treaty Special Office, a link between NATO and the United States. (8)

D’Amato’s chief responsibility was a secret Carabinieri (the national gendarmerie of Italy who primarily carry out domestic policing duties) nucleus located inside the Interior Ministry under his personal control. This was the Office of Reserved Affairs, also known as the Protective Service. (9)

Cottrell writes:

“This shadowy body [Protective Service] was a bedfellow with the OSS (later the CIA) in a well disguised bureau on Rome’s swish Via Sicilia.”

D’Amato was the handpicked delegate who negotiated the Atlantic Pact, a forerunner of NATO, on behalf of Italy. The Protective Service, under the control of D’Amato, was the early genesis of Gladio.

In 1969, Italy was soo gripped in a full-blown political crisis that was at its roots largely artificial. The huge blast in the Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura at Milan’s Piazza Fontana on Dec. 12 1969 marked the commencement of hostilities that came to be known as the years of lead. The blame was instantly pinned on the same Leftist radicals accused of provoking unrest in the Italian industrial heartlands.

Investigating magistrate Guido Salvina, began looking into the affair in 1988, and concluded that the bombing of the agricultural bank was an operation planned between Yves Guerin-Serac’s Aginter Press and two prominent Italian neo-fascist outfits Ordine Nuova (New Order) and Avanguardia Nazionale (Advance National Guard).

August 1990, Italian Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti (six times prime minister, a seventh would follow and leader of the Christian Democratic Party) found himself summoned to a special commission of inquiry hurriedly convened by the Senate to investigate the reports that a secret parallel state existed on Italian soil. And additionally, that this secret parallel state was equipped with its own clandestine commando army operating outside established military structures.

Andreotti conceded that for many years Italy indeed hosted a clandestine army. It was however formally an element of the standing NATO structure. He calmy assured his listeners it was nothing more threatening than a prudent precaution to defend Italy in the event of invasion by the Soviets. When the threat appeared to abate, Andreotti claimed that the secret soldiers were disbanded in 1971. Andreotti insisted, it was only a secret because the Russians were not supposed to know about the so-called “stay behind” army. He added, in any case Italy was not alone since all NATO countries had such forces.

Above image: August 1990, Italian premier Guilio Andreotti confesses to the existence of Operation Gladio at a special commission of inquiry

During his testimony, Andreotti admitted that this secret army was known as Gladio, which had well stocked arms dumps in every corner of the land. These munition dumps were supplied by NATO.

However, what Andreotti did not disclose during his testimony was that he was part of Gladio himself, a powerful shareholder in subterranean Italy for many years.

Andreotti was the one to replace assassinated Aldo Moro, mentioned earlier as one of the Gladio victims, as Prime Minister of Italy.

Vinciguerra, who was a member of the neo-fascist organization Ordine Nuovo and Avanguardia Nazionale, which carried out terrorist acts and assassinations is currently serving a life-sentence for the murder of three Carabinieri by a car bomb in Peteano in 1972. His testimonials aided in piecing together the Gladio networks around western Europe, that were being investigated by prosecutor Felice Casson.

In an interview with The Guardian, Vinciguerra discusses how he and his friends were sub-contractors to what he described as a:

“super-organisation which lacking a Soviet military invasion…took up the task, on NATO’s behalf, of preventing a slip to the Left in the political balance of the country [Italy]…”

And thus, when there is talk by such western counterparts who today claim “warnings” of false-flag operations from our supposed foes, I would suggest you take it with not a grain but rather a pound of salt.

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/04/ ... vernments/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Tue May 17, 2022 2:17 pm

Image

How Global McCarthyism Shaped the World
May 15, 2022
By Peter Hogart — May 10, 2022

As debates rage about the origins of the conflict in Ukraine, calls for no-fly zones and sending arms to fight back against the attacks from Russia, there is intense discussion about the role and nature of NATO and the level of US responsibility for the bloody events that have captivated and horrified people around the world. It feels like the politics of the Cold War loom large. Vincent Bevins’ book The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade & the Mass Murder Program that Shaped our World helps inform our understanding of that period and is a valuable resource for those struggling with questions of international political economy today.

During the Cold War there was a movement of “Third World nations,” developing outside the direct influence of both the US and the USSR. But as these newly independent countries tried to forge their own political and economic path after throwing off the burden of colonial rule, the US’ Central Intelligence Agency intervened to disrupt them. Bevins puts into stark detail how the CIA dedicated itself to training and funding generals to overthrow, imprison, mutilate and murder anyone who advocated even the mildest of economic reforms in their own countries.

The rise of Global McCarthyism

After the end of World War II, the US emerged as the new dominant capitalist power and it quickly turned to consolidating and extending that power, trying to contain and counter the appeal of the USSR and Communism. For example, the US intervened in elections in France and Italy, funneling money to parties it approved of and fueling anti-left propaganda. As the divisions of the Iron Curtain around the USSR became more clear, the US turned its attention to influencing the future of the Third World. Stepping up to this challenge was the CIA, which became the name for the US’ dedicated spy service. Formed in 1946, the agency had the dual role of intelligence gathering and actively intervening around the world to shape it in the US’ interest.

In 1948, Indonesia emerged from a war for independence from Dutch colonialism, newly formed and independent. With Sukarno as its leader, the new country looked to be both anti-colonial and anti-communist. Sukarno came to symbolise the potential independent, neutrality of Third World Nations. The US was initially cautiously optimistic, adopting the “Jakarta Axiom,” meaning a tolerance for neutral Third World nations.

However, by 1953 the Jakarta Axiom came to an end. Neutral Third World nations attempted to control their own resources or pass modest laws on land reform. But CIA moved into action, pouring millions into orchestrating coups in Iran and Guatemala. The new consensus under President Dwight D. Eisenhower was that “neutral governments were potential enemies, and Washington could decide if and when an independent Third World nation was sufficiently anticommunist.”

The term “Third World” really came to prominence in 1955, when Sukarno and Ghanian president Kwame Nkrumah helped organize the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. The conference put forward a different kind of nationalism, based on anti-colonial struggle, attempting to organize Third World Nations to collectively work together for better terms within the global economic system to help foster their own development. More than 29 countries took part, organizations and communication networks sprang up with criticism of the global capitalist system. While these nations tried to forge a path outside of Washington or Moscow, and even tried to pay homage to the American Revolution in its speeches and communications, the entire conference was viewed as an offense to the US State Department and neutrality viewed as a crime against America. As Bevins explained, “Anyone who wasn’t actively against the Soviet Union must be against the United States, no matter how loudly he praised Paul Revere.”

The US saw Asia pivotal to countering the influence of the USSR and poured millions into the elections in Indonesia, but Sukarno’s Indonesian National Party and even the Communist Party (PKI) still did well. The well-organized PKI’s electoral success was frustrating to Washington, and Sukarno’s tolerance and good relationship with the PKI and other left wing parties increased Washington’s suspicion. The CIA dropped bombs, and helped fund and stoke rebellions against Sukarno in some of the outer islands. The plot failed, the military put down the rebellions, and the discovery of direct US involvement disillusioned Sukarno and pushed him further away from Washington.

Related Content: Anti-Communism is a Fundamentalist Religion Now Followed by Billions

New tactics: military coups

The US perspective for shaping the Third World changed after this. The CIA began to focus on supporting the “military as a more effective, long-term anticommunist strategy.” Bevins documents the way in which this strategy was used to great effect in Brazil.

The military proved to be the most reliable anti-communist force and during the 1950s and 1960s. Brazil’s military deepened ties with Washington, training at Fort Leavenworth alongside soldiers from Indonesia. Far-right groups were formed and received funding from the CIA, carried out bombings, shootings and other forms of intimidation against the presidency of the liberal reformer, João Goulart. Jango, as he was known, who had sided with the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis, was deemed a threat to world capitalism for proposing to extend voting rights to all Brazilians, rolling out a literacy program and a modest program of land reform. This independent course was punished by a US capital strike, economic sabotage, and the funding, training and secret support of a group within the military. This all eventually led to a coup on March 31, 1964 in which “the US State Department made tankers, ammunition and aircraft carriers available to the conspirators.”

The coup was successful and it represented a great achievement for the CIA’s new tactics:

“In Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1958) and Cuba (1961), anyone who was paying attention knew that Washington had been behind the regime change operations. These very obvious signs of US intervention had not only tainted Washington’s image worldwide–they undermined the efficacy of the states they installed when they were victorious. Guatemala’s government fell apart quickly after the CIA-backed coup, as did the Shah’s government in Iran, eventually.” These new clandestine tactics were replicated to devastating effect in Indonesia.

The Jakarta method

In Indonesia, the US and British governments, not happy with President Sukarno’s national independence amidst escalation of the war in Vietnam, stepped up their secret activities in the country. The extent of these operations are still hidden, making it hard to know just what kind of black operations and secret warfare they were engaged in. What we do know is that a midlevel group of Army officers opposed to a military coup, calling themselves the September 30th Movement, launched an attempt to arrest a group of seven Army generals, ending in the deaths of these generals. It’s unclear whether this was a terribly bungled attempt by well-meaning officers loyal to Sukarno, the work of infiltration by anticommunist elements in the military, or a straight-up attempt to create an event that would allow for a seizure of power by the military. But after the deaths of those generals on October 1, 1965, “General Suharto seized control of the country, and told a set of deliberate, carefully prepared lies. These lies became official dogma in one of the world’s largest countries for decades.”

The military spread the story that the PKI was the mastermind of the “failed communist coup,” spreading lies that the generals were tortured in demonic rituals as women from the communist-aligned women’s movement danced naked around them before cutting off their genitals and murdering them. The US government quickly recognized Suharto as the leader and helped him spread the propaganda, while Western media outlets broadcast these lies back into the country. Communication from the US embassy in Indonesia to the US State Department on October 5 reveal that position of the US government: avoid overt involvement, indicate clearly to Suharto and the military that they want to provide assistance and support, increase contact with military, and spread the story of PKI’s guilt, treachery and brutality.

By October 7, military commanders were touring provinces, making it clear to civilians that they were expected to help violently repress communists or face arrest and death themselves. Party members, union members, and anyone even remotely related to left wing politics were arrested en masse, interrogated, tortured, raped, disappear. Religious youth organizations and other civilian organizations were recruited to do the killing in Central and East Java. Machetes (not native the region) began to appear in Bali in huge numbers at the exact same time as the military anti-communist campaigns.

By January of 1966, the outcome was clear. Excerpts from a US State Department memo paint a vivid picture:

“Prior to October 1, 1965, Indonesia was for all practical purposes an Asian communist state…events of the past several months have had three major effect on Indonesia’s power structures and policies: The PKI has ceased for the foreseeable future to be an important power element. Effective action by the Army and its Muslim allies has totally disrupted the party’s organizational apparatus. Most Politburo and Central Committee members have been killed or arrested, and estimates of the number of party members killed range up to several hundred thousand…”

Years afterwards, the role the US played became clear. Bevins summarizes:

“When the conflict came, and when the opportunity arose, the US government helped spread the propaganda that made the killing possible, and engaged in constant conversations with the Army to make sure the military officers had everything they needed, from weapons to kill lists. The US embassy constantly prodded the military to adopt a stronger position and take over government, knowing full well that the method being employed to make this possible was to round up hundreds of thousands of people around the country, stab or strangle them, and throw their corpses into rivers. The Indonesian military officers understood very well that the more people they killed, the weaker the left would be, and the happier Washington would be.”

Aftermath

This process was repeated around the world, wherever the US deemed it strategic. The word Jakarta became a code-word for mass murder and the phrase “Jakarta is coming” spray-painted as a threat to left wing activists. From 1945 to 1990, a loose-network of US-backed anticommunist mass murder programs emerged around the world and carried out campaigns in at least 23 countries. As Bevins’ notes in his conclusion:

“the extermination programs in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, East Timor, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, the Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela and Vietnam should be seen as interconnected, and a crucial part of the US victory in the Cold War.”

These programs interrupted and reversed any independent political projects, halted development, paved the way for capitalist globalization (or as Bevins refers to it: “Americanization”), dismantled the Third World movement, created crony capitalist countries across the globe, and helped to establish a virulent anticommunist narrative that is quite clearly alive and well today. As well, the lessons learned by much of the International Left was that peaceful politics were impossible, transforming the global political landscape even further.

The Jakarta Method is an essential resource for making sense of the violent and unequal global political landscape that we find ourselves in today. Understanding the role of US imperialism and the extents it will go to can help situate us politically and must inform our strategy and tactics. Bevins’ book is a stirring call for the left to honour the dead, draw lessons from their experience, and fight like hell for the living.

https://orinocotribune.com/how-global-m ... the-world/

And you ask, "Why do you hate America?"
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Fri May 20, 2022 3:41 pm

Image

On Bush’s Freudian Confession
Posted May 20, 2022 by Caitlin A. Johnstone

Oh my God. It happened. I can’t believe it really happened.

During a speech in Dallas at Southern Methodist University’s George W Bush Presidential Center on Wednesday, the man himself, George W Bush, did the best thing ever. I am pretty sure it is the single best thing that has ever happened. I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that.

While criticizing Russia for having rigged elections and shutting out political opposition (which would already be hilarious coming from any American in general and Bush in particular), the 43rd president made the following comment:

The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia, and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean, of Ukraine.


And then it got even better. After correcting himself with a nervous chuckle, Bush broke the tension in the empire-loyal crowd with the words, “Iraq too. Anyway.” He then quipped that he is 75 years old, leaning harder on his “Aw shucks gee willikers I’m such a goofball” persona than he ever has in his entire life.

And Bush’s audience laughed. They thought it was great. A president who launched an illegal invasion that killed upwards of a million people (probably way upwards) openly confessing to doing what every news outlet in the western world has spent the last three months shrieking its lungs out about Putin doing was hilarious to them.

There are not enough shoes in the universe to respond to this correctly.

As comedian John Fugelsang put it,

George W. Bush didn’t do a Freudian slip. He did a Freudian Confession.

One of the many, many interesting things about this occurrence is the likelihood that Bush’s words tumbled out in the way they did because he’s either heard a lot of criticisms of his invasion or has been thinking a lot about them; a familiar neural pathway would explain why his brain chose the exact worst word he could possibly swap out for “Ukraine” in that moment. This would be a small light in the darkness for we ordinary folk who oppose war and love peace, because it suggests that even the worst empire managers cannot fully insulate themselves from our criticisms.


The bullshit doesn’t get any more brightly illuminated than this, folks. All that spin and narrative management they’ve been pouring into the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine, and Bush undoes it all with the Bushism to end all Bushisms.

While the western political/media class constantly rends its garments over “disinformation” about the Ukraine war even as U.S. officials openly admit they’ve been using the media to circulate disinformation about that same war, and even as the Biden administration imprisons and persecutes a journalist for exposing U.S. war crimes, we get a square admission that the U.S. is no better than Russia and that the only thing obscuring this is the fact that we are all swimming in a sea of disinformation and propaganda provided by that same political/media class.

And this admission comes not from any low-level empire lackey, but from the man himself. The guy. The man whose name alone serves as a one-word debunk of every claim made about how uniquely nefarious Vladimir Putin is on the world stage and how uniquely depraved is his invasion of Ukraine.

If you really look at what just happened, really truly ingest it, this one incident just by itself is enough to show you that we are swimming in a sea of lies designed to give us an upside-down and ass-backwards perspective of what’s going on in the world. If Bush himself can’t always tell the difference between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Ukraine, then this means our news media and our politicians are lying to us constantly. They lied to us through 2002 and 2003, and they never stopped lying, and they are lying now in the year 2022.

The entire mainstream worldview is a perceptual distortion filter which obscures the public understanding of world events so severely that Bush has been not just forgiven for his crimes but actively rehabilitated in the public eye, while the enemies of the United States are continuously compared to Adolf Hitler and condemned throughout the U.S.-dominated world.

In reality the U.S. is the single most tyrannical and destructive government on this planet, and it is only because the public is fed a nonstop deluge of propaganda that this isn’t universally obvious. Even the worst empire managers know deep down that this is true, and, in their less guarded moments, sometimes the truth slips out.

https://mronline.org/2022/05/20/on-bush ... onfession/

****************************************

Multi-Domain Operations: The US Wages Constant War and Across All Domains
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on MAY 19, 2022
Brian Berletic

Image

The United States has clearly transitioned militarily several times throughout its history, from the Cold War preparing to fight the Soviet Union using massive maneuver warfare to using the military that existed at the end of the Cold War to decimate the Iraqi army in the 1990’s, to shifting to a “small wars” force fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for 20 years.

As the “War on Terror” began to fade, America’s need to pivot again to large scale conflict with peer or near-peer competitors was driven by the reemergence of Russia as a global power and the rise of China upon the global stage. In many ways the last 20 years of “small wars” was a failed attempt to encircle and contain these two competitors.

What emerged from the US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) was the concept of “multi-domain operations.” Laid out in a seminal 2018 paper titled, “The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations 2028,” US military planners would articulate the perceived threat:

In a new era of great power competition, our nation’s adversaries seek to achieve their strategic aims, short of conflict, by the use of layered stand-off in the political, military and economic realms to separate the U.S. from our partners. Should conflict come, they will employ multiple layers of stand-off in all domains–land, sea, air, space and cyberspace–to separate U.S. forces and our allies in time, space, and function in order to defeat us.

To meet this threat, US military planners claim:

The central idea in solving this problem is the rapid and continuous integration of all domains of warfare to deter and prevail as we compete short of armed conflict. If deterrence fails, Army formations, operating as part of the Joint Force, penetrate and dis-integrate enemy anti-access and area denial systems; exploit the resulting freedom of maneuver to defeat enemy systems, formations and objectives and to achieve our own strategic objectives; and consolidate gains to force a return to competition on terms more favorable to the US, our allies and partners.

To achieve this, the US military is standing up what it calls “Multi-Domain Task Forces.” The 2018 paper would explain

In 2017, the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) directed the design and testing of Multi-Domain Task Forces (MDTFs) as forward stationed formations able to execute aspects of MDO. Designed to deliver long-range precision joint strike as well as integrate air and missile defense, electronic warfare, space, cyber, and information operations, the MDTF operates across all domains, the EMS, and the information environment in both competition and conflict to provide the Joint Force and coalition with new capabilities to enable the defeat adversaries’ anti-access and area denial strategies. Given its capability to compete and provide an initial penetration, the MDTF, as a forerunner to other multi-domain formations now in development, is the essential first step to realizing an MDO capable Army by 2028.

MDTFs are slated to be positioned in Asia vis-a-vis China as well as in Europe vis-a-vis Russia.

Multi-Domain Operations Extends Far Beyond the US Military

The US essentially seeks global primacy by pursuing regional primacy within various US military commands. Unlike other nations who divide their own sovereign territory into multiple areas of responsibility, the US divides the entire planet into “commands” including Northern Command (NORTHCOM), Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), Africa Command (AFRICOM), European Command (EUCOM) which includes all of Russia, Central Command (CENCOM) which covers the Middle East and Central Asia, and Pacific Command (PACOM) which encompasses all of Asia including China as well as Australia and New Zealand.

Pursuing global primacy is done through what is essentially a constant state of war. War is defined by Merriam-Webster as both, “a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,” and, “a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.” While these represent two definitions of a single word, they also represent the two possible states in which the US pursuit of global primacy exists.

The US Army’s TRADOC refers to this as “competition” and “conflict.” During both states of operation the US military along with the US government and adjacent organizations are active and it is merely what activity is taking place that defines which state the US is currently in.

This is not a new idea. It was Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz in his work, “On War,” who stated, “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.”

While the US military through multi-domain operations seeks to operate during “competition” and “conflict” across multiple domains (air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace), the US as a nation does this on a much larger scale, and in addition to the US military, through a large number of other organizations, agencies, departments, and even proxies and does so across a much larger number of domains – essentially across all domains.

During the “competition” phase the US seeks to “expand the competitive space.” Not only does the military play a role in doing this through its own multi-domain operations, other agencies, organizations, and institutions do as well. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for example, funds the creation and expansion of political forces within a targeted nation to coerce or overthrow a government to reduce “stand-off” obstacles – “stand-off” meaning anything inhibiting the US from moving anywhere on Earth or doing anything it wants while it does so.

These activities take place across a variety of domains, both physical (air, land, sea, and space) and intangible (economics, politics, information space, and cyberspace). Just as Clausewitz pointed out, the transition from “competition” to “conflict” and the means used during both is driven by a constant political end. For example, the US sought regime change in Iraq for years prior to its invasion in 2003. It used a variety of methods prior to all-out war in an attempt to accomplish this including the arming and backing of armed proxies and economic sanctions before resorting to direct military invasion itself.

Thus the US is at constant war – whether that is an actual “state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict” with another state as was the case with Iraq from 2003 onward, or “a struggle or competition” between itself and others including its declared adversaries of Russia and China.

The latter – war as a struggle or competition – often includes hostilities conducted through proxies. The US is currently waging a proxy war against Russia in both Ukraine and Syria. While the US proxy war in Syria is primarily targeting the Syrian government for removal, it is because Syria in turn is a crucial ally of Russia.

The US is also waging hostilities against China through a number of proxies.

For years the US has backed armed separatists in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province. These militants in turn have waged a campaign of armed violence against not only Pakistani security forces but also Chinese engineers and other representatives working on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which in turn is part of Beijing’s much larger Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

In direct war, the US would use its warplanes to bomb Chinese infrastructure across Pakistan. In this state of indirect war, the US instead uses Baluchistan-based militants to do so. While the means differ, the end is the same.

Likewise in Myanmar the US is using the so-called “National Unity Government” (NUG) and its “People’s Defense Force” (PDF) to not only wage a war of regime change against the government of Myanmar, but also to attack Chinese investments including BRI infrastructure running through Myanmar’s territory.

Were the US waging war directly against Myanmar, it would use its warplanes to strike at critical infrastructure like cellular phone towers. Instead, US-backed “PDF” fighters are targeting these towers with both explosions – as reported by Reuters in late 2021- and by simply dismantling them and carrying away the equipment. In both instances the US wants to degrade Myanmar’s infrastructure as a means of ultimately defeating the current sitting government, and in turn further isolating China, and is doing so through proxies.

Off the coast of the Chinese mainland the US is using the breakaway province of Taiwan as a staging ground for US weapons ahead of what looks like what will be another Ukraine-style proxy war.

What will eventually spur the US to shift from war in terms of indirect hostilities and other forms of competition to actual and direct armed hostilities is whether or not the US is able to achieve its end through more indirect means before resorting to more direct, but riskier and more costly means.

The implications of this reality, all but openly stated and expressed by the US through its adoption of multi-domain operations, on the national security planning of nations around the globe is profound.

National security policy cannot simply revolve around soldiers, tanks, planes, and ships. It must address all of the means the US uses to execute war be it in a state of “competition” or a state of “conflict.”

The US Army’s 2018 TRADOC paper mentions multiple domains including “social media,” a seemingly benign domain that escapes the scope of most national security policy papers or even the responsibility of a nation’s national security agencies entirely. Yet it is a crucial domain through which the US wages both states of “war” it perpetually finds itself in. This is only one example of many domains that escape the attention required by national security planners.

Understanding the full-spectrum nature of the threat the US poses to the world will spur discussion and action toward a full-spectrum defense.

National security policy cannot simply revolve around soldiers, tanks, planes, and ships. It must address all of the means the US uses to execute war be it in a state of “competition” or a state of “conflict.”Not only will nations then be able to keep the US perpetually in a state of “competition” disallowing it to resort to “conflict” because of sufficient credible deterrents, nations will be able to maintain favorable leverage against the United States and other nations during that state of “competition.”

Until then, nations leave themselves at great risk in an increasingly dangerous global security environment where the United States is all but openly preparing full-scale war with its peer and near-peer competitors through increasingly disruptive indirect means of warfare. Only time will tell whether nations take this threat seriously and uphold their respective responsibilities to defend against it.

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/05/ ... nal-means/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Sat May 21, 2022 2:34 pm

Image

Who is leading the United States to war?
Posted May 19, 2022 by Deborah Veneziale

This was originally written for a Chinese audience and adapted and published in Guancha. —Eds.

The world is sensing the United States’s growing rapacious intent for war. Amid the development of the Ukraine crisis, the United States and NATO have been attempting to escalate their proxy war with Russia while continuing to intensify their siege and provocations against China. If there was any doubt regarding Washington’s intent to go to war with Beijing, the May 15th segment on simulated “War Games” by the weekly NBC Show Meet the Press should dispel any such notions. It should be noted that the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), who organized these “games”, is funded by an array of U.S. military and technology companies, including Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, and George Soros’ Open Society. This simulation is clearly in line with the other signals toward war from both Congress and the Pentagon. On 14 April, a bipartisan delegation of US lawmakers visited Taiwan. On 4 May, Charles Richard, commander of US Strategic Command, made a strong case in Congress for the “nuclear threats” posed by Russia and China to the United States, claiming that China is likely to use nuclear coercion for its own benefit. On 5 May, South Korea announced that it had joined a cyber defense organization under NATO while at the same time South Korea and Japan were invited to attend the NATO summit in Madrid, which suggests the possibility of a NATO Asian branch.

In the face of the Biden administration’s aggressiveness and belligerence in foreign affairs, one can’t help but wonder: among the U.S. ruling elite, who is advocating war? Is there still a mechanism to curb such belligerence in the country?

This article comes to three conclusions: first, in the Biden administration, two foreign policy elite groups that used to compete against each other, liberal hawks and neoconservatives, have merged strategically, forming the most important foreign policy consensus within the elite echelon since 1948 and bringing the country’s war policy to a new level; second, in consideration of long-term interests, the big bourgeoisie in the United States has reached a consensus that China is a strategic rival, and has established solid support for its foreign policy; and third, due to the design of the U.S. Constitution, the expansion of the far-right forces, and the sheer monetization of elections, the so-called democratic institutions of checks and balances are completely incapable of restraining the belligerent policy from spreading.

The Merging of Belligerent Foreign Policy Elites
Early representatives of U.S. liberal hawks included Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, whose ideological roots – liberal interventionism – can be traced back to Woodrow Wilson’s idea that America should stand on the world stage fighting for democracy. The invasion of Vietnam was guided by this ideology.

After the defeat in Vietnam, the Democratic Party temporarily reduced calls for intervention as part of its foreign policy. Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson (also known at the time as the “Senator from Boeing”), a liberal hawk, joined with other anti-communists who supported international intervention, helping to inspire a group of neoconservatives. The neoconservatives supported Republican Ronald Reagan in the late 1970s because of his commitment to confront Soviet “expansionism”.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the rise of U.S. unilateralism, the neoconservatives entered the mainstream in U.S. foreign policy with their thought leader, Paul Wolfowitz, who was once an aide to Henry Jackson. In 1992, just a few months after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Wolfowitz introduced his Defense Policy Guidance, which explicitly advocated a permanent unipolar position for the United States to be created through the expansion of U.S. military power into the sphere of influence of the former Soviet Union and along all its perimeters, with the object of preventing the reemergence of Russia as a great power. The unipolar U.S.-led “grand strategy”, through the projection of military force, served to guide the foreign policies of George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush, along with Bill Clinton and Barak Obama. The first Gulf War was made possible, in large part, due to the Soviet weakness. This was followed by the U.S./NATO military dismemberment of Yugoslavia. After 911, the Bush Jr. administration’s foreign policy was completely dominated by the neoconservatives, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

While they both advocated foreign military interventions, there are two historic differences between liberal hawks and neoconservatives. First, liberal hawks believed that the United States should influence the UN and other international institutions to carry out military intervention, while neoconservatives intended to ignore multilateral institutions. Second, liberal hawks sought military intervention alongside U.S.-led Western allies, while neoconservatives were not afraid to conduct unilateral military operations and violate anything resembling international laws. As Harvard historian Niall Ferguson put it, the neoconservatives were happy to accept the title of the “American Empire” and unilaterally decide to inflict military intervention on any country as the ruler of the world’s only empire.

It is a common misconception that the two U.S. parties are distinctly different in foreign policy strategy. On the surface it is true that from 2000 to 2016, the Heritage Foundation was a major neoconservative stronghold that leaned toward Republican policy, while think tanks such as the Brookings Institution and the later established CNAS were home to more pro-Democratic liberal hawks. There were members of both parties in each think tank whose differences centered on specific policy propositions, not on partisan affiliations. In reality, behind the White House and Congress, a policy planning network of nonprofit foundations, universities, think tanks, policy research groups, and other institutions shaped the “agendas” of corporations and capitalists into policy proposals and reports.

Another common misconception is that the “progressive” side of liberalism will balance social development, provide international assistance, and limit military spending. Neoliberalism, however, which began in the mid-1970s, is based on the state’s subordination to market forces and austerity in social spending, such as healthcare, food assistance, and education. Both the Republicans and Democrats follow this principle. Neoliberalism encourages unlimited military spending. Biden’s latest budget includes a year-on-year 4% increase in military spending. During the covid-19 pandemic, the U.S. government has provided $5 trillion in stimulus, $1.7 trillion of which went directly into the pockets of large corporations. It is particularly nefarious that neoliberalism has severely damaged the life quality of the peoples in the Global South. It has dragged developing countries into debt traps and coerced them into endless debt payments to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

In the field of foreign policy, the most influential think tank since World War II is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). This think tank receives donations from a variety of sources, and its current board includes Richard Haass, Bush Sr.’s principal adviser on the Middle East, and Ashton Carter, Obama’s Secretary of Defense. The German magazine Der Spiegel has described the CFR as “the most influential private institution in the United States and the Western world” and “the central politburo for capitalism”. Richard Harwood, senior editor and investigator at the Washington Post, called the council and its members “the closest thing to an American ruling body”.

Regardless of which party’s candidates they support in the elections, this long-standing collaborative network has maintained the stability of foreign policy. This U.S. supremacy worldview that denies other countries’ involvement in international affairs dates to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which proclaimed U.S domination to the entire Western hemisphere; only today’s U.S. foreign policy elite has applied this doctrine to the whole world rather than just the American continents. Cross-party synergy and party switching are common for this group of foreign policy makers, and they are closely tied to the ruling capitalist class, as well as to the Deep State (the intelligence services together with the military) that control U.S. foreign policy.

Image
Process of policy formation, from Who Rules America? by William Domhoff.

Prior to 2008, the main strategic goal of the neoconservatives, who gathered in the Republican Party, was the disintegration and denuclearization of Russia. Around 2008, however, U.S. political elite forces began to realize that China’s economic rise was unstoppable and that its future leaders would not be the next Gorbachevs or Yeltsins. It was from this period onward that the neoconservatives saw China completely from the perspective of confrontation and containment. At the same time, some pro-Democratic liberal hawks founded CNAS, and Hillary Clinton, a typical liberal hawk and then Secretary of State, led the development and implementation of the “Pivot to Asia” strategy, which was actually applauded by the neoconservatives who were then still in the Republican camp. Max Boot hailed it as “a strong voice”. Nevertheless, the strategy of extending NATO to Ukraine and confronting Russia remains a priority to the neoconservatives and liberal hawks. In terms of strategic priorities, they disagree with the “realists” who propose a détente with Russia in order to strengthen the confrontation with China.

Trump’s victory in 2016 created brief turbulence in the CFR consensus. As John Bellamy Foster wrote in Trump in the White House: Tragedy and Farce, Trump rose to power partly through the mobilization of a neofascist movement based in the white lower-middle class. Only a small number of people in the big capital elite supported him initially, including Dick Uihlein, owner of the shipping giant Uline, Bernie Marcus, founder of building materials retailer Home Depot, Robert Mercer, investor in far-right media outlet Breitbart News Network, and banker Timothy Mellon among others. Trump’s tendencies to shrink engagement in global affairs – particularly the withdrawal of troops from Syria and Afghanistan, and the diplomatic contact with North Korea – met the short-term interests of the lower and middle bourgeoisie and won the support of foreign policy realists including Henry Kissinger but upset the neoconservatives. A group of elite neoconservatives played a major role in the campaign against Trump, with some 300 officials who had supported the Bush administration switching back to the Democratic camp in the 2020 election. Max Boot, the neoconservative big shot, has thus become the thought leader on foreign policy in the Biden administration. In 2003, Boot wrote, “Given the historical baggage that ‘imperialism’ carries, there’s no need for the U.S. government to embrace the term. But it should definitely embrace the practice”.

With the end of the Trump interruption, the CFR returned to normalcy, and the neoconservatives and liberal hawks in the Biden administration are completely aligned on strategic orientation. Beginning with 911 and especially after the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the awareness of China’s unstoppable rise brought the two elite groups together; but in recent years, they have been united in some key foreign policy issues, a unity unseen in decades. The international affairs theory they agree on can be summarized as follows: the United States should actively intervene in the politics of other countries, remove unwanted regimes, make every effort to promote “freedom and democracy”, secure its global hegemony by all means, and crack down on those states that challenge Western values and military hegemony – with Russia and China as its primary targets. Last May, Secretary of State Blinken called for defending an ambiguous “rules-based international order” (this term refers to the U.S.-dominated international and security organizations rather than the broader UN-based institutions), which suggests that liberal hawks have now officially forsaken the pretense of following the UN or other international multilateral organizations – unless they follow U.S. rules.

In 2019, the well-published neoconservative Robert Kagan co-authored an article with the liberal hawk Anthony Blinken (Deputy Secretary of State under Obama), urging the United States to abandon Trump’s America First policy. They called for the containment (siege and weakening) of Russia and China and proposed a policy of “preventive diplomacy and deterrence” against “America’s adversaries” – that is, to “send the boys and tanks anywhere”. Incidentally, Robert Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, served as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Obama administration. It is well known that she played a key role in organizing and supporting the 2014 color revolution/coup in Ukraine. She is currently serving as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs in the Biden administration, the third highest position in the State Department, next to Secretary Blinken and Deputy Secretary Sherman. She is also a trusted follower of and a spiritual heir to Madeleine Albright, the recently deceased liberal hawk leader. CNAS staff are intertwined with those of NATO’s think tank the Snowcroft Center for Strategy and Security (Atlantic Council). Matthew Kroenig, its deputy director, recently argued for the consideration of U.S. preemptive use of “tactical” nuclear weapons. From this small coterie of death merchants, one can easily detect the deep integration of two elite foreign affairs groups as well as the real drivers of the Ukraine crisis.

The specific evolution of the Ukraine crisis reveals the tactics adopted by this warlike elite clique: to strengthen U.S. leadership over NATO, using NATO (rather than the UN) as the primary mechanism for foreign intervention, to refuse to recognize the “adversary’s” claims of sovereignty and security over sensitive regions, thereby provoking it to war, to even plan the use of tactical nuclear weapons and conduct a “limited nuclear war” in or around the territory of the adversary, and to impose unilateral coercive measures and combine economic sanctions, financial, informational, propagandistic, and cultural measures, color revolution, cyberwarfare, lawfare, and other hybrid warfare tactics throughout the process in order to weaken and subvert the adversary’s regime. If the desired results are achieved in Ukraine, the same strategy will undoubtedly be replicated in the Western Pacific.

Strategic alignment does not mean that policy elites are not divided on other, lesser issues, such as climate change. Even on this matter, however, as we have seen recently, the United States is demanding that Europe stop importing natural gas from Russia, and John Kerry, the president’s climate envoy, is noncommittal about the potential negative environmental impacts of such a move – in part because the United States wants to replace Russian gas sales in Europe with its own. Conflicts and contradictions within the United States remain unresolved and are moving in a dangerous direction.

In recent years, several international progressives have launched campaigns to voice their concerns about the aggressive U.S. foreign strategy. Their use of the term ‘new cold war’, however, underestimates the depravity of some aspects of current U.S. foreign policy. Historically, the Cold War with the Soviet Union followed certain rules and bottom lines: the United States used a variety of political and economic means to exert pressure and seek to subvert the Soviet state but would not try to change the national boundaries of nuclear adversaries. The two sides acknowledged one another’s actual scope of interests and security needs. Now the Wall Street Journal openly declares that the United States should demonstrate its ability to win a nuclear war, as the CFR elite claim that Ukraine and Taiwan must be protected as they are both strategic military locations within the Western military perimeter. Even the Cold War leader Kissinger has expressed concern and opposition to current U.S. foreign policy, arguing that the correct strategy should be to divide China and Russia, and to provoke Russia against China, and that direct war with the two nuclear countries would have dangerous consequences. Kennan and McNamara would have agreed with Kissinger, if they were still alive. The old generation of Cold War leaders has withered away, and no one would listen to them anymore anyway.

U.S. Bourgeoisie Supports War Preparations Against China

On the one hand, due to the formation of global supply chains, U.S. and European manufacturing industries rely heavily on imports from China, and Biden has to deal with the calls for trade war tariffs relief in order to ease the enormous pressure of inflation in the United States. On the other hand, China itself did not initiate the economic decoupling, but faced the pressure of the trade war and the technology war and pushed the “internal grand circulation”. Since the pandemic, there has been a superficial phased increase in China-U.S. merchandise trade.

It must be noted, however, that a change is happening in the basic logic of China-U.S. relations: the U.S. bourgeoisie has been tightening its alliance against China and supporting the bellicose strategy of the diplomatic elite. This situation stems from both real and ideological factors. GDP figures of the U.S. and the West notoriously completely mask the contributions made by labor in Global South factories. Apple’s highly profitable sales inside the United States appear in U.S. GDP numbers but the actual source of their high returns is the surplus created by the massively efficient and low-cost advanced productive labor force in Shenzhen, Chongqing, and other cities of Foxcon’s factories. China has an extremely sophisticated industrial, logistics, and societal infrastructure that account for 28.7% of world industrial production. We are not living in the era of large factories with low-paid unskilled workers. Moving the whole supply chain from China to India or Mexico would be a decades long process and cannot be based on just lower wages.

Few sectors of the U.S. economy depend heavily on the local Chinese market for sales, U.S. chipmakers being the exception. Neither Boeing, Caterpillar, General Motors, Starbucks, Nike, Ford, nor Apple at 17% has over 25% of their revenue from China. At Disney’s May earnings call, CEO Bob Chapek expressed confidence in success even without China’s market. The total revenue of S&P 500 companies is $14 trillion. No more than 5% of this is related to sales inside China. U.S. CEOs are unlikely to oppose the direction of U.S. foreign policy by being offered an unclear short-term increase in access to China’s growing internal market. Further proof of this can be seen in a few key industries.

The first is the zeitgeist of the time, the tech/internet industry. Among the top 10 richest Americans, the only outsider to the tech/Internet industry is Elon Musk whose first pot of gold, however, also came from the Internet industry. Compared to the list of the richest 20 Americans years ago, those from traditional manufacturing, banking, and the oil industry have disappeared. Most of the tech elite have strong anti-China impulses. Google, Amazon, and Facebook have virtually no market in China. Apple and Microsoft are likewise confronted with rising difficulties. Huawei’s market share had once surpassed that of iPhone in China, only to be overtaken again due to the chip ban. Sources have recently said that the Chinese government is comprehensively embracing indigenous Linux and Office Productivity systems to replace Microsoft’s Windows and Office. Traditional IT companies such as IBM and Oracle have long been marginalized by the Alibaba-driven de-IOE wave, which seeks to replace IBM servers, Oracle databases, and EMC storage devices with indigenous and open-source solutions. U.S. tech giants yearn for a political system change in China – even if it takes a war – to open the door of the Chinese market. Eric Schmidt, former executive chairman of Google, led the establishment of the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI). His constant promotion of the “China Threat” theory reflects the prevailing opinion in the U.S. tech community. In the past two years of public opinion warfare around the pandemic, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang, both Twitter and Facebook have played a role in suppressing objective reporting of facts and actively participated in demonizing China.

U.S. manufacturing remains dependent on Chinese production capacity. Consistent investment and technological innovation in U.S. manufacturing were effectively abandoned years ago, and despite Obama’s and Trump’s calls for “near-shoring manufacturing” back to North America, little has been accomplished. Tesla’s mega-factory in Shanghai might have been the only notable U.S. manufacturing investment in China in recent years; but Elon Musk has been winning many government procurement projects through SpaceX whose Starlink satellite was criticized by China as being highly irresponsible when its changed orbits came close to the Chinese space station twice last year. China’s PLA Daily said that its brutal expansion showed a sign of militarizing the application of satellites. The Starlink service in Ukraine is evidence of this. With Musk’s recent acquisition of the social networking platform Twitter, it is unlikely that he will change the long-standing control of Twitter’s narratives against China and Russia.

The U.S. financial services industry has been expecting China’s capital markets to open further to them, but in their fondest dream they hope that China will have a regime transition and embark on an outright neoliberal path. Soros’ anti-Chinese attitude is well known. Last November, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, declared that “JP Morgan Chase will outlive the Chinese Communist Party” (though he later apologized and said he was just joking) and implied that China would suffer a heavy military strike if it attempted to restore Taiwan. China’s capital markets are not advancing in the direction that Wall Street would prefer, as manifested by the Chinese government strengthening controls on the disorderly expansion of capital and a series of Chinese stocks delisting from the U.S. stock exchange. At the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting in May, Charlie Munger, Vice-Chairman of the company, stated that China was worth the investment. But bear in mind that the premise of his statement is that the Chinese government is a “totalitarian regime” that “violates human rights”, and that it is only worth the extra risk because one can buy better businesses at lower prices in China.

It is not new that the U.S. retail and consumer industries are being squeezed by Chinese manufacturing and Chinese brands. Last March, Nike and other companies boycotted Xinjiang cotton on the false grounds of “forced labor,” then in May released an allegedly racist ad in China, resulting in a further loss of market share, outflanked by the Chinese brand Anta. The covid-19 pandemic has led to a significant disconnection between the two countries’ cultural and entertainment industries, with domestic movies accounting for 85% of the Chinese box office in 2021. Marvel superhero movies, once popular among Chinese filmgoers, have been unable to enter the Chinese market due to ideological concerns, with zero box office takings in China in 2021, and the new Doctor Strange movie, with yet again anti-Chinese scenes, is not expected to be screened in China. These cases signify U.S. companies’ trade-offs between commercial interests and ideology.

Of course, the infamous US “Military Industrial Complex” has always had a unique “special case” role as the pinnacle strategic economic, political, and military sector for imperialism. The top six military contractors in the world are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon Technologies, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics with combined sales of over $160 billion a year. New in line to compete are the tech companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, IBM, and Palantir (founded by extremist Peter Thiel). This group is being awarded contracts some of which amount to as much as ten billion dollars. The tech industry has become a major part of the military industry, plays the prime strategic role in the vast U.S. intelligence empire that collects all data, is at the center of U.S. soft-power media and social media hegemony and ensures total digital domination over the majority of the Global South. As such, it has become immune from real regulation or threats of de-monopolization.

The U.S. drive for military supremacy leads to spending sprees in the areas of weapons, silicon chips, advanced communications (including satellite cyber warfare), and biotechnology. The U.S. government’s fiscal year 2023 budget will spend $813 billion officially on the military (much of the military spending is disguised in other parts of the overall budget), and the Pentagon claims it will need at least $7.3 trillion in appropriations over the next 10 years.

The privatization of the State under neoliberalism has led to new features over the last 30 years. The State has become a consequential vehicle where high level government officials including Congressmen, Senators, Policy and Security advisors, Cabinet officers, Colonels, Generals, and Presidents from both parties become multi-millionaires and more, through the well-described “revolving door” with the private sector. Their insider Government status lets them ensure that once the phrase “National Security” is ushered into any meeting the spigot for personal and corporate greed and radical military expansion is opened even wider.

Under this now prevalent form of “First World” corruption, legal payoffs are enacted after leaving public office. These “legal” in-arrears bribes occur in the form of salary as paid employees, or fees as board members and advisors of the same firms to whom they had previously awarded and supervised contracts.

Bill Clinton was over a million dollars in debt when he left the White House, but now he and Hillary Clinton are worth $120 million. With shocking impunity, 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Hillary Clinton while she led the State Department donated $156 million to her family charity program, which was later disbanded in disgrace.

The current Secretary of Defense (an allegedly “civilian” post), Lloyd Austin, formerly served on the board of directors of military-industrial companies such as United Technologies and Raytheon Technologies where he earned the majority of his $7 million net worth AFTER “retiring” as a four star General.

Retired General and former Trump Secretary of Defense, and former board member of CNAS, James “Mad Dog” Mattis, had a net worth of $7 million in 2018, five years after his military “retirement” in 2013. It was earned through significant fees from a wide list of military contractors and included $600,000 to $1.25 million in stock and options in major defense contractor General Dynamics.

Between 2009 and 2011, over 70% (76 out of 108) of the top generals worked for military contractors after “retirement”. Generals can also double dip by getting fees from the Pentagon and fees from private military contractors simultaneously. The Brass Parachute Report found that in 2016 alone, military officers going through the revolving door included 25 Generals, 9 Admirals, 43 Lieutenant Generals, and 23 Vice Admirals.

Raytheon, General Motors, Boeing, and other military-industrial firms and their investors, Matsushima Capital, are significant funders of CNAS and WestExec Consulting – Secretary of State Blinken, Director of National Intelligence Haynes, Deputy Director of the CIA Cohen, Assistant Secretary of Defense Ratner, and others have all served at WestExec.

Image

Another new feature is the rise of Private Equity (PE) owned Private Military Contractors (PMC’s). About half of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were actually employed by PMC’s. Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, changed the company’s name to Xe Services and sold it to two private equity firms for $200 million in 2010. These PE investors renamed the firm ACADEMI, bought two of Blackwater’s competitors, Triple Canopy and Olive Group, then sold all three PMCs in 2016 to the world’s largest private equity firm, Apollo, for an estimated $1 billion.

The self-dealing, self-perpetuating Military Industrial Complex, composed of military contractors (now including tech and private equity) along with politicians and generals, is literally leading the charge for the massive expansion of US military capacity and all now use China as well as Russia as their pretext. Many of this group have committed war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere.

Few influential individual capitalists in the United States are willing to openly say no to the “China is Our Enemy” chorus. One rarely comes across publicly dissenting views or calls for restraint in the op-ed sections of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Michael Bloomberg, who was criticized for being soft on China a few years ago, now does not voice any calls for restraint from the war hysteria. Instead, he was nominated to chair the Defense Innovation Board in February. Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, being optimistic about China’s economic prospects, has always been considered an ideological outlier and cultist. McKinsey favored more economic transactions with China and was criticized by the New York Times for “helping to boost the status of authoritarian governments”. Now McKinsey’s influence in U.S. business circles has been greatly weakened.

More critically, the upper echelon of the U.S. bourgeois elite has long been more influential than the “industrial elite” ever was. For example, Michael Bloomberg, whose value is estimated to have reached U.S. $83 billion and who owns 88% of the information services company Bloomberg, has also made considerable stock market investments over the years. Today’s billionaires from Eric Smidt to Charles Koch, George Soros, and Elon Musk, diversify their investments across industries and fund think tanks and policy groups through nonprofit foundations, enabling them to overcome the confines of short-term economic interests and see the big picture of foreign policy, in contrast to those old millionaires who, in the past, were focused on a single industry. A bourgeoisie with a shared consciousness would expect long-term excess returns from a fully liberalized Chinese market following the overthrow of the Chinese state, which is greater motivation for these billionaires to be willing to suffer temporary losses in some sectors as a result of containing China.

The CFR, which is depicted as “leading the U.S. government from behind the scenes,” has Founder-level corporate members including companies in energy (Chevron, ExxonMobil, Hess, Tellurian), finance (Merrill Lynch, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Blackstone), IT (Accenture, Apple, AT&T, Cisco), Internet (Google, Meta), among other sectors. In a research report published in January, the CFR proposed to “strengthen U.S.-Japan coordination in response to the Taiwan issue”. These policy proposals of preparing for war and containing China reflect the long-term strategic assertions of the bourgeois elite, which include the controllers, shareholders, and key accounts of the CFR members.

Image

Among the upper-middle-class elite, there is a small group of far-right liberal isolationists, who are mainly intellectuals, represented by the Cato Institute. They speak out against the U.S. Federal Reserve System and military expansion, and they are against the United States’s role in Ukraine. But this group is marginalized in the international policy arena and does not have much influence.

Marx once noted that the capitalists have always been a “band of warring brothers”. This band maintains a modern state that has a large permanent body of armed men and women, intelligence functionaries, and spies. There were 4.3 million employees with security clearance in the United States in 2015. In alliance with the military-industrial-digital monopoly complex, they can exert great power without the need to go through any election. This is the U.S. version of the Deep State whose extraordinary power can be seen in the fact that Trump and his cronies became dysfunctional and unable to implement their own foreign policy shortly after he took office.

The Rise of the Far Right and the False Nature of Checks and Balances in U.S. Political System
Under the ruling bourgeois elite, the hostility of the U.S. middle classes toward China has deep racist roots. Trump’s four years in office witnessed a united coalition of populism and the white supremacist right-wing movement who calls themselves the Alt Right. Their mouthpiece, Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the white supremacist website Breitbart News, is unsurprisingly one of the most active anti-China campaigners in the United States. Their base of support comes from the lower middle class: mostly white people with annual household incomes of around $75,000. They mainly come from small cities or rural areas, run small businesses, or have professional jobs, and account for a quarter of the country’s population. While Bannon and even Trump himself like to boast of the support they get from “the white working class”, in fact their primary support base is the lower middle class rather than the working class.

The Republican Party has benefited electorally with the creation of this neofascist voting bloc. They love big capitalists and desire to be one of them some day; they hate the elitist political and cultural leaders for blocking their road to wealth; and they despise the working class underneath them. In 1951, the prominent U.S. sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote about the American middle classes:

They are rearguarders. In the shorter run, they will follow the panicky ways of prestige; in the longer run, they will follow the ways of power, for, in the end, prestige is determined by power. In the meantime, on the political marketplace… the new middle classes are up for sale; whoever seems respectable enough, strong enough, can probably have them. So far, nobody has made a serious bid.

Until recently, the lower middle class has shown little interest in the “American Empire” and has rarely engaged with China, but they can sense the change in the economy. The U.S. economy has never fully recovered from the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008, when loose monetary policy enabled the big capitalists to reap huge profits while the working class and the lower middle class suffered great losses. The latter group, angry and frustrated with their situation and in dire need of a spokesperson, was mobilized by Trump to become his key vote bank with the help of “white supremacist” racism, racial capitalism, and a “new cold war” to suppress China as an opponent in a full-out manner.

The hostility toward China is now widespread across the population. The impression that “China is the evil enemy of the free world and the greatest rivalry of the U.S.” has been increasingly reinforced by mainstream media outlets and Internet platforms, while freedom of speech has disappeared into thin air. Any sympathy for or even objective opinion of Russia and China will meet strong public criticism. Some progressives say that, not since the 1950’s, have they seen such a toxic public opinion environment in the United States, and some have even compared the social climate in today’s United States to that of the early 1930’s Germany.

Outsiders often misunderstand the real nature of the “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” in the U.S. system. Unlike the history of European constitutional reforms that were spawned by social revolutionary movements, the U.S. constitution, which was originally founded by a group of property holders (including slaveholders), was designed from the beginning to protect the rights of private property owners against what they feared could become mob “majoritarian” rule. To this day, the constitution has enough room to dismantle most traditional bourgeois social and legal rights.

Measures such as the electoral college were designed to prevent the people’s direct vote for President (one person one vote). Both Bush Jr. and Trump actually received fewer votes than their respective opponents when they won the presidency. This measure was originally implemented to protect the interests of the southern slave-holding and other smaller rural states and continues to this day. The process of amending the constitution was made extremely difficult and onerous. Despite the eventual removal of the original prohibition of voting rights for blacks, women, and those without property, voter disenfranchisement remains. In 2021, 19 states enacted 34 voter suppression laws that could limit the voting rights of up to 55 million voters in those states. Meanwhile the Supreme Court has the power to overturn voting rights legislation, strike down affirmative action, and allow religious organizations to abridge civil rights.

A 2010 Supreme Court ruling known as “Citizens United” removed limits on private and corporate contributions to elections, making elections a contest of financial strength in the legal sense. In the 2020 elections, overall spending for both the Presidential and Congressional/Senate races was $14 billion. In addition to the financial competition, there is also the factor of the “psychological-technological competition”. The persuasive technological tools based on social media, behavioral economics, and Big Data now play a decisive role in determining the results of the elections. At the same time, these tools are extremely expensive, ensuring that politics is an exclusive game for the rich. In 2016, the median wealth of U.S. senators exceeded $3 million. This is hardly a government that is checked and balanced by the people.

Are We Only Doomed to War?

In 2014, Xi Jinping, who had become China’s leader, said, “The broad Pacific Ocean is vast enough to embrace both China and the United States”. On the contrary, Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State claimed, in an internal speech, that the United States could call the Pacific “the American Sea”. In 2020, the UK’s Center for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicted that China would overtake the United States to become the world’s largest economy by 2028, a threshold that haunts the U.S. bourgeois elite. U.S. foreign policy and public opinion in recent years have been fixating on the preparedness to wage a hot war to contain China before 2028. The proxy war in Ukraine can be seen as a prelude to this hot war. The ideological mobilization to prepare for war is already in full swing in the United States. The wheels of neofascism are turning and a new era of McCarthyism has arisen. So-called democratic politics is only a cover for the rule of the bourgeois elite and will not serve as a braking mechanism for the war machine.

There are 140 million working and poor people in the United States, with 17 million children suffering hunger, six million more than before the pandemic. While a portion of this class do express ideological support for U.S. war-mongering policy, this support is actually in direct contradiction to their real interests. Historically, traditional progressive groups in the United States, such as the black and feminist movements, had a strong spirit of struggle, and leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X showed amazing courage in their struggle to create a wave of resistance within the United States against Washington’s aggression in Southeast Asia. Sadly, some (but not all) of the leaders of traditional progressive sections of the United States have become supporters of U.S. imperialist policy and anti-China campaigns.

There are important moral voices in the United States that do speak out. But it must be noted that the few progressive groups opposed to a new cold war were immediately vilified for “justifying the Xinjiang genocide”. The U.S. system guarantees the voices from this section of society are powerless.

Aside from the United States and its allies, other countries do not welcome the war that comes with NATO’s aggressive expansion. On 2 March, the UN General Assembly held the 11th emergency special session and countries with more than half of the world’s population voted against or abstained from voting on the draft resolution titled “Aggression against Ukraine”. Countries with more than two thirds of the world’s population did not endorse the U.S.-led sanctions against Russia. Washington’s attempts to escalate and prolong the war, and to force a decoupling of Moscow and Beijing, will lead to massive economic dislocation, which will bring about sizable negative reactions to U.S. rule. Even countries like India and Saudi Arabia are deeply concerned about the excesses of the United States in freezing Russian foreign exchange reserves and reinforcing dollar hegemony. This week, Mexican President Lopez Obrador announced that he would not attend the Summit of the Americas hosted by the United States. in Los Angeles because countries like Cuba and Venezuela were excluded. Resistance to U.S. rule is growing in Latin America. It should be noted, however, that international platforms such as the UN are not actually capable of restraining the United States from waging wars. Washington refuses to be bound by anything but its own “rules-based international order”.

The Biden administration of the United States is providing massive military aid to Ukraine to create a protracted war to weaken Russia to the maximum extent possible and bring about “regime change”. It is also deviating from the spirit of the three Sino-U.S. joint statements and destabilizing the Taiwan Strait in various ways. While the United States does have great military power, its current economic strength, while large, is in a perpetual state of decline and crisis.

In 1950, the United States accounted for 27.3% of world GDP (PPP), whereas by 2020 it had fallen to 15.9%. Its average annual GDP growth rate has fallen to an insufficient annual level of 2% even before the pandemic. China’s manufacturing production is more than 70% higher than that of the United States. Despite the recent huge, over $5 trillion, fiscal and monetary stimulus, U.S. net fixed investment rose by only 1.4 percent. This has led to the current round of inflation. This is not easily resolved and has nothing to do with the war. With the US-driven war, the United States has intentionally doomed Europe to lower, likely negative GDP growth, inflation, and increased military spending. It has abandoned any pretense of climate goals. Despite the huge domestic political consensus for decoupling, U.S. orders to China continue to increase. Actual substantial decoupling remains a pipedream. Adding more sanctions only speeds up the global process of de-dollarization and opposition to dollar hegemony. The United States will not just fall over economically by itself, but the consequences of its drive for war, sanctions, and decoupling will continue to damage its own economy and jeopardize the world food supply chain. The resulting global social instability will in turn cause more weakness to the U.S. economy as well as unexpected challenges to its rule.

China’s stable social governance, strong national defense, and peace-loving yet power-defiant diplomatic strategy can – as Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi put it – “proceed from a position of strength” to eventually make the United States give up the illusion of going to war with China and winning. It is in the interests of the Global South that China remains a strong socialist sovereign state and that it drives global governance alternatives such as A Community with a Shared Future for Humanity and the Global Development Initiative. There should be an immediate commitment to reinvigorating viable multilateral projects of the Global South such as BRICS and the Non-Aligned Movement. In this, the majority of the world share a distinct common interest. The vast majority of people from the Global South’s developing countries will be a major force to call for peace and resist war on various official and civil platforms. The United States will not be the first empire to overreach with arrogance and hubris and eventually outstrip its power.

https://mronline.org/2022/05/19/who-is- ... es-to-war/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Wed May 25, 2022 3:11 pm

THE SHOW OF LIBERAL TOLERANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HIDE THE CRIMES OF THE WEST
May 24, 2022 , 12:10 p.m.

Image
A Bae Systems employee raises the Pride of Progress flag (Photo: Facebook/Bae Systems)

Is it possible to make up the reputation of those who, in public view, earn millions of dollars every year in the business of war? It seems like an almost impossible task to achieve, even for the most skilled in marketing and image strategies.

However, the issue is trying to be resolved with the adoption of models of social justice that currently carry a lot of weight in public opinion, especially in central capitalism societies.

To see how the flags of feminism, the fight against discrimination and racism are taken for neoliberal purposes, we will review the examples of some arms manufacturing companies and military and security institutions of the United Kingdom government, following the article by the journalist Freya India, published in Declassified UK.

THE "FEMINIST" BET OF RAYTHEON AND BAE SYSTEMS

Raytheon, an American company whose bombs are dropped indiscriminately on the Yemeni population, without women and children being able to avoid them, partners with non-governmental organizations to help close the gender gap in the science and technology sector.

Raytheon funds a project by the feminist NGO Girls Who Code to teach girls about programming and provides resources for the Girl Scouts in the United States computer science program.

Image
Girl Scouts of Central Maryland are trained by Raytheon in the field of cybersecurity (Photo: Raytheon)

Meanwhile, its UK branch, Raytheon UK, through the British government, has supplied precision-guided weapons to Saudi Arabia. The contract was made in 2014, and guaranteed Riyadh 2,200 Paveway IV bombs, valued at $247 million, which have been deployed on combat missions in Yemen.

The constant bombing along with other pressure mechanisms have subjected Yemenis to unprecedented famine, causing severe malnutrition in at least 2.3 million children and 1.2 million pregnant or lactating women, according to figures from the UN.

Apparently, however, none of this is at odds with the company's feminism. In fact, just two days after the wedding air raid, Raytheon was busy tweeting that his new show was "all the inspiration a Girl Scout needs," Freya India writes in her article.

Something similar happens with Bae Systems, a UK-based arms manufacturer and one of the largest in the defense, aerospace and electronics sectors.

The company shares a share of the responsibility for the chaos unleashed in Yemen, thanks to the sale of Typhoon and Tornado planes to Saudi Arabia, used in the attacks. What the company can guarantee is that there is gender equity in terms of the employees who develop the weapons that end up in the attacked countries, thanks to programs such as Clever Coags , which encourages young girls to take an interest in engineering and shares information on "inspiring female role models" within the defense and engineering industry. The program has been completed by 23,000 girls and women across the UK.

Thus, Bae Systems is getting more and more women to train for the destruction of the lives of other women and children in countries besieged by the West. Breaking stereotypes, of course.

Another of his controversies comes from the use of the LGBTI community to help improve his public relations and distract from his participation in the militaristic campaigns employed by countries with colonial ambitions.

In recent years, Bae Systems has taken on pride month sponsorships in counties in England and US cities. At the same time, without detecting any contradiction, it arms back the regimes with the cruelest punishments against homosexuals.

Image
Bae Systems employees march in the 2016 Washington, DC Pride parade (Photo: Bae Systems)

In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is prohibited and its practice is paid for with "public whipping, beatings, torture, chemical castration, life imprisonment and executions", India recalls, later adding that this is not a moral impediment for Bae Systems, which for 55 years supplying products and services to the Royal Saudi Air Force, the Royal Saudi Naval Force and other Saudi industries.

"Since Riyadh started bombing Yemen in 2015, BAE has sold £17.6bn worth of weaponry to the Saudi military," says India.

RAISING THE GAY PRIDE FLAG ON ONE SIDE, BEHEADINGS ON THE OTHER

British scientist Alan Turing is known for his work creating code-breaking machines during World War II and laying the foundations for artificial intelligence. He is also known to have been chemically castrated after being convicted of homosexual intercourse. Turing committed suicide at age 41, largely due to the stress of his conviction.

The UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Britain's largest intelligence agency, contributed to the outcome of Turing's life. "GCHQ not only treated Turing horribly, they banned LGBTI people from joining the agency until the 1990s," explains Freya India.

But times change, GCHQ is now a place that embraces diversity and apologizes for past acts of discrimination against its employees. Last year, to redeem itself with Turing, the agency ironically unveiled a giant LGBTI-themed mural in the center of its Benhall headquarters.

In the same vein, it joined MI5 and MI6 in funding LGBTI awards, held courses and talks for its employees to raise awareness of sexual diversity, and held asexual awareness week.

Those initiatives would seem sufficient evidence that the agency no longer agrees with its past conduct. The point is that the espionage work that it currently supports abroad does not coincide with the new inclusive discourse. To give an example, there are three GCHQ bases in Oman, a nation where homosexuality is illegal, and a security pact with Qatar, which reprimands homosexual relations following the dictates of the sharia: prison, public whipping and even the death penalty. .

For its part, the British Ministry of Defense provides part of its military personnel to the Oman army, as well as those of Kuwait and Brunei, which among them bear the resemblance of being repressive towards homosexuals. Like the British spy agency, the government institution takes up the LGBTI flag to whiten alliances it is not willing to renounce.

Last year, as part of the #TransDayofRemembrance campaign , the Ministry of Defense put the transgender pride flag on its building. In 2020, he stated that he championed a "safe environment for all LGBTI+ people" as vital. A week earlier he had concluded a contract to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, a country that, as India points out in its article, has publicly beheaded homosexuals.

Feminism is also a flag that the British Ministry of Defense waves despite the fact that it is part of the military operations in, again the most bloodthirsty example, Yemen. According to Oxfam , the consequences of war on women have gone beyond deaths and injuries, which is already an alarming figure, since although they are not combatants, they and children represent 33% of direct casualties. An indirect form of affectation is that pregnant women victims of the bombings may miscarry or become unable to care for their children due to injuries. The NGO also indicates that 76% of the 3.65 million displaced Yemenis are women.

The coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates launch explosive weapons in populated areas of Yemen thanks to the logistical support, among other States, of the Ministry of Defense of the United Kingdom and, of course, the United States. But there is no need to be alarmed, internally the institution guarantees that politically correct language is followed when addressing staff, avoiding "sexist terms" that may be offensive. One thing makes up for the other, right?

THE FASHION OF THE WARLORDS IS TO JOIN THE PARADE OF PROGRESSIVE TOLERANCE.

It is not the first time that, from this platform, mention is made of the authors of wars, torture and massacres who join the parade of tolerance, in an act of pure propaganda. In 2021, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) launched an unusual campaign titled "CIA Humans", which portrays the spy agency in a very different image from its popular image.

In this video, the CIA features a 36-year-old female agent portraying herself as "a woman of color," "cisgender millennial," "intersectional," and diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. The woman is also wearing a t-shirt with her fist raised. Quite curious that she wears that symbol, considering that she is part of the power, not the resistance.

The Pentagon went the way of the CIA. With The Calling campaign , which aims to attract recruits to the US armed forces, five animated short films were released that narrate the personal stories of five real-life soldiers. One of the cartoons tells about Corporal Emma Malounlord, who works as an operator of the Patriot anti-aircraft missile system, and the childhood story of her being raised by two lesbian women. Over the course of the video, she ends up attending sexual minority marches as a child, which made her "defend freedom from a very young age," according to her.

Image
The US Army launches the animated series "The Calling", a campaign with a progressive tone to recruit soldiers from the younger generations (Photo: YouTube / GoArmy)

We trust in the mental acuity of our readers not to believe that it is necessary to expose the reason for the hypocrisy and cynicism in the propaganda of these two criminal institutions.

By planning a few parades for the rights of the LGBTI community, mounting campaigns that encourage women to "break stereotypes" and supporting diversity within their structures, the military-industrial complex and the security and defense agencies of the States associated with the interests of the former, want us all to ignore the fact that together they hypocritically make up the biggest murder machine in the world.

https://misionverdad.com/globalistan/el ... -occidente

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply