AuthorTopic: Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis  (Read 92926 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42008
    • View Profile
Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis
« on: November 25, 2015, 04:26:17 AM »
If you can't find a specific thread for a Geopolitical  article and don't want to start a new thread, drop the article in this thread.

Kickoff article:

United States, Russia, Syria, and Paris terrorist attacks: Europe, crushed in the movement of the tectonic plates of the great global geopolitical reconfiguration

The global systemic crisis we have been experiencing for at least eight years is challenging a world order which we have often compared to the one going back not only to the end of the Second World War, but more broadly to the Renaissance and the great discoveries of late fifteenth century. 500 years ago, Europe put itself at the heart of the planet, launching an extensive programme of exploration, followed by exploitation, then colonization, and finally cooperation with the rest of the world. 500 years ago, Europe became the heart of the world.

Europe, lacking an anchor, in the middle of the raging sea

For more than eight years now, we have also been describing a wide transition from a Western-centered world to a multi-polar world, showing its countless opportunities, but, above all, the dangers presented by such a reconfiguration whenever it is poorly controlled. Thus, we constantly call for the democratic anchoring of the integrated Europe … which is essentially just an anchoring; we also call for the involvement of Europe at all new tables for debates aimed at rethinking governance at all levels, mainly at the Euro-BRICS table, which has such a potential for positive change.

All crises which have crossed Europe since 2008-2009 have had two characteristics:
– they come from the outside;
– they all reveal Europe’s structural weakness.

On this very last point, Franck Biancheri had, however, spent over 25 years working closely with the European and national institutions, alerting them based on a simple observation: the European integration had been set up as a laboratory project well-protected between the Berlin Wall and the American umbrella. Nevertheless, in the early 90s, this Europe made its entrance into history, and the winds of this history which started to blow on it, required it to implement a consolidation process which could not be anything but political, and therefore democratic. The work hasn’t been done after all, because there were too many players not having an interest in that on a short term. Europe has not been firmly anchored, and today, it floats, lacking any anchor, in the heart of a storm of Homeric proportions, being torn apart.

Failure of the nation- state model’s adaptation

Within the wide on-going geopolitical reconfiguration, there is this construction, eminently European and structural to our continent, which broke up completely: the nation state. Regional integration, globalization, the Internet and the emergence of new actors of different political cultures have made the national level, as it has existed, completely obsolete. The paradox is that Europe itself understood that, in the aftermath of its two world wars, initiating a process of overcoming this 19th century model. Yet, the visionary men who conceived this project were replaced, starting with the 90s, by a generation which basically never understood anything to Europe or the integration process, the famous baby boomers, whose leadership,  particularly in the past 20 years, led to the complete failure of the European integration experience.

Europe developed its integration based on the nation states – which was a good thing, but these nation states have failed to play the game until the end and to reinvent their added-value to this new configuration. We have already said that the only added-value of the nation-states is in their ability to collaborate among each other in order to create the social change required for adaptation. Instead, the unanimity rules of any European action resulted in some political paralysis and the obvious failure of its democratization. In addition, Europe, geopolitically central, which articulated the world around itself during 500 years of supreme reign, is now torn by this world’s mutations. Europe would have needed to watch the new world as it was and note and accept any differences in an act of decoupling of the rest of the world, with the aim to rethink itself on new bases.

Multi-polarization and differentiation

The most striking example we can give of this decoupling work is the one provided by the transatlantic relationship, but we could also quote the EU-India relationship, which remained at the stage of former colonial power and former colonized state; the EU-Russia relationship, which oscillates between a pan-European vision (Russia is Europe) and Cold War flashbacks (Russia is Marxism); the EU-China relationship, which is the most perplexing (the great Asian mystery), so far from our models that Europe starts acting like a chicken in front of an ax when it comes to developing relations with China; the South Africa-EU relationship, if it exists, inevitably passes through the Netherlands and England, etc. The EU continued to watch the rest of the world only through its former input there, instead of building relations with emerging entities seen as independent actors. As a result of that, it remained structurally linked to the most outdated parts of these countries and regions, those which currently are disappearing. Yet, let’s go back to the typical example of the transatlantic relationship.

Differentiation and decoupling: the case of the US

We have repeatedly pointed out that it was imperative for Europe to detach from its American avatar, an avatar undergoing a profound change. Indeed, the transatlantic relationship is based on the fact that the United States was originally a European extension, then a European extension which took the leadership after Europe committed suicide during the two world wars. Yet, the Bush Jr. years, in particular, marked the beginning of an era of strong differentiation between Europe and the United States. This country is no longer WASP[1], the proof: even Bush campaigned in Spanish in some states, but Spanish is still European (though mixed with indigenous or African cultures); but there are also these large Chinese, Iranian, and Indian communities, which, contrary to what happens in Europe, gather in large regions, providing them with new features and giving America a social structure which does not have much to do with Europe anymore.

There is also this differentiation as regards to value systems. Until Clinton, albeit wrongly, Europeans wanted to see in the Democratic and Republican parties, a comparable European-style left and a right wing. But with Bush Jr, this was no longer possible. In terms of secularism, a value which, in our opinion, was defended by America according to Tocqueville, the constant references to God in Bush’s speeches convince us of the contrary. The death penalty, weapon carrying, questionable democracy, foreign policy … the list of all topics that start to visibly separate Europe from the United States is quite long. It would have been high time for everyone to create the conditions for their own independence from one another; not to ignore or make war with each other, but to build a new framework for cooperation, a less fusional one.

Figure 1 – Rate of European favourable opinions regarding the US during Bush junior’s mandates. Source : Pew research centre.

All the misfortunes of the world come ashore on our beaches

Some decoupling attempts did take place, but very few were completed. So little completed that, during the Euro-Russian crisis over Ukraine, in 2014, “the tail wagged the dog”: the United States directly contributed to a hallucinating escalation between Europeans and Russians which we are still not able to get over. Europe, heart of the world, finds itself on the path of a US-Russian confrontation strategy which is overtaking and crushing it… overtaking it and participating directly in the next crisis, the Syrian crisis, another one which comes from the outside, but is hitting us hard. We are not so much involved yet in the Syrian conflict, since we nonetheless resisted rather well the intervention injunctions that came from our American, Israeli and Saudi friends. Yet, we were less successful in defending the only rational policy necessary in 2011: supporting the regular Syrian army and, in exchange for this support, imposing on Bashar Al-Assad a democratic transition … or the peace plan proposed by the Russians. Many deaths, refugees and terrorism would have thus been avoided, had we objectively heard that plan four years ago, rather than just now. But Russia, and not Daesh, was the enemy we were then offered.

Is it our transatlantic link or the trans- channel one that allowed us to act like an island, the way the US or the UK did, and made us believe that we could contribute to the increase of chaos in the Middle East without suffering the consequences?…

[1] WASP, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, archetype of the average American citizen in the 50s.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42008
    • View Profile
The EU's crisis within a crisis
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2015, 07:48:11 AM »

The EU's crisis within a crisis

Since 2010 Greece had largely been at the epicenter of attention (Photo: YoungJ523)

By Angelos Chryssogelos
Athens, Today, 09:26

With Europe currently absorbed by the refugee crisis and, after the Paris attacks, its security implications, the Eurozone crisis, once considered an ‘existential threat’ to the EU, suddenly feels remote.

The EU’s capacity to respond effectively to the migration emergency in the coming months, however, is heavily conditioned by the legacy of the Eurozone crisis.

Expulsion of Greece from Schengen to safeguard freedom of movement in Europe? (Photo: wfbakker2)

There are three parallels between the Eurozone and the migration crises: the hybrid nature of European governance structures that are little prepared to face up to major external challenges; the preeminence of Germany as a key player; and the important role of a peripheral country – Greece – as a conduit for an external challenge that is becoming an internal crisis.

These issues will determine whether and how the EU will overcome the refugee crisis. They are also, all the same, the areas in which the EU’s capacities have been most stretched by the Eurozone crisis.

First, much as the Eurozone, Schengen reflects the willingness of EU member-states to cooperate in an area that touches upon the core of national sovereignty (border control), but without fully delegating decision-making and legislative and regulatory initiatives to a supranational agency (like the Commission in ‘first pillar’ policies).

While the involvement of the Commission can be significant, political impetus requires intergovernmental agreement while effective implementation relies on national policies, in border control as much as macroeconomic policy.

This makes both structures slow in responding to external challenges.
External challenges

The global financial crisis started in the USA and the current refugee crisis has its origins in the Middle East and Africa; but in both cases, the mechanisms the EU had devised for managing those policy areas were neither centralised nor flexible enough to respond swiftly.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that these imperfectly designed structures did not cover related policy areas – there is no real common asylum policy to complement joint management of external borders, just as there was no banking union alongside monetary union.

As in the Eurozone, national leaders will ultimately have to agree on the distribution of burdens among themselves, as well as to bolster supranational institutions, in order to resolve the refugee crisis.

But the Eurozone crisis has depleted precisely these assets (political will, trust between member-states, and the room of maneuver of elites vis-à-vis national public opinions) that are indispensable for such an arrangement to arise any time soon.

The reactions to the Commission’s refugee relocation scheme and the race to throw up fences in central Europe foreshadow a protracted and potentially toxic negotiation process.
Germany's role

Second, the Eurozone crisis has left a complex legacy with regard to Germany’s role.

Because of the Eurozone crisis the EU acquired a go-to leader in times of emergency: Germany, and particularly its chancellor Angela Merkel.

Merkel’s decision to accept Syrian refugees can be seen as an example of Germany carrying over the leadership role it acquired during the Eurozone crisis.

Absent Germany’s initiative, the consequences could have been devastating – with thousands of refugees stranded in the Balkans, and a mounting humanitarian crisis potentially destabilising south-eastern Europe and tarnishing the EU’s global image as a normative power.

The initial reaction of a majority of Germans was to welcome refugees, but Merkel’s decision was not taken in a vacuum.

During the Eurozone crisis German elites tried hard to balance the need for Germany to safeguard the achievements of European integration with the need to keep German public opinion on board with the sacrifices and costs this entailed.

The same considerations are in play in the refugee crisis, only more burdened by the Eurozone legacy.

It took just a few weeks for negative sentiments towards Merkel’s handling to surface.

That the anti-euro AfD party is now the vehicle for anti-immigrant feelings showcases the neat continuities between the frictions created by the Eurozone crisis and the constraints the German government will face in providing leadership in the refugee issue.
The Greek epicenter

The third parallel between the Eurozone and refugee crisis concerns the importance of a peripheral, but strategically placed, member-state: Greece.

Since 2010, Greece had largely been the epicenter of attention.

While the EU was focusing on the Greek economy, however, the groundwork for the refugee crisis was being laid.

The new radical leftist Syriza government allowed free passage for refugees and migrants through Greek soil, as they moved from Turkey to Europe in the first half of 2015.

Much as in financial matters, Greece was the crack in the edifice that allowed an external crisis to flood the EU.

Just like in Eurozone politics, the long-term viability and attractiveness of the European project will be under stress in the following months as the capacity of the EU to keep its zone of free internal movement and common protection of external borders intact is tested.

Again, Greece may be the crucial test of Europe’s credibility. Ironically, the radical leftist ideology of Tsipras and his government makes them an amenable partner to moderates like Merkel and the Commission in the refugee issue.

Tsipras has been willing to collaborate with the EU on this issue, probably expecting rewards in the question of the Greek debt. This expectation presupposes that the tone in the EU will continue to be given by the moderates.
Schengen zone

This, however, is doubtful after the Paris attacks. At the same time, with the EU’s refugee relocation scheme ineffectual and the states of the Western Balkans erecting fences along their borders, the capacity of the EU to offer relief is rapidly lagging behind the still huge daily inflows of refugees to Greek islands.

Greece may soon realise that, instead of contemplating relaxing its economic terms in exchange for Greece’s cooperation in the refugee question, the EU (or at least some European politicians) will begin contemplating an expulsion of Greece from Schengen as the most effective (and cheaper) way to safeguard freedom of movement in Europe.

The governance deficits of the Greek polity and the imperfect integration in the area of border protection may very soon make the discussion about the EU’s territorial integrity and the irreversibility of European integration flare up again.

The above does not mean that the EU will necessarily fail to survive the refugee crisis.

As with the Eurozone, a combination of skillful diplomacy, purposeful leadership (particularly by Germany) and a sense of urgency may yet allow collaborative solutions to emerge.

Yet there is no reason to expect this to be a smooth process. Instead, much will depend on the political capital that national governments across Europe still have at their disposal in order to push through compromises with their respective publics.

The long shadow of five years of painstaking Eurozone crisis management will make this a tougher challenge than any the EU has ever faced.

Angelos Chryssogelos is a research fellow at the Hellenic Observatory of the LSE and an Academy associate fellow at the Europe Programme of Chatham House.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
Re: Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2015, 07:01:46 PM »
Obama signs NDAA, approving $800 million aid to ‘moderate’ Syrians, Kiev
27 Nov, 2015

President Barack Obama has signed the Pentagon funding bill giving $800 million in aid to both “moderate rebels” in Syria and the Kiev regime. Obama also vowed to work around provisions blocking the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2015 on the eve of Thanksgiving, a four-day holiday for most Americans. He previously vetoed the $612 billion bill in a well-publicized ceremony in October, arguing that the lawmakers dodged the spending limits by shifting money into the warfighting slush fund.

Although Congress then trimmed the bill down to $607 billion, the cuts did not affect the $300 million aid to the Ukrainian government, or the “zombie” surveillance blimp program that has cost nearly $3 billion so far. It also left almost $500 million dedicated to arming and training “moderate rebels” in Syria – a program the Pentagon had already abandoned.

Originally intended to produce a 15,000-strong force by 2016, the program ended up with fewer than 200 fighters, who never even got to fight Islamic State militants. After training in Turkey and entering Syria, the first group of US-trained fighters was ambushed and captured by the Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra in August. The second group surrendered to Al-Nusra in September, turning over all their US-supplied weapons and equipment. Only “four or five” US-trained fighters were operating in Syria, Central Command head General Lloyd Austin told shocked lawmakers on September 16.

Obama did not insist on scrapping the program, even though he told ‘60 Minutes’ that he had been “skeptical from the get-go” about its prospects for success.

The NDAA specifically prohibits any US aid going to the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Jabhat Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda, the Khorasan Group, or any other violent extremist organization,” as well as the “Syrian Arab Army or any group or organization supporting President Bashir [sic] Assad.”

Entirely untouched by the cuts was the $300 million in funding for the “military and other security forces of the Government of Ukraine,” as laid out in Section 1250 of the NDAA. The Pentagon will now be authorized to spend the money, in coordination with the Department of State, on providing intelligence, training, equipment, and logistics support to the Kiev regime, including the notorious “volunteer battalions.”

The equipment the Pentagon is now authorized to provide Kiev will include “anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition.” Counter-artillery radars, drones, and cyber capabilities are also included in the program.

One of the points of contention between Obama and Congress was the provision in the NDAA blocking most of the White House initiatives to close down the camp in Guantanamo Bay, a US military base in Cuba.

Established under former president George W. Bush, the camp has been used for the indefinite detention of suspects in the “War on Terror.”

“Maintaining this site, year after year, is not consistent with our interests as a Nation and undermines our standing in the world,” Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature on the NDAA, adding that he was “deeply disappointed” in Congress for seeking to obstruct the transfer and release of prisoners.

Offering a hint of what the White House might do to circumvent the NDAA in this regard, Obama said that some of the provisions in sections 1031, 1033 and 1034 might “violate constitutional separation of powers principles” and the right of habeas corpus, and that “my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.”
The State is a body of armed men

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42008
    • View Profile
Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis: War Games
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2015, 05:30:11 AM »
War Games

Author TGP STAFF Date November 25, 2015


You don’t think Mr. Peace Prize Prez is playing a role in this provocative and extremely dangerous scenario?  Right after the plane was shot down, Obama expressed no criticism of Turkey.  Instead, he asserted that “Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace.”

I have been saying for some time that the U.S. wants a war with Russia. Why? Because if it can cut Russia down to size, then the only country standing between America and total global domination is China. China and Russia have been cozying up lately.  Together they are a formidable threat. Take out Russia, China becomes a manageable opponent.  That’s how the theory goes.

Let’s cut to recent events.

Terrorist attack in Paris.  Refugee crisis escalates in Europe.  Russia is on the job offering serious opposition to ISIL.  France and other European countries are finally talking about working cooperatively with Russia to defeat ISIS.

French Prime Minister Hollande is scheduled to meet in the next few days with Putin to put their heads together and coordinate their military campaigns against the terrorists.

Turkey blows a Russian fighter jet out of the sky. Its F-16s were laying in wait. Probably the Russian fighter never crossed into Turkish air space. Even if it did, it was even by Turkey’s own admission only allegedly in Turkish territory for 17 seconds.

In any case, blam! . . . down goes the plane.

IMMEDIATELY, Turkey turns to NATO — America’s proxy fighters — to obtain unanimous support and approval for its unquestionably reprehensible deed.


Because under the terms of the NATO agreement, if any nation belonging to the alliance is attacked, it is regarded as an attack on all members and they must then fight together as a unified force against the alleged aggressor.

Are you seeing now how this works?

Russia had without any reasonable or legal justification one of its planes shot down.

Understandably, Putin has publicly announced that from this point forward, it will defend itself against any threat to its forces in Syria.  It now has a missile cruiser in the area with the deadly S-300 air defense system, and is sending the even more effective S-400 air defense system to the Syrian base in Latakia.


If Russia shoots back in defense under any real or perceived threat — like Turkish F-16s or Turkish ground defense locking Russian planes with target seeking radar — in theory all of NATO must oppose it.

Total war!

Merry Christmas Ashton Carter, Victoria Nuland, and all of the other loathsome, wicked, hate-filled, neocon warmongers in our government.  Yeah, you get your big war, just like you wanted.

You don’t think Mr. Peace Prize Prez is playing a role in this provocative and extremely dangerous scenario?  Right after the plane was shot down, Obama expressed no criticism of Turkey.  Instead, he asserted that “Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace.”  Moreover, it is implausible that Turkey did this without either the knowledge or prompting of the U.S. government.  Understand that Obama has been on board with the Pax Americana imperialist program of conquest for most of his presidency. If not, how can you justify his precipitating and lying about the crisis in Ukraine.  How else can you interpret the buildup of troops right on Russia’s borders, a direct provocation and chest-beating flaunting of our military power?  How else can you explain his unnecessary, counter-productive pivot to Asia, a publicly announced strategy for “containing” China?

Now the holiday season is upon us. We’ll all be enjoying the cheer, the time together with family and friends, exchanging gifts, playing Trivial Pursuit, Monopoly, Risk, Scrabble, Candyland and Boggle.

Just so you know, while you’re having all sorts of innocent fun, here we have the lethal game our crazed leadership is playing.

But this particular game is not fun for the whole family.

War games will mean fewer members of your family to enjoy the holiday season next year.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42008
    • View Profile
Deaths In Other Nations Since WW II Due To Us Interventions
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2015, 05:41:05 AM »
Deaths In Other Nations Since WW II Due To Us Interventions

By James A. Lucas

Chile’s President Salvador Allende with a few bodyguards, defending the government seat, La Moneda Palace, on 9/11/73, day of the US-sponsored coup against his rule. The building was under attack by the combined forces of the Chilean army, air force and police.

24 April, 2007


After the catastrophic attacks of September 11 2001 monumental sorrow and a feeling of desperate and understandable anger began to permeate the American psyche. A few people at that time attempted to promote a balanced perspective by pointing out that the United States had also been responsible for causing those same feelings in people in other nations, but they produced hardly a ripple. Although Americans understand in the abstract the wisdom of people around the world empathizing with the suffering of one another, such a reminder of wrongs committed by our nation got little hearing and was soon overshadowed by an accelerated "war on terrorism."

But we must continue our efforts to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will assist in doing that by addressing the question “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” This theme is developed in this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.

And the pain and anger is spread even further. Some authorities estimate that there are as many as 10 wounded for each person who dies in wars. Their visible, continued suffering is a continuing reminder to their fellow countrymen.

It is essential that Americans learn more about this topic so that they can begin to understand the pain that others feel. Someone once observed that the Germans during WWII “chose not to know.” We cannot allow history to say this about our country. The question posed above was “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” The answer is: possibly 10,000.

Comments on Gathering These Numbers

Generally speaking, the much smaller number of Americans who have died is not included in this study, not because they are not important, but because this report focuses on the impact of U.S. actions on its adversaries.

An accurate count of the number of deaths is not easy to achieve, and this collection of data was undertaken with full realization of this fact. These estimates will probably be revised later either upward or downward by the reader and the author. But undoubtedly the total will remain in the millions.

The difficulty of gathering reliable information is shown by two estimates in this context. For several years I heard statements on radio that three million Cambodians had been killed under the rule of the Khmer Rouge. However, in recent years the figure I heard was one million. Another example is that the number of persons estimated to have died in Iraq due to sanctions after the first U.S. Iraq War was over 1 million, but in more recent years, based on a more recent study, a lower estimate of around a half a million has emerged.

Often information about wars is revealed only much later when someone decides to speak out, when more secret information is revealed due to persistent efforts of a few, or after special congressional committees make reports

Both victorious and defeated nations may have their own reasons for underreporting the number of deaths. Further, in recent wars involving the United States it was not uncommon to hear statements like “we do not do body counts" and references to “collateral damage” as a euphemism for dead and wounded. Life is cheap for some, especially those who manipulate people on the battlefield as if it were a chessboard.

To say that it is difficult to get exact figures is not to say that we should not try. Effort was needed to arrive at the figures of 6six million Jews killed during WWI, but knowledge of that number now is widespread and it has fueled the determination to prevent future holocausts. That struggle continues.

The author can be contacted at



The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation. (1,2,3,4)

The Soviet Union had friendly relations its neighbor, Afghanistan, which had a secular government. The Soviets feared that if that government became fundamentalist this change could spill over into the Soviet Union.

In 1998, in an interview with the Parisian publication Le Novel Observateur, Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Carter, admitted that he had been responsible for instigating aid to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan which caused the Soviets to invade. In his own words:

“According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.” (5,1,6)

Brzezinski justified laying this trap, since he said it gave the Soviet Union its Vietnam and caused the breakup of the Soviet Union. “Regret what?” he said. “That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” (7)

The CIA spent 5 to 6 billion dollars on its operation in Afghanistan in order to bleed the Soviet Union. (1,2,3) When that 10-year war ended over a million people were dead and Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market. (4)

The U.S. has been responsible directly for about 12,000 deaths in Afghanistan many of which resulted from bombing in retaliation for the attacks on U.S. property on September 11, 2001. Subsequently U.S. troops invaded that country. (4)


An indigenous armed struggle against Portuguese rule in Angola began in 1961. In 1977 an Angolan government was recognized by the U.N., although the U.S. was one of the few nations that opposed this action. In 1986 Uncle Sam approved material assistance to UNITA, a group that was trying to overthrow the government. Even today this struggle, which has involved many nations at times, continues.

U.S. intervention was justified to the U.S. public as a reaction to the intervention of 50,000 Cuban troops in Angola. However, according to Piero Gleijeses, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University the reverse was true. The Cuban intervention came as a result of a CIA – financed covert invasion via neighboring Zaire and a drive on the Angolan capital by the U.S. ally, South Africa1,2,3). (Three estimates of deaths range from 300,000 to 750,000 (4,5,6)

Argentina: See South America: Operation Condor

Bangladesh: See Pakistan


Hugo Banzer was the leader of a repressive regime in Bolivia in the 1970s. The U.S. had been disturbed when a previous leader nationalized the tin mines and distributed land to Indian peasants. Later that action to benefit the poor was reversed.

Banzer, who was trained at the U.S.-operated School of the Americas in Panama and later at Fort Hood, Texas, came back from exile frequently to confer with U.S. Air Force Major Robert Lundin. In 1971 he staged a successful coup with the help of the U.S. Air Force radio system. In the first years of his dictatorship he received twice as military assistance from the U.S. as in the previous dozen years together.

A few years later the Catholic Church denounced an army massacre of striking tin workers in 1975, Banzer, assisted by information provided by the CIA, was able to target and locate leftist priests and nuns. His anti-clergy strategy, known as the Banzer Plan, was adopted by nine other Latin American dictatorships in 1977. (2) He has been accused of being responsible for 400 deaths during his tenure. (1)

Also see: See South America: Operation Condor

Brazil: See South America: Operation Condor


U.S. bombing of Cambodia had already been underway for several years in secret under the Johnson and Nixon administrations, but when President Nixon openly began bombing in preparation for a land assault on Cambodia it caused major protests in the U.S. against the Vietnam War.

There is little awareness today of the scope of these bombings and the human suffering involved.

Immense damage was done to the villages and cities of Cambodia, causing refugees and internal displacement of the population. This unstable situation enabled the Khmer Rouge, a small political party led by Pol Pot, to assume power. Over the years we have repeatedly heard about the Khmer Rouge’s role in the deaths of millions in Cambodia without any acknowledgement being made this mass killing was made possible by the the U.S. bombing of that nation which destabilized it by death , injuries, hunger and dislocation of its people.

So the U.S. bears responsibility not only for the deaths from the bombings but also for those resulting from the activities of the Khmer Rouge - a total of about 2.5 million people. Even when Vietnam latrer invaded Cambodia in 1979 the CIA was still supporting the Khmer Rouge. (1,2,3)

Also see Vietnam


An estimated 40,000 people in Chad were killed and as many as 200,000 tortured by a government, headed by Hissen Habre who was brought to power in June, 1982 with the help of CIA money and arms. He remained in power for eight years. (1,2)

Human Rights Watch claimed that Habre was responsible for thousands of killings. In 2001, while living in Senegal, he was almost tried for crimes committed by him in Chad. However, a court there blocked these proceedings. Then human rights people decided to pursue the case in Belgium, because some of Habre’s torture victims lived there. The U.S., in June 2003, told Belgium that it risked losing its status as host to NATO’s headquarters if it allowed such a legal proceeding to happen. So the result was that the law that allowed victims to file complaints in Belgium for atrocities committed abroad was repealed. However, two months later a new law was passed which made special provision for the continuation of the case against Habre.


The CIA intervened in Chile’s 1958 and 1964 elections. In 1970 a socialist candidate, Salvador Allende, was elected president. The CIA wanted to incite a military coup to prevent his inauguration, but the Chilean army’s chief of staff, General Rene Schneider, opposed this action. The CIA then planned, along with some people in the Chilean military, to assassinate Schneider. This plot failed and Allende took office. President Nixon was not to be dissuaded and he ordered the CIA to create a coup climate: “Make the economy scream,” he said.
What followed were guerilla warfare, arson, bombing, sabotage and terror. ITT and other U.S. corporations with Chilean holdings sponsored demonstrations and strikes. Finally, on September 11, 1973 Allende died either by suicide or by assassination. At that time Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, said the following regarding Chile: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” (1)

During 17 years of terror under Allende’s successor, General Augusto Pinochet, an estimated 3,000 Chileans were killed and many others were tortured or “disappeared.” (2,3,4,5)

Also see South America: Operation Condor

China An estimated 900,000 Chinese died during the Korean War. For more information, See: Korea.


One estimate is that 67,000 deaths have occurred from the 1960s to recent years due to support by the U.S. of Colombian state terrorism. (1)

According to a 1994 Amnesty International report, more than 20,000 people were killed for political reasons in Colombia since 1986, mainly by the military and its paramilitary allies. Amnesty alleged that “U.S.- supplied military equipment, ostensibly delivered for use against narcotics traffickers, was being used by the Colombian military to commit abuses in the name of “counter-insurgency.” (2) In 2002 another estimate was made that 3,500 people die each year in a U.S. funded civilian war in Colombia. (3)

In 1996 Human Rights Watch issued a report “Assassination Squads in Colombia” which revealed that CIA agents went to Colombia in 1991 to help the military to train undercover agents in anti-subversive activity. (4,5)

In recent years the U.S. government has provided assistance under Plan Colombia. The Colombian government has been charged with using most of the funds for destruction of crops and support of the paramilitary group.


In the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba on April 18, 1961 which ended after 3 days, 114 of the invading force were killed, 1,189 were taken prisoners and a few escaped to waiting U.S. ships. (1) The captured exiles were quickly tried, a few executed and the rest sentenced to thirty years in prison for treason. These exiles were released after 20 months in exchange for $53 million in food and medicine.

Some people estimate that the number of Cuban forces killed range from 2,000, to 4,000. Another estimate is that 1,800 Cuban forces were killed on an open highway by napalm. This appears to have been a precursor of the Highway of Death in Iraq in 1991 when U.S. forces mercilessly annihilated large numbers of Iraqis on a highway. (2)

Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire)

The beginning of massive violence was instigated in this country in 1879 by its colonizer King Leopold of Belgium. The Congo’s population was reduced by 10 million people over a period of 20 years which some have referred to as “Leopold’s Genocide.” (1) The U.S. has been responsible for about a third of that many deaths in that nation in the more recent past. (2)

In 1960 the Congo became an independent state with Patrice Lumumba being its first prime minister. He was assassinated with the CIA being implicated, although some say that his murder was actually the responsibility of Belgium. (3) But nevertheless, the CIA was planning to kill him. (4) Before his assassination the CIA sent one of its scientists, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, to the Congo carrying “lethal biological material” intended for use in Lumumba’s assassination. This virus would have been able to produce a fatal disease indigenous to the Congo area of Africa and was transported in a diplomatic pouch.

Much of the time in recent years there has been a civil war within the Democratic Republic of Congo, fomented often by the U.S. and other nations, including neighboring nations. (5)

In April 1977, Newsday reported that the CIA was secretly supporting efforts to recruit several hundred mercenaries in the U.S. and Great Britain to serve alongside Zaire’s army. In that same year the U.S. provided $15 million of military supplies to the Zairian President Mobutu to fend off an invasion by a rival group operating in Angola. (6)

In May 1979, the U.S. sent several million dollars of aid to Mobutu who had been condemned 3 months earlier by the U.S. State Department for human rights violations. (7) During the Cold War the U.S. funneled over 300 million dollars in weapons into Zaire (8,9) $100 million in military training was provided to him. (2) In 2001 it was reported to a U.S. congressional committee that American companies, including one linked to former President George Bush Sr., were stoking the Congo for monetary gains. There is an international battle over resources in that country with over 125 companies and individuals being implicated. One of these substances is coltan, which is used in the manufacture of cell phones. (2)

Dominican Republic

In 1962, Juan Bosch became president of the Dominican Republic. He advocated such programs as land reform and public works programs. This did not bode well for his future relationship with the U.S., and after only 7 months in office, he was deposed by a CIA coup. In 1965 when a group was trying to reinstall him to his office President Johnson said, “This Bosch is no good.” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Mann replied “He’s no good at all. If we don’t get a decent government in there, Mr. President, we get another Bosch. It’s just going to be another sinkhole.” Two days later a U.S. invasion started and 22,000 soldiers and marines entered the Dominican Republic and about 3,000 Dominicans died during the fighting. The cover excuse for doing this was that this was done to protect foreigners there. (1,2,3,4)

East Timor

In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor. This incursion was launched the day after U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia where they had given President Suharto permission to use American arms, which under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Daniel Moynihan, U.S. ambassador to the UN. said that the U.S. wanted “things to turn out as they did.” (1,2) The result was an estimated 200,000 dead out of a population of 700,000. (1,2)

Sixteen years later, on November 12, 1991, two hundred and seventeen East Timorese protesters in Dili, many of them children, marching from a memorial service, were gunned down by Indonesian Kopassus shock troops who were headed by U.S.- trained commanders Prabowo Subianto (son in law of General Suharto) and Kiki Syahnakri. Trucks were seen dumping bodies into the sea. (5)

El Salvador

The civil war from 1981 to1992 in El Salvador was financed by $6 billion in U.S. aid given to support the government in its efforts to crush a movement to bring social justice to the people in that nation of about 8 million people. (1)
During that time U.S. military advisers demonstrated methods of torture on teenage prisoners, according to an interview with a deserter from the Salvadoran army published in the New York Times. This former member of the Salvadoran National Guard testified that he was a member of a squad of twelve who found people who they were told were guerillas and tortured them. Part of the training he received was in torture at a U.S. location somewhere in Panama. (2)

About 900 villagers were massacred in the village of El Mozote in 1981. Ten of the twelve El Salvadoran government soldiers cited as participating in this act were graduates of the School of the Americas operated by the U.S. (2) They were only a small part of about 75,000 people killed during that civil war. (1)

According to a 1993 United Nations’ Truth Commission report, over 96 % of the human rights violations carried out during the war were committed by the Salvadoran army or the paramilitary deaths squads associated with the Salvadoran army. (3)

That commission linked graduates of the School of the Americas to many notorious killings. The New York Times and the Washington Post followed with scathing articles. In 1996, the White House Oversight Board issued a report that supported many of the charges against that school made by Rev. Roy Bourgeois, head of the School of the Americas Watch. That same year the Pentagon released formerly classified reports indicating that graduates were trained in killing, extortion, and physical abuse for interrogations, false imprisonment and other methods of control. (4)


The CIA began to destabilize Grenada in 1979 after Maurice Bishop became president, partially because he refused to join the quarantine of Cuba. The campaign against him resulted in his overthrow and the invasion by the U.S. of Grenada on October 25, 1983, with about 277 people dying. (1,2) It was fallaciously charged that an airport was being built in Grenada that could be used to attack the U.S. and it was also erroneously claimed that the lives of American medical students on that island were in danger.


In 1951 Jacobo Arbenz was elected president of Guatemala. He appropriated some unused land operated by the United Fruit Company and compensated the company. (1,2) That company then started a campaign to paint Arbenz as a tool of an international conspiracy and hired about 300 mercenaries who sabotaged oil supplies and trains. (3) In 1954 a CIA-orchestrated coup put him out of office and he left the country. During the next 40 years various regimes killed thousands of people.

In 1999 the Washington Post reported that an Historical Clarification Commission concluded that over 200,000 people had been killed during the civil war and that there had been 42,000 individual human rights violations, 29,000 of them fatal, 92% of which were committed by the army. The commission further reported that the U.S. government and the CIA had pressured the Guatemalan government into suppressing the guerilla movement by ruthless means. (4,5)

According to the Commission between 1981 and 1983 the military government of Guatemala – financed and supported by the U.S. government – destroyed some four hundred Mayan villages in a campaign of genocide. (4)
One of the documents made available to the commission was a 1966 memo from a U.S. State Department official, which described how a “safe house” was set up in the palace for use by Guatemalan security agents and their U.S. contacts. This was the headquarters for the Guatemalan “dirty war” against leftist insurgents and suspected allies. (2)


From 1957 to 1986 Haiti was ruled by Papa Doc Duvalier and later by his son. During that time their private terrorist force killed between 30,000 and 100,000 people. (1) Millions of dollars in CIA subsidies flowed into Haiti during that time, mainly to suppress popular movements, (2) although most American military aid to the country, according to William Blum, was covertly channeled through Israel.

Reportedly, governments after the second Duvalier reign were responsible for an even larger number of fatalities, and the influence on Haiti by the U.S., particularly through the CIA, has continued. The U.S. later forced out of the presidential office a black Catholic priest, Jean Bertrand Aristide, even though he was elected with 67% of the vote in the early 1990s. The wealthy white class in Haiti opposed him in this predominantly black nation, because of his social programs designed to help the poor and end corruption. (3) Later he returned to office, but that did not last long. He was forced by the U.S. to leave office and now lives in South Africa.


In the 1980s the CIA supported Battalion 316 in Honduras, which kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of its citizens. Torture equipment and manuals were provided by CIA Argentinean personnel who worked with U.S. agents in the training of the Hondurans. Approximately 400 people lost their lives. (1,2) This is another instance of torture in the world sponsored by the U.S. (3)

Battalion 316 used shock and suffocation devices in interrogations in the 1980s. Prisoners often were kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves. Declassified documents and other sources show that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy knew of numerous crimes, including murder and torture, yet continued to support Battalion 316 and collaborate with its leaders.” (4)

Honduras was a staging ground in the early 1980s for the Contras who were trying to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. John D. Negroponte, currently Deputy Secretary of State, was our embassador when our military aid to Honduras rose from $4 million to $77.4 million per year. Negroponte denies having had any knowledge of these atrocities during his tenure. However, his predecessor in that position, Jack R. Binns, had reported in 1981 that he was deeply concerned at increasing evidence of officially sponsored/sanctioned assassinations. (5)


In 1956 Hungary, a Soviet satellite nation, revolted against the Soviet Union. During the uprising broadcasts by the U.S. Radio Free Europe into Hungary sometimes took on an aggressive tone, encouraging the rebels to believe that Western support was imminent, and even giving tactical advice on how to fight the Soviets. Their hopes were raised then dashed by these broadcasts which cast an even darker shadow over the Hungarian tragedy.“ (1) The Hungarian and Soviet death toll was about 3,000 and the revolution was crushed. (2)


In 1965, in Indonesia, a coup replaced General Sukarno with General Suharto as leader. The U.S. played a role in that change of government. Robert Martens,a former officer in the U.S. embassy in Indonesia, described how U.S. diplomats and CIA officers provided up to 5,000 names to Indonesian Army death squads in 1965 and checked them off as they were killed or captured. Martens admitted that “I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.” (1,2,3) Estimates of the number of deaths range from 500,000 to 3 million. (4,5,6)
From 1993 to 1997 the U.S. provided Jakarta with almost $400 million in economic aid and sold tens of million of dollars of weaponry to that nation. U.S. Green Berets provided training for the Indonesia’s elite force which was responsible for many of atrocities in East Timor. (3)


Iran lost about 262,000 people in the war against Iraq from 1980 to 1988. (1) See Iraq for more information about that war.

On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy ship, the Vincennes, was operating withing Iranian waters providing military support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. During a battle against Iranian gunboats it fired two missiles at an Iranian Airbus, which was on a routine civilian flight. All 290 civilian on board were killed. (2,3)


A. The Iraq-Iran War lasted from 1980 to 1988 and during that time there were about 105,000 Iraqi deaths according to the Washington Post. (1,2)

According to Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, the U.S. provided the Iraqis with billions of dollars in credits and helped Iraq in other ways such as making sure that Iraq had military equipment including biological agents This surge of help for Iraq came as Iran seemed to be winning the war and was close to Basra. (1) The U.S. was not adverse to both countries weakening themselves as a result of the war, but it did not appear to want either side to win.

B: The U.S.-Iraq War and the Sanctions Against Iraq extended from 1990 to 2003.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and the U.S. responded by demanding that Iraq withdraw, and four days later the U.N. levied international sanctions.

Iraq had reason to believe that the U.S. would not object to its invasion of Kuwait, since U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had told Saddam Hussein that the U.S. had no position on the dispute that his country had with Kuwait. So the green light was given, but it seemed to be more of a trap.

As a part of the public relations strategy to energize the American public into supporting an attack against Iraq the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. falsely testified before Congress that Iraqi troops were pulling the plugs on incubators in Iraqi hospitals. (1) This contributed to a war frenzy in the U.S.

The U.S. air assault started on January 17, 1991 and it lasted for 42 days. On February 23 President H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. ground assault to begin. The invasion took place with much needless killing of Iraqi military personnel. Only about 150 American military personnel died compared to about 200,000 Iraqis. Some of the Iraqis were mercilessly killed on the Highway of Death and about 400 tons of depleted uranium were left in that nation by the U.S. (2,3)

Other deaths later were from delayed deaths due to wounds, civilians killed, those killed by effects of damage of the Iraqi water treatment facilities and other aspects of its damaged infrastructure and by the sanctions.

In 1995 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. reported that U.N sanctions against on Iraq had been responsible for the deaths of more than 560,000 children since 1990. (5)

Leslie Stahl on the TV Program 60 Minutes in 1996 mentioned to Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think is worth it.” (4)

In 1999 UNICEF reported that 5,000 children died each month as a result of the sanction and the War with the U.S. (6)

Richard Garfield later estimated that the more likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000 – double those of the previous decade. Garfield estimated that the numbers to be 350,000 through 2000 (based in part on result of another study). (7)

However, there are limitations to his study. His figures were not updated for the remaining three years of the sanctions. Also, two other somewhat vulnerable age groups were not studied: young children above the age of five and the elderly.

All of these reports were considerable indicators of massive numbers of deaths which the U.S. was aware of and which was a part of its strategy to cause enough pain and terror among Iraqis to cause them to revolt against their government.

C: Iraq-U.S. War started in 2003 and has not been concluded

Just as the end of the Cold War emboldened the U.S. to attack Iraq in 1991 so the attacks of September 11, 2001 laid the groundwork for the U.S. to launch the current war against Iraq. While in some other wars we learned much later about the lies that were used to deceive us, some of the deceptions that were used to get us into this war became known almost as soon as they were uttered. There were no weapons of mass destruction, we were not trying to promote democracy, we were not trying to save the Iraqi people from a dictator.

The total number of Iraqi deaths that are a result of our current Iraq against Iraq War is 654,000, of which 600,000 are attributed to acts of violence, according to Johns Hopkins researchers. (1,2)

Since these deaths are a result of the U.S. invasion, our leaders must accept responsibility for them.

Israeli-Palestinian War

About 100,000 to 200,000 Israelis and Palestinians, but mostly the latter, have been killed in the struggle between those two groups. The U.S. has been a strong supporter of Israel, providing billions of dollars in aid and supporting its possession of nuclear weapons. (1,2)

Korea, North and South

The Korean War started in 1950 when, according to the Truman administration, North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th. However, since then another explanation has emerged which maintains that the attack by North Korea came during a time of many border incursions by both sides. South Korea initiated most of the border clashes with North Korea beginning in 1948. The North Korea government claimed that by 1949 the South Korean army committed 2,617 armed incursions. It was a myth that the Soviet Union ordered North Korea to attack South Korea. (1,2)

The U.S. started its attack before a U.N. resolution was passed supporting our nation’s intervention, and our military forces added to the mayhem in the war by introducing the use of napalm. (1)

During the war the bulk of the deaths were South Koreans, North Koreans and Chinese. Four sources give deaths counts ranging from 1.8 to 4.5 million. (3,4,5,6) Another source gives a total of 4 million but does not identify to which nation they belonged. (7)

John H. Kim, a U.S. Army veteran and the Chair of the Korea Committee of Veterans for Peace, stated in an article that during the Korean War “the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy were directly involved in the killing of about three million civilians – both South and North Koreans – at many locations throughout Korea…It is reported that the U.S. dropped some 650,000 tons of bombs, including 43,000 tons of napalm bombs, during the Korean War.” It is presumed that this total does not include Chinese casualties.

Another source states a total of about 500,000 who were Koreans and presumably only military. (8,9)


From 1965 to 1973 during the Vietnam War the U.S. dropped over two million tons of bombs on Laos – more than was dropped in WWII by both sides. Over a quarter of the population became refugees. This was later called a “secret war,” since it occurred at the same time as the Vietnam War, but got little press. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Branfman make the only estimate that I am aware of , stating that hundreds of thousands died. This can be interpeted to mean that at least 200,000 died. (1,2,3)

U.S. military intervention in Laos actually began much earlier. A civil war started in the 1950s when the U.S. recruited a force of 40,000 Laotians to oppose the Pathet Lao, a leftist political party that ultimately took power in 1975.

Also See Vietnam


Between 8,000 and 12,000 Nepalese have died since a civil war broke out in 1996. The death rate, according to Foreign Policy in Focus, sharply increased with the arrival of almost 8,400 American M-16 submachine guns (950 rpm) and U.S. advisers. Nepal is 85 percent rural and badly in need of land reform. Not surprisingly 42 % of its people live below the poverty level. (1,2)

In 2002, after another civil war erupted, President George W. Bush pushed a bill through Congress authorizing $20 million in military aid to the Nepalese government. (3)


In 1981 the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza government in Nicaragua, (1) and until 1990 about 25,000 Nicaraguans were killed in an armed struggle between the Sandinista government and Contra rebels who were formed from the remnants of Somoza’s national government. The use of assassination manuals by the Contras surfaced in 1984. (2,3)

The U.S. supported the victorious government regime by providing covert military aid to the Contras (anti-communist guerillas) starting in November, 1981. But when Congress discovered that the CIA had supervised acts of sabotage in Nicaragua without notifying Congress, it passed the Boland Amendment in 1983 which prohibited the CIA, Defense Department and any other government agency from providing any further covert military assistance. (4)

But ways were found to get around this prohibition. The National Security Council, which was not explicitly covered by the law, raised private and foreign funds for the Contras. In addition, arms were sold to Iran and the proceeds were diverted from those sales to the Contras engaged in the insurgency against the Sandinista government. (5) Finally, the Sandinistas were voted out of office in 1990 by voters who thought that a change in leadership would placate the U.S., which was causing misery to Nicaragua’s citizenry by it support of the Contras.


In 1971 West Pakistan, an authoritarian state supported by the U.S., brutally invaded East Pakistan. The war ended after India, whose economy was staggering after admitting about 10 million refugees, invaded East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and defeated the West Pakistani forces. (1)

Millions of people died during that brutal struggle, referred to by some as genocide committed by West Pakistan. That country had long been an ally of the U.S., starting with $411 million provided to establish its armed forces which spent 80% of its budget on its military. $15 million in arms flowed into W. Pakistan during the war. (2,3,4)

Three sources estimate that 3 million people died and (5,2,6) one source estimates 1.5 million. (3)


In December, 1989 U.S. troops invaded Panama, ostensibly to arrest Manuel Noriega, that nation’s president. This was an example of the U.S. view that it is the master of the world and can arrest anyone it wants to. For a number of years before that he had worked for the CIA, but fell out of favor partially because he was not an opponent of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. (1) It has been estimated that between 500 and 4,000 people died. (2,3,4)

Paraguay: See South America: Operation Condor


The Philippines were under the control of the U.S. for over a hundred years. In about the last 50 to 60 years the U.S. has funded and otherwise helped various Philippine governments which sought to suppress the activities of groups working for the welfare of its people. In 1969 the Symington Committee in the U.S. Congress revealed how war material was sent there for a counter-insurgency campaign. U.S. Special Forces and Marines were active in some combat operations. The estimated number of persons that were executed and disappeared under President Fernando Marcos was over 100,000. (1,2)

South America: Operation Condor

This was a joint operation of 6 despotic South American governments (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay) to share information about their political opponents. An estimated 13,000 people were killed under this plan. (1)

It was established on November 25, 1975 in Chile by an act of the Interamerican Reunion on Military Intelligence. According to U.S. embassy political officer, John Tipton, the CIA and the Chilean Secret Police were working together, although the CIA did not set up the operation to make this collaboration work. Reportedly, it ended in 1983. (2)

On March 6, 2001 the New York Times reported the existence of a recently declassified State Department document revealing that the United States facilitated communications for Operation Condor. (3)


Since 1955, when it gained its independence, Sudan has been involved most of the time in a civil war. Until about 2003 approximately 2 million people had been killed. It not known if the death toll in Darfur is part of that total.

Human rights groups have complained that U.S. policies have helped to prolong the Sudanese civil war by supporting efforts to overthrow the central government in Khartoum. In 1999 U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with the leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) who said that she offered him food supplies if he would reject a peace plan sponsored by Egypt and Libya.

In 1978 the vastness of Sudan’s oil reservers was discovered and within two years it became the sixth largest recipient of U.S, military aid. It’s reasonable to assume that if the U.S. aid a government to come to power it will feel obligated to give the U.S. part of the oil pie.

A British group, Christian Aid, has accused foreign oil companies of complicity in the depopulation of villages. These companies – not American – receive government protection and in turn allow the government use of its airstrips and roads.

In August 1998 the U.S. bombed Khartoum, Sudan with 75 cruise míssiles. Our government said that the target was a chemical weapons factory owned by Osama bin Laden. Actually, bin Laden was no longer the owner, and the plant had been the sole supplier of pharmaceutical supplies for that poor nation. As a result of the bombing tens of thousands may have died because of the lack of medicines to treat malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases. The U.S. settled a lawsuit filed by the factory’s owner. (1,2)

Uruguay: See South America: Operation Condor


In Vietnam, under an agreement several decades ago, there was supposed to be an election for a unified North and South Vietnam. The U.S. opposed this and supported the Diem government in South Vietnam. In August, 1964 the CIA and others helped fabricate a phony Vietnamese attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and this was used as a pretext for greater U.S. involvement in Vietnam. (1)

During that war an American assassination operation,called Operation Phoenix, terrorized the South Vietnamese people, and during the war American troops were responsible in 1968 for the mass slaughter of the people in the village of My Lai.

According to a Vietnamese government statement in 1995 the number of deaths of civilians and military personnel during the Vietnam War was 5.1 million. (2)

Since deaths in Cambodia and Laos were about 2.7 million (See Cambodia and Laos) the estimated total for the Vietnam War is 7.8 million.

The Virtual Truth Commission provides a total for the war of 5 million, (3) and Robert McNamara, former Secretary Defense, according to the New York Times Magazine says that the number of Vietnamese dead is 3.4 million. (4,5)


Yugoslavia was a socialist federation of several republics. Since it refused to be closely tied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it gained some suport from the U.S. But when the Soviet Union dissolved, Yugoslavia’s usefulness to the U.S. ended, and the U.S and Germany worked to convert its socialist economy to a capitalist one by a process primarily of dividing and conquering. There were ethnic and religious differences between various parts of Yugoslavia which were manipulated by the U.S. to cause several wars which resulted in the dissolution of that country.

From the early 1990s until now Yugoslavia split into several independent nations whose lowered income, along with CIA connivance, has made it a pawn in the hands of capitalist countries. (1) The dissolution of Yugoslavia was caused primarily by the U.S. (2)

Here are estimates of some, if not all, of the internal wars in Yugoslavia. All wars: 107,000; (3,4)

Bosnia and Krajina: 250,000; (5) Bosnia: 20,000 to 30,000; (5) Croatia: 15,000; (6) and

Kosovo: 500 to 5,000. (7)



1.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.135.

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism

3.Soviet War in Afghanistan

4.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.76

5.U.S Involvement in Afghanistan, Wikipedia Afghanistan)

6.The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, Posted at 15 October 2001,

7.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.5

8.Unknown News,


1.Howard W. French “From Old Files, a New Story of the U.S. Role in the Angolan War” New York Times 3/31/02

2.Angolan Update, American Friends Service Committee FS, 11/1/99 flyer.

3.Norman Solomon, War Made Easy, (John Wiley & Sons, 2005) p. 82-83.

4.Lance Selfa, U.S. Imperialism, A Century of Slaughter, International Socialist Review Issue 7, Spring 1999 (as appears in Third world Traveler www.

5. Jeffress Ramsay, Africa , (Dushkin/McGraw Hill Guilford Connecticut), 1997, p. 144-145.

6.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.54.

Argentina : See South America: Operation Condor


1. Phil Gunson, Guardian, 5/6/02, /article/0,4273,41-07884,00.html

2.Jerry Meldon, Return of Bolilvia’s Drug – Stained Dictator, Consortium,

Brazil See South America: Operation Condor


1.Virtual Truth Commissiion .

2.David Model, President Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and the Bombing of Cambodia excerpted from the book Lying for Empire How to Commit War Crimes With A Straight Face, Common Courage Press, 2005, paper

3.Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc., http//


1.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 151-152 .

2.Richard Keeble, Crimes Against Humanity in Chad, Znet/Activism 12/4/06


1.Parenti, Michael, The Sword and the Dollar (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1989) p. 56.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 142-143.

3.Moreorless: Heroes and Killers of the 20th Century, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte,

4.Associated Press,Pincohet on 91st Birthday, Takes Responsibility for Regimes’s Abuses, Dayton Daily News 11/26/06

5.Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2000), p. 18.

China: See Korea


1.Chronology of American State Terrorism, p.2

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 163.

3.Millions Killed by Imperialism Washington Post May 6, 2002)

4.Gabriella Gamini, CIA Set Up Death Squads in Colombia Times Newspapers Limited, Dec. 5, 1996,

5.Virtual Truth Commission, 1991

Human Rights Watch Report: Colombia’s Killer Networks--The Military-Paramilitary Partnership).


1.St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture – on Bay of Pigs Invasion


Democratic Republic of Congo (Formerly Zaire)

1.F. Jeffress Ramsey, Africa (Guilford Connecticut, 1997), p. 85

2. Anup Shaw The Democratic Republic of Congo, 10/31/2003)

3.Kevin Whitelaw, A Killing in Congo, U. S. News and World Report

4.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p 158-159.

5.Ibid.,p. 260

6.Ibid.,p. 259


8.David Pickering, “World War in Africa, 6/26/02,

9.William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix, Deadly Legacy; U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War, Arms Trade Resource Center, January , 2000

Dominican Republic

1.Norman Solomon, (untitled) Baltimore Sun April 26, 2005
Intervention Spin Cycle


3.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 175.

4.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.26-27.

East Timor

1.Virtual Truth Commission,

2.Matthew Jardine, Unraveling Indonesia, Nonviolent Activist, 1997)

3.Chronology of American State Terrorism

4.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 197.

5.US trained butchers of Timor, The Guardian, London. Cited by The Drudge Report, September 19, 1999.

El Salvador

1.Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003, (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 152-153.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 54-55.

3.El Salvador, Wikipedia

4.Virtual Truth Commissiion


1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 66-67.

2.Stephen Zunes, The U.S. Invasion of Grenada, .


1.Virtual Truth Commissiion


3.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.2-13.

4.Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003 (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 162.

5.Douglas Farah, Papers Show U.S. Role in Guatemalan Abuses, Washington Post Foreign Service, March 11, 1999, A 26


1.Francois Duvalier,

2.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p 87.

3.William Blum, Haiti 1986-1994: Who Will Rid Me of This Turbulent Priest,


1.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 55.

2.Reports by Country: Honduras, Virtual Truth Commission

3.James A. Lucas, Torture Gets The Silence Treatment, Countercurrents, July 26, 2004.

4.Gary Cohn and Ginger Thompson, Unearthed: Fatal Secrets, Baltimore Sun, reprint of a series that appeared June 11-18, 1995 in Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, School of Assassins, p. 46 Orbis Books 2001.

5.Michael Dobbs, Negroponte’s Time in Honduras at Issue, Washington Post, March 21, 2005


1.Edited by Malcolm Byrne, The 1956 Hungarian Revoluiton: A history in Documents November 4, 2002

2.Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia,


1.Virtual Truth Commission

2.Editorial, Indonesia’s Killers, The Nation, March 30, 1998.

3.Matthew Jardine, Indonesia Unraveling, Non Violent Activist Sept–Oct, 1997 (Amnesty) 2/7/07.

4.Sison, Jose Maria, Reflections on the 1965 Massacre in Indonesia, p. 5.;

5.Annie Pohlman, Women and the Indonesian Killings of 1965-1966: Gender Variables and Possible Direction for Research, p.4,

6.Peter Dale Scott, The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967, Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985, pages 239-264.

7.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.30.


1.Geoff Simons, Iraq from Sumer to Saddam, 1996, St. Martins Press, NY p. 317.

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism

3.BBC 1988: US Warship Shoots Down Iranian Airliner )


Iran-Iraq War

1.Michael Dobbs, U.S. Had Key role in Iraq Buildup, Washington Post December 30, 2002, p A01

2.Global Security.Org , Iran Iraq War (1980-1980)

U.S. Iraq War and Sanctions

1.Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time (New York, Thunder’s Mouth), 1994, p.31-32

2.Ibid., p. 52-54

3.Ibid., p. 43

4.Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, (South End Press Cambridge MA 2000). p. 175.

5.Food and Agricultural Organizaiton, The Children are Dying, 1995 World View Forum, Internationa Action Center, International Relief Association, p. 78

6.Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, South End Press Cambridge MA 2000. p. 61.

7.David Cortright, A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions December 3, 2001, The Nation.

U.S-Iraq War 2003-?

1.Jonathan Bor 654,000 Deaths Tied to Iraq War Baltimore Sun , October 11,2006


Israeli-Palestinian War

1.Post-1967 Palestinian & Israeli Deaths from Occupation & Violence May 16, 2006

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism


1.James I. Matray Revisiting Korea: Exposing Myths of the Forgotten War, Korean War Teachers Conference: The Korean War, February 9, 2001 http://www.truman/

2.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 46

3.Kanako Tokuno, Chinese Winter Offensive in Korean War – the Debacle of American Strategy, ICE Case Studies Number 186, May, 2006

4.John G. Stroessinger, Why Nations go to War, (New York; St. Martin’s Press), p. 99)

5.Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, as reported in

6.Exploring the Environment: Korean Enigma

7.S. Brian Wilson, Who are the Real Terrorists? Virtual Truth Commisson

8.Korean War Casualty Statistics www.century

9.S. Brian Wilson, Documenting U.S. War Crimes in North Korea (Veterans for Peace Newsletter) Spring, 2002)


1.William Blum Rogue State (Maine, Common Cause Press) p. 136

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism

3.Fred Branfman, War Crimes in Indochina and our Troubled National Soul


1.Conn Hallinan, Nepal & the Bush Administration: Into Thin Air, February 3, 2004

2.Human Rights Watch, Nepal’s Civil War: the Conflict Resumes, March 2006 )

3.Wayne Madsen, Possible CIA Hand in the Murder of the Nepal Royal Family, India Independent Media Center, September 25, 2001


1.Virtual Truth Commission

2.Timeline Nicaragua

3.Chronology of American State Terrorism,

4.William Blum, Nicaragua 1981-1990 Destabilization in Slow Motion

5.Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia,


1.John G. Stoessinger, Why Nations Go to War, (New York: St. Martin’s Press), 1974 pp 157-172.

2.Asad Ismi, A U.S. – Financed Military Dictatorship, The CCPA Monitor, June 2002, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

3.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.123, 124.

4.Arjum Niaz ,When America Look the Other Way by,

5.Leo Kuper, Genocide (Yale University Press, 1981), p. 79.

6.Bangladesh Liberation War , Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia


1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits, (Odonian Press 1998) p. 83.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.154.

3.U.S. Military Charged with Mass Murder, The Winds 9/96,

4.Mark Zepezauer, CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.83.

Paraguay See South America: Operation Condor


Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42008
    • View Profile
Sedition, Subversion, Sabotage: A Long-War Strategy for the Left
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2016, 03:08:50 AM »

Sedition, Subversion, Sabotage: A Long-War Strategy for the Left
Author Rowan Wolf Date January 29, 2016

=By= William T. Hathaway

“The revolutionary track is not a pleasant path of action, and those whose first priority is pleasantness are repelled by it. That’s why reformism is so popular: it’s an illusion that appeals to cowards. But when their backs are to the wall, which will inevitably happen, even they will fight back…”

CC BY by JefferyTurner

“For subversion we could, for example, focus on institutions and rituals that instill ‘patriotism’ (really loyalty to the corporate plutocratic status quo and its deep state and not the American nation) in young people

As the viciousness of capitalism engulfs ever more of us, our yearnings for change are approaching desperation. The system’s current [FIGUREHEAD] leader, Barack Obama, has shown us that the only change we can believe in is what we ourselves create.

To do that, we need to know what is possible in our times and what isn’t. The bitter probability is that none of us will see a society in which we’d actually want to live. Even the youngest of us will most likely have to endure an increasingly unpleasant form of capitalism. Despite its recurring crises, this system is still too strong, too adaptable, and has too many supporters in all classes for it to be overthrown any time soon. We’re probably not going to be the ones to create a new society.

But we can now lay the groundwork for that, first by exposing the hoax that liberal reforms will lead to basic changes. People need to see that the purpose of liberalism is to defuse discontent with promises of the future and thus prevent mass opposition from coalescing. It diverts potentially revolutionary energy into superficial dead ends. Bernie Sanders’ “long game” campaign is really only a game similar to that of his reformist predecessor, Dennis Kucinich, designed to keep us in the “big tent” of the Democratic Party. Capitalism, although resilient, is willing to change only in ways that shore it up, so before anything truly different can be built, we have to bring it down.

What we are experiencing now is the long war the ruling elite is fighting to maintain its grip on the world. The current phase began with the collapse of Keynesian capitalism, which flourished from the 1950s into the ’70s, when the primary consumer market was in the capitalist headquarter countries of North America and Western Europe. Corporations were able to stimulate domestic consumption and quell worker discontent there by acceding to labor’s demands for better wages and conditions. That led to a 30-year bubble of improvement for unionized workers, predominantly male and white, that began to collapse in the ’80s as capitalism gradually became globalized.

Then to maintain dominance Western corporations had to reduce labor costs in order to compete against emerging competition in low-wage countries such as China, India, Russia, and Brazil. Also international consumer markets became more important than the home market, but reaching them required low prices. So capitalist leaders reversed hard-won reforms, forcing paychecks and working conditions in the West down. And they tried to keep control of crucial Mideast oil resources by tightening their neo-imperialist hold on that region: overthrowing governments, installing dictators, undermining economies.
“We can now lay the groundwork for that, first by exposing the hoax that liberal reforms will lead to basic changes. People need to see that the purpose of liberalism is to defuse discontent with promises of the future and thus prevent mass opposition from coalescing..”

This aggression generated armed resistance: jihadist attacks against the West. Our response has been the current holy war against terror. All of this horrible suffering is just one campaign in capitalism’s long war for hegemony. Any dominator system — including capitalism, patriarchy, and religious fundamentalism — generates violence.

Since we are all products of such systems, the path out of them will include conflict and strife. Insisting on only peaceful tactics and ruling out armed self defense against a ruling elite that has repeatedly slaughtered millions of people is naïve, actually a way of preventing basic change. The pacifist idealism so prevalent among the petty-bourgeoisie conceals their class interest: no revolution, just reform. But until capitalism and its military are collapsing, it would be suicidal to attack them directly with force.

What we can do now as radicals is weaken capitalism and build organizations that will pass our knowledge and experience on to future generations. If we do that well enough, our great grandchildren (not really so far away) can lead a revolution. If we don’t do it, our descendants will remain corporate chattel.

Our generational assignment — should we decide to accept it — is sedition, subversion, sabotage: a program on which socialists and anarchists can work together.

Sedition — advocating or attempting the overthrow of the government — is illegal only if it calls for or uses violence. Our most important job — educating and organizing people around a revolutionary program — is legal sedition, as is much of our writing here on The Greanville Post and Uncommon Thought.

For subversion we could, for example, focus on institutions and rituals that instill “patriotism” (really loyalty to the corporate plutocratic status quo and its deep state and not the American nation) in young people. School spirit, scouts, competitive team sports, and pledges of allegiance all create in children an emotional bond to larger social units of school, city, and nation.

Kids are indoctrinated to feel these are extensions of their family and to respect and fear the authorities as they would their parents, more specifically their fathers, because this is a patriarchal chain being forged. It causes us even as adults to react to criticism of the country as an attack on our family. This hurts our feelings on a deep level, so we reject it, convinced it can’t be true. It’s too threatening to us.

This linkage is also the basis of the all-American trick of substituting personal emotion for political thought.

Breaking this emotional identification is crucial to reducing the widespread support this system still enjoys. Whatever we can do to show how ridiculous these institutions and rituals are will help undermine them.

For instance, teachers could refuse to lead the pledge of allegiance, or they could follow it with historical facts that would cause the students to question their indoctrination. When a teacher gets fired, the resulting legal battle can taint the whole sacrosanct ritual and challenge the way history is taught in the schools.

Subversive parenting means raising children who won’t go along with the dominant culture and have the skills to live outside it as much as possible.

Much feminist activism is profoundly subversive. That’s why it’s opposed so vehemently by many women as well as men.

Spiritually, whatever undercuts the concept of God as daddy in the sky will help break down patriarchal conditioning and free us for new visions of the Divine.

Sabotage is more problematic. It calls to mind bombing and shooting, which at this point won’t achieve anything worthwhile. But sabotage doesn’t need to harm living creatures; systems can be obstructed in many ways, which I can’t discuss more specifically because of the police state under which we currently live. They are described in my book Radical Peace (

We’ll be most successful by using both legal and illegal tactics but keeping the two forms separate. Illegal direct action is sometimes necessary to impair the system, impede its functioning, break it in a few places, open up points of vulnerability for coming generations to exploit. This doesn’t require finely nuanced theory or total agreement on ideology, just a recognition of the overriding necessity of weakening this monster, of reducing its economic and military power. It does require secrecy, though, so it’s best done individually with no one else knowing.

As groups we should do only legal resistance. Since we have to assume we are infiltrated and our communications are monitored, illegal acts must be done alone or in small cells without links to the group. Security is essential. Police may have the identity of everyone in the group, but if members are arrested and interrogated, their knowledge will be very limited. The principles of leaderless resistance ( provide the most effective defense for militants.

Using these tactics, we can slow down this behemoth, curtail its expansion, make it a less effective murderer. The government will of course try to crush this resistance. But that very response can eventually seal its doom because it increases polarization and sparks more outrage. People will see the rich have not only taken away our possibility for a decent life, but now they are taking away our freedom. Then the masses revolt.

When the police and military have to attack their own people, their loyalty begins to waver. They realize they too are oppressed workers, and they start disobeying their masters. The power structure grinds down, falters, and falls. At this point the revolution can succeed, hopefully with a minimum of violence. Then the people of that generation, with the knowledge and experience we have passed on to them, can build a new society.

This is not a pleasant path of action, and those whose first priority is pleasantness are repelled by it. That’s why reformism is so popular: it’s an illusion that appeals to cowards. But when their backs are to the wall, which will inevitably happen, even they will fight back. And there’s something glorious in that revolutionary fight even in its present stage — much more vivid and worthwhile than the life of a lackey.

William T. Hathaway is an adjunct professor of American studies at the University of Oldenburg in Germany. His new book, Lila, the Revolutionary, is a fable for adults about an eight-year-old Indian girl who sparks a world revolution for social justice. Chapters are posted on A selection of his writing is available at
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
Re: Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2016, 05:49:22 PM »
Excellent advice, but the collapse is going to happen MUCH sooner than your grandchildren's era. 

The financial convulsions we are seeing now can all be tied back to Peak Affordable Oil.  World oil consumption was growing at 1.6% per year for the 20 years prior to 2004, with the price below $28 /b. From 2005 onwards, increased consumption has only been possible by extracting increasingly expensive oil, which business cannot cope with long term.  Corporations wouldn't be borrowing to buy back their own shares if they could think of something profitable to do with the money.  Oil majors wouldn't be in debt - think of it, oil producers in debt!

There is only the question of how many boom-bust cycles we can go through before the system collapses. Currently we are in the deflation phase of the cycle.  If they can organise another stimulus package to get things growing again, (another "boom" period like 2011) oil will have to cost $150+ /b and then hyperinflation is the risk, and there would certainly be another depression after that.

The only option that hasn't been tried is for ALL the major players to form a new cartel that agrees to keep the most expensive to produce oil off the world market till it's needed, and what are the chances of that happening? - nil.

US11,644 Kbpd
Iraq 3,285

The State is a body of armed men

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42008
    • View Profile
Re: Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2016, 06:59:57 PM »
Excellent advice, but the collapse is going to happen MUCH sooner than your grandchildren's era. 


Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42008
    • View Profile
The Russian Phoenix: Hope or Illusion?
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2016, 04:53:19 PM »
This is a LOOONG one...




The Russian Phoenix: Hope or Illusion?

horiz grey line

=By= Moti Nissami

Zinoviev self portrait

Alexander Zinoviev’s Self-Portrait: Thinking is Painful: “Striving after the painful truth has become the fate of exceptionally rare loners.”

Russia and the USA: Criminal Gangs Competing for Turf?

Apart from the mainstream portrayal of Russia as a ruthless expansionist dictatorship (a portrayal too ludicrous to merit attention here), most awake commentators fall into one of two camps.

Members of the first camp believe that the realization of a better world depends on Russia’s success in its efforts to reform itself, maintain its independence, and contain American ambitions.

Members of the second camp believe that the Russo-American confrontation is of no significance to the long-term future of humanity either because that conflict is being engineered by the people who control both nations, or because both sides to the conflict are “criminal networks that use brutality and violence to enforce their control over given areas and to terrorize others.”

Neither camp, to my knowledge, provides a fact-based bird’s-eye view of this topic. The present article attempts to close this gap, thereby enabling readers to form their own opinion. The article concludes with my own tentative attempt to resolve the dispute between these two camps, arguing that both are partially in the right—and partially in the wrong. A conversation on the same topic is available here.

Two opposing views of the Russo/American Conflict

I’ve been studying Russian history and culture most of my life, but never as avidly as now. My main reason for this more intense preoccupation is similar to that of Andre Vltchek’s:

“When I visit a barbershop in Beirut or Amman, and am asked ‘where are you from?’ (It used to be a painfully confusing and complex question to answer, just a few years ago), I now simply reply: “Russia,” and people come and hug me and say, ‘Thank you.’

“It is not because Russia is perfect. It is not perfect–as no country on Earth could or should be. But it is because it is standing once more against the Empire, and the Empire has brought so many horrors, so much humiliation, to so many people; to billions of people around the world . . . and to them, to so many of them, anyone who is standing against the Empire, is a hero. This I heard recently, first hand, from people in Eritrea, China, Russia, Palestine, Ecuador, Cuba, Venezuela, and South Africa, to name just a few places.”

Such sentiments are shared, at least in part, by many other commentators, including F. William Engdahl, the “Saker,” and Pepe Escobar.

In sharp contrast to such favorable views of Russia, there are those who compare the Russo-American struggle to the fake Democratic-Republican contest of American politics.

James Corbett:

“We have been conditioned our entire lives to expect that anything that opposes a demonstrably evil entity must itself be good. . . . But when it comes to the machinations of global geopolitics, this is completely the wrong lens through which to understand what is happening. Much more to the point would be the metaphor of rival gangs competing for territory. It is not the case that the Bloods are the ‘good guys’ and the Crips the ‘bad guys’ or vice versa; they are both criminal networks that use brutality and violence to enforce their control over given areas and to terrorize others.

“Similarly, if we understand that rivalries between various international organizations (to the extent that they exist at all) are really only battles between gangsters for control over the global turf, we can more clearly understand that it is not a question of choosing sides in the struggle, but opposing the very ideologies of centralized, hierarchical control that make these institutions possible.

“If what we are combating is, as I posit, essentially two (or more) gangs competing for turf, then it is self-evident that we gain nothing from supporting one gang over another other than the vague hope that the other gang will treat us more kindly.

“The real solution to centralized, hierarchical international institutions created by and for the interests of the oligarchical elite are decentralized, non-hierarchical relations created by and for the grassroots.” (See also Sibel Edmonds).

Brandon Smith goes even farther, claiming that both criminal networks are controlled by a higher-level criminal network of bankers. These bankers are engineering a potentially deadly conflict between their two (or three, if one includes China) networks, in order to enslave humanity. Thus, Smith is plausibly perplexed by people who are

NaderOn2Parties“so awake and aware of the false left/right paradigm while remaining astonishingly naïve and short sighted when it comes to the false East/West paradigm. There are no “sides” in any modern conflict, only proxies fighting on a global chessboard controlled by the same elitist interests. . . . War is meant to forcefully change the “inertia” of civilization, and thus, forcefully change the direction of civilization in a manner that benefits the engineers of the conflict. . . .”

Elsewhere, Smith says:

“Russia and the U.S. are nothing but false champions dueling in a fake gladiator match paid for by the IMF. The most frightening aspect of the false paradigm between East and West is the potential it creates for the co-option of liberty proponents here in America. . . . .There is no nation out there in the ether of central banking that is going to help us. The sooner we come to terms with the reality that we are on our own, the stronger we will be when the fight begins.”

Such conflicting views (e.g., Vitchek vs. Corbett) raise two sets of questions.

First, is the USA controlled by a criminal gang? The answer, as we shortly illustrate and as anyone thinking for herself can immediately see, is a resounding YES.

Second, should we, the people who believe in environmental stewardship, social justice, peace, spirituality, common decencies, and freedom, throw our support behind Russia, or should we treat the current Russo-American conflict as nothing more than either a larger-scale turf war between criminal outfits or perhaps a phony fight between bankers’ marionettes? Should we look to Russia and ourselves to solve the world’s problems, or only to ourselves?

The bulk of this article attempts to address this second, complex, set of questions. The answer, lamentably but unavoidably, is multifaceted, long, and ambivalent. If reading such an exposition requires more time or patience than you have, you might wish to only read the last two sections (“the balance sheet” and “the Russian Phoenix: Hope or Illusion?”).

Alternatively, you might wish to click on the link below and listen to a conversation on the same topic at Jeff J. Brown’s China Rising.

The USA is Controlled by a Criminal Gang

The question is, if they [American government] would do this . . . if they would feed radioactive oatmeal to helpless children and lie to them and their parents about it for years . . . well gee, is there anything they wouldn’t do?– Melissa Dykes, 2016

“The US government is the most complete criminal organization in human history.”—Paul Craig Roberts (senior official in the Reagan Administration), 2016

“We live on a planet well able to provide a decent life for every soul on it, which is all ninety-nine of a hundred human beings ask.  Why in the world can’t we have it?” –Jack Finney, 1970

America is controlled by a criminal gang whose ultimate goal is, apparently, to empower and enrich itself while impoverishing and enslaving everyone else. Here are a few typical examples showing that American policies at home and abroad are exploitative, self-destructive, and utterly devoid of morality:

1. The USA is secure from foreign conquests—and yet it spends over $1,000,000,000,000 on the monstrosity of conquest (the official number, which is roughly half that figure, is a blatant lie). That is, the USA alone spends more on wars of aggression than all the nations of the world combined spend on attacking others or defending themselves! The USA likewise has one of the most corrupt war procurements establishments in the world, and a collection of overseas military garrisons “unprecedented in history.” This rarely stated attempt to rule the world by force is clearly a crime against humanity, for it causes millions of deaths, billions of partially fulfilled lives, and environmental destruction.

The other side of this massive gangsterism is opportunity costs. Buckminster Fuller, for example, conclusively showed that humanity could “take care of everybody on Earth at a higher standard of living than any have ever known” by merely shifting less than half of the military budget to such things as food, education, and shelter.


“Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.”—One Tin Soldier

Syria provides one heart-rending example of America’s psychopathic strategy of “devouring the world, one country at a time.” Since economic blackmail and assassinations failed to shake Syria from its independent path, America, relying on a few of its viciously theocratic allies in the Middle East, trained, supplied, funded, and unleashed upon Syria a barbarian horde of mercenaries.

This was preceded by decades-long, well-funded, indoctrination of these would-be mercenaries with Wahhabism—an ideology that has little to do with genuine Islam and everything to do with the Houses of Rothschild’s, Rockefeller’s, and Saud’s dictatorial and imperial aspirations. Against all odds, the Syrians are valiantly resisting, and so far they have not paid the awful price paid by such victims of America’s imperialist designs as Indonesia, Mexico, Iraq, or Libya.

Beheading of Syrian Christian from Maaloula

Since 2011, America’s colonial war in Syria has been carried out in part in cooperation with such human rights “guardians” as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and an assortment of genocidal zombies. That war led to the death of some 2% of the population, the wounding of a few more percent, displacement of 50%, and irreversible traumas to 99%.

As in Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, and scores of other countries, this genocide involves an outright rejection of democracy:

“Such are the West’s ‘democratic’ allies. They refuse to allow what Assad and Putin have been insisting upon: a Syrian Presidential election that will be internationally monitored, and not concluded unless and until the international monitors announce that the results were not produced by fraud.

The reason that the West refuses a democratic determination of the matter is that even the polling that has been done in Syria by Western polling firms consistently shows that Assad would win any democratic election in Syria overwhelmingly.

And the reason Assad would win is obvious: the U.S fostered this war at least from the moment that Barack Obama became America’s President, and most Syrians blame the U.S. and ISIS, not Assad, for their misery. And so, they loathe America. They know that America leads this invasion, from behind the scenes.”


What the Invisible Government did to Syria in 4 years.

Multiply this atrocity a thousand times, with variations, and you get the picture. Genocide, deceit, hypocrisy, lawlessness, exploitation, fascism, and heartlessness lie at the core of America’s overseas behavior.

From the colonization of America itself, to slavery, to Mexico, Philippines, Nicaragua, Vietnam, twice-conquered Germany, twice-nuked Japan, Indonesia, Southern Cone, Honduras, Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine—since 1694 one rule defines British and American foreign policy: “and this rule is that there are no rules.”

3. The vicious brilliance of America’s rulers at times defies belief. Thanks to bribes, assassinations, the new Gladio conspiracy, extensive wiretapping and blackmail of who’s who in Europe, economic warfare (e.g., the recent FIFA “scandal,” the VW “scandal,” following an earlier Toyota “scandal”), and control of the banks, corporations, media, and intelligence services of Western and central Europe, even that once-independent half-continent is now a submissive colony of the USA. In the words of one historian, “the level of abjection passes belief.”


“The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefiting the poor. But what happens instead is that, when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger—Nothing ever comes out for the poor.”— Pope Francis

4. Sadly, owing in part to the 1990s disastrous collapse of the USSR, America’s real rulers accelerated their war against their own people, again playing by their favorite “anything goes” rule.

They have acquired vastly more power and riches, while relegating the American Constitution into a meaningless piece of paper, applied the lessons they have learned from the Gladio Conspiracy to their contrived war on terror, assassinated or brutally tortured their real and imaginary opponents, stole so much from so many to the point that America’s 20 wealthiest people now own more wealth than the bottom half of the American population combined, neglected America’s infrastructure, elevated self-serving mendacity to an art form, conducted a phony war on drugs, used these very drugs and an utterly broken justice system to turn the USA into an incarceration nation in which jailers enjoy a de facto license to kill, destroyed American industry, and converted a once-rich country to the “most bankrupt nation in history.”

5. As a final example, take Michigan. Universal sunshine bribery of federal officials led to the abolition of tariffs on the imports of vehicles into the USA, thus enabling Michigan’s car manufacturers to move their factories overseas. This industrial migration in turn caused massive unemployment and underemployment in Michigan. To prevent violent uprisings, besides controlling the mainstream churches, schools, and media, the Invisible Government deliberately initiated and sustained a prescription and illegal drugs dependence epidemic.

One must live for a while in Motown—once the richest city in the Union—to really assimilate its decline. Through no fault of their own, countless Detroiters have been reduced to welfare, homelessness, hopelessness, or extreme poverty. In winter, one may see people standing outdoors, staying warm by huddling around a pile of burning tires. And, as in countries like Greece, the bankers even let go of the pretense of democracy—Detroit is administered by criminal poverty enforcers indirectly nominated by the bankers.

The mandate of these enforcers is simple: Hand everything of value to their bosses and their cronies, and rob the people of the little dignity and possessions they might have left. It’s a crass class war, a textbook example of the economic hit man strategy.

MichiganLicensePlateWater, a basic human right, provides one macabre example of the bankers’ shock doctrine. As part of the austerity regime, thousands of people who cannot afford to pay for their water—including Detroiters living within sight of the mighty Detroit River—must do without running water in their homes.

But those 9,000 and counting Detroiters are lucky. In Flint, a sister city to the north which suffered an almost identical fate of job losses and induced helplessness, the class war has led to the deliberate poisoning of the majority.

And no, we are not talking here about the treacherous addition of fluoride to the drinking water of middle-class and poor Americans, where we only need mention in passing that fluoride is a waste product that does not prevent tooth decay but does cause “bone cancer in boys, bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, hip fractures and lower IQ in children.” In Flint, the bankers resorted to an additional, older, trick of biological warfare. That trick is lead, as in Arsenic and Old Lead.

In April 2014, the austerity enforcer switched Flint’s water supply from the moderately-unsafe Detroit water system to the industrial cesspool otherwise known as the “Flint River.” Besides the unhealthy witch’s brew imbibed by the disempowered, unsuspecting, televised, and fluoridized poor inhabitants of Flint, this decision indirectly caused the “doubling or even tripling” of lead levels in children. Both the governor of the state and the EPA (Environmental Plundering Agency) were fully aware of the problem in advance, but felt that it was worth harming and dumbing down tens of thousands to save $100 a day.

In reality, the actions of these agents of the Invisible Government have little to do with saving $36,500 a year—and everything to do with this:

“In five years, these kids are going to have problems with special education. They’re going to have cognition problems. Seven to 10 years, they’re going to have behavioral problems.”

These youngsters might, in other words, make obedient welfare recipients, inmates of “schools” and prisons, McDonald dishwashers, drug addicts—but pathetic revolutionaries.

If you have any doubts that the real goal is poisoning children, not saving a miserly $36,500 a year, consider this. That same criminal Michigan “governor” behind the Detroit and Flint water warfare, gave “away billions of dollars in tax credits to major corporations and blown a huge hole in his budget” while simultaneously squeezing additional $900 million from average Michiganders.


One can go on forever wading through the sewer that still calls itself the American government. Everywhere and always, there are lies, propaganda, dumbing down, corruption, theft, exploitation, poisoning, brutalization, and vicious class warfare.

Thankfully, in this article we have other sturgeon to fry and will merely sum the above random sampler with the following words: As far as the USA and the West are concerned, James Corbett hit the nail on the head: The American government is a criminal network.

But Corbett sees no fundamental distinction between America and Russia. Hence the question: Is the Russian Federation a criminal network too?

Background Information: The Russian Catastroika

“Will we continue looting and destroying Russia until nothing is left?”–Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 2000.

Before evaluating Russia, we need to look back at some of the horrors visited on the Russian people by America’s rulers and their handpicked Russian quislings.

In the 1990s, America’s de facto occupation of Russia sank that once-powerful country into chaos, poverty, criminality, corruption, assassinations, organized crime activities, and social discord. Washington and its quislings were running—and ruining—the country, controlling every aspect of life, including mainstream information sources. For instance, in 1993 Yeltsin attacked the Russian parliament with tanks for daring to protect the interests of the Russian people, and in 1998 most Russian banks went bankrupt.

Here is how one historian described the aftermath of the Soviet collapse in just one satellite country:

“Today Romania is a dumping ground for foreign goods. In the last 20 years, national industry has completely disappeared, and strategic sectors have been sold to foreign companies. Salaries have been cut back, unemployment is rising, drugs and prostitution are spreading. Today Romanians consider December 1989 not as a victory of democracy over dictatorship but as a tragedy and a mistake.”

Washington also revved up its preparations for further disintegrating the Russian Federation, engineering rebellions inside that Federation itself. Washington also broke a promise not to expand NATO to previous members of the Warsaw Pact, and encroached on the very borders of the Russian Federation.

Much of this changed for the better when Putin assumed the presidency.

Does Russia Provide a Meaningful Alternative to America’s Invisible Government?

“[The men of the Invisible Government] would continue to grow in strength, until they had the whole silly world, the whole credulous world, the whole ingenuous world, in their hands. Anyone who would challenge them, attempt to expose them, show them unconcealed and naked, would be murdered, laughed at, called mad, ignored, or denounced as a fantasy-weaver.”—Taylor Caldwell, 1972 (Captains and the Kings)

To approach this topic, we must look at the record of the Russian government from a variety of angles.

I. The Russian Phoenix Rises Again: 2000-2015


Did Boris Yeltsin deliberately save Russia from the Invisible Government? Shown here: “Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin at the ceremony marking Putin’s inauguration as president in May 2000.” (source)


On his deathbed, Yeltsin must have realized the extent of his and Gorbachev’s folly: “Take care of Russia” he told Putin.

Putin obliged, starting by “patiently nursing the collapsed Russian economy back to health from 1999 to 2007,” ushering (according to his presstitute enemies), “a period of unprecedented prosperity.”

Here are a few examples of the remarkable economic and social transformation of Russia in the last 15 years:

The percentage of people living below the poverty line went from 29%, in 2000, when Putin became President and Washington’s power over Moscow’s diminished, to 11% by 2013.

By October 2015, the Russian government was “finalizing a bill which will give an opportunity to every Russian citizen to obtain one hectare of land, or a maximum of five hectares for a family of five, in the Russian Far East for free.”

Homicides declined from 19 per 100,000 in 2004 to 9 in 2012 (but they are still about twice the American rate of 5.2 and 18 times the Swiss rate). This reduction was made possible, in part, by upgrading the quality of the police force, curbing the powers of US-manufactured oligarchs, reducing poverty, corruption, and destitution, fighting organized crime, and curbing the activities of CIA- and Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists.

Russia returned to the people some of their stolen wealth, e.g., ownership of national resources such as oil and gas. Thus, instead of letting Western corporations and their local stooges become the principal beneficiaries of Russia’s vast natural resources (as is the case in all Western “success” stories, e.g., Ukraine, Mexico, Iraq . . . ), some of the benefits, at least, accrue now to the rightful owners—the Russian people themselves.

Life expectancy climbed from 65 to 70 (2000-2012)

The shipbuilding, aerospace, and auto industries partially recovered, made possible in part by reorganization, state guidance, and protective tariffs.

Production and exports of fossil and hydroelectric energy resources improved.

A key mechanism of weakening Russia in the 1990s involved the destruction of its industry and agriculture. The objective was simple: convert a literate, creative nation to the level of Saudi Arabia or Ghana—countries that have been reduced to exporters of raw materials or a few cash crops. Such countries depend on the Invisible Government for their very existence and can be, at the moment they defy Wall Street, readily destroyed via rigging of markets and economic warfare. Although much yet remains to be done, Russia has taken a few tentative steps on the road to self-sufficiency. Here is one example of this developing strategy, as explained by Russia’s president:

“We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resources – Russia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing. . . . Ten years ago, we imported almost half of the food from abroad, and were dependent on imports. Now Russia is among the exporters.  Last year, Russian exports of agricultural products amounted to almost $20 billion – a quarter more than the revenue from the sale of arms, or one-third the revenue coming from gas exports.”

Russia successfully derailed CIA-instigated “rebellions” in Chechnya and Moscow.

Russia legally and peacefully repatriated Crimea, thereby forestalling Washington’s plans of Nazifying and enslaving Crimeans (ethnic Russians for the most part) and dismantling Russia’s all-important naval base in Sevastopol.

Russia revitalized and modernized its military, to the point, perhaps, of regaining the ability to check Washington’s plans of trampling under foot every country on earth. The advances in the military field have been so rapid and striking as to lead some knowledgeable observers to the (almost certainly mistaken) view “that Russia has now become the world’s leading military power.”

Advances have been made in such symbolic areas as sports too, partially restoring the remarkable achievements of the USSR: “The Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014 were a triumph for Putin.” In Sochi, Russia had also received more medals than any other country. Likewise, and despite Washington’s Machiavellian attempts to torpedo this, Russia is expected to host the world soccer cup in 2018.

Obviously then, Putin and his team uplifted the Russian nation and the quality of life for the majority of its citizens. As a result, as of June 2015, Putin enjoyed a popularity rating of 87%! (Obama: 48%) Also, by 2014, 64% of Russians trusted their government (a 27% improvement from 2007)

Such numbers are especially striking when compared to Americans’ attitude towards their own government. Thus, according to one source, only 35% of Americans trusted their government. A more reliable source gives the following late 2015 figures: only 18% of registered American voters were content with their government, while 82% were frustrated or angry, of which 27% viewed the American government as their enemy. Similarly, 81% of Russians also had a negative view of the United States.


Is the Russian phoenix rising once more from the ashes?

II. Restoring Multipolarity?

“Russia’s entry to the side of the Syrian government has great potential for finally stopping the US from treating the world as a stepping-stone to unchallenged global hegemony.”—Kim Peterson and B. J. Sabri, 2016

“Washington doesn’t care about peoples’ dreams or aspirations. What they care about is ruling the world with an iron fist, which is precisely what they intend to do for the next century or so unless someone stops them. Putin’s actions, however admirable, have not yet changed that basic dynamic.”—Mike Whitney

­­­­­­­According to the CIA Post:

“During the Clinton administration, the United States pushed hard to expand NATO, breaking a critical promise to Russia not to threaten its sphere of influence. During the George W. Bush administration, there were more missteps, especially the U.S. walking away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, causing irreparable harm to the countries’ fragile relationship.”

RussiaWantsWarBy 2007, these extreme provocations, the earlier looting of Russia, its ongoing encirclement, a series of regime change attempts involving Central Institute of Assassination (CIA) agents provocateurs and snipers, and American nuclear brinkmanship, finally forced the Russian bear to begin to see that it was being maneuvered into a cage:

More and more we witness the flouting of the basic principles of international law. . . . The United States is overstepping its national borders in every field: in economics, in politics, even in the humanitarian sphere. . . .  And this, of course, is very dangerous. . . . Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always had the privilege of carrying out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today.”

Gilbert Doctorow cogently explains Russia’s subsequent actions:

“One may suppose that the purpose is not to touch off or accelerate an arms race but, on the contrary, to bring the other side to its senses and persuade it of 1) Russia’s seriousness about defending militarily what it sees as vital national interests and 2) its ability to deliver massive destruction to an enemy even in the face of a possible first nuclear strike, and so to reinstate the Mutually Assured Destruction deterrence that America’s global missile defense was supposed to cancel out. . . . Russia has set down certain red lines, such as against NATO expansion into Ukraine or Georgia over which it will fight to the death using all its resources. We ignore these messages at our peril.”

Russian demonstrators carrying a fake missile with the inscription An Obama Special

Russian demonstrators carrying a fake missile with the inscription: “An Obama Special.”

Russia’s actions in recent years appear consistent with the setting down of such red lines, most conspicuously in Abkhazia and Ossetia, Crimea, and Syria. By contrast, earlier, while Russia was weaker, it watched in silence while the USA attacked Russia’s allies Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya.

Russia’s efforts to escape imperial tyranny are not confined to itself or Syria. Every country that wishes to escape servitude to America’s invisible rulers owes its continued existence, in some part, to Russia. Here for instance is Zimbabwe’s Ambassador to Russia:

“Both Russia and China are . . . continuing to oppose the illegal sanctions the West has imposed on us—a blatant attempt to change an elected government by crippling our economy in the hope that the masses would rise up against it.”

So much for Russian actions which can be best seen as a determined policy to restore its national independence and the more civilized multipolar world that existed before 1990. And yet, as with so many aspects of the Russian paradox, there is another side to this story too.

To begin with, when it comes to Western coups d’état and other violations of international laws, Russia’s actions are often characterized by puzzling timidity. Take the Ukraine for instance, a country inhabited for the most part by Slavs, who either speak Russian or a Russian dialect, use the same alphabet, have always been linked to Russia through family and economic ties, and have traditionally been affiliated with the Russian state. In the 1990s, Russia granted the fictional country of Ukraine independence, but the ties uniting the two countries remained. The CIA then proceeded to break these ties, a project that took decades to accomplish—while the Russians inexplicably stood aside and looked! The CIA then ordered the massacre of ethnic Russians in the East who democratically chose to secede from Ukraine. Here too, Russia provided the secessionists some help, but refused to support independence or annexation—so the needless carnage and oppression of Russians living in modern-day Ukraine continues to this very day.

But such examples are the tip of the timidity iceberg, for Russia enigmatically eschews cheaper, more effective, and less painful measures than its Syrian campaign. This avoidance again casts doubts on the Russian government’s commitment to a multipolar world.

Prof. Michael Hudson and others underscore the fact that the USA has consistent, massive, balance of payments deficits with such countries as Russia, China, and Japan. Financialized and deindustrialized America buys real goods from them and pays by running its printing press. Consequently, such countries accumulate the digital equivalents of billions or trillions of dollars.

They then use a good part of this money to buy U.S. treasury bonds. The net result of this convoluted, scarcely credible, process is straightforward: By financing the U.S. military and economy, these countries empower their own oppression.

One can understand why nations like Japan or Germany would engage in such self-destructive behavior, given the presence of American garrisons in their lands and the presence of thousands of bribed fifth columnists and bootlickers in their media, economy, armed forces, and assassination squads. But why would Russia and China, now fighting for their very survival, support their own military encirclement?

Do they really believe that they can win that ongoing war by small, painfully slow, steps? Do they really believe, in other words, that turtles can outrun hares? Why do they indirectly finance the construction of the hundreds and hundreds of nuclear bombs that one day might totally and irrevocably turn Moscow or Beijing into a fate worse than nothingness (already in the 1950s, “there were 179 ‘designated ground zeros’ for atomic bombs in Moscow” alone)? Why do they finance America’s economic sanctions against them? Why don’t they only accept payments for anything they sell in gold, silver, or their own national currencies? Why don’t they turn their enemies’ world upside down by linking their currencies to silver or gold or by resolutely stopping the rigging of the interest rates market?

Why don’t the Russians, for that matter, invest a few billion dollars to stop, once and for all, the rigging of the silver market by their paper-shuffling enemies? They can thus gain billions and cause incalculable harm to the dollar and the Western banking system (at today’s rigged prices, all the silver in the world is only worth about $14 billion and can be manipulated up or down by just one of Russia’s top oligarchs—let alone the Russian government)?

If they are serious about their national independence, why do they always react to Western actions, instead of proactively checkmating their enemies?

This is worth repeating: Russia is financing its own encirclement and the ongoing attacks on its economy and currency. Apart from its actions to save Crimea and Syria and a few other places, the Russian government is doing precious little to undermine the new civilization that America has imposed, “where the entire world is economically enslaved to the United States,” and where the USA smashes to smithereens any country that refuses to hand over its economic surplus.

It should be underscored that the failure so far to undermine the dollar cannot be traced to ignorance. One of Putin’s economic advisors, for instance, outlined a “set of counter-measures specifically targeting the core strength of the US war machine, i.e., the Fed’s printing press.” Russia is likewise taking some tentative steps in this crucial de-dollarization campaign. But again, as in most instances of Russia’s efforts to save itself and to improve the lives of its citizens, steps taken so far are slow and incongruous.

III. Information Liberation?

The Invisible Government’s power at home and abroad partially depends on its brilliant propaganda. Indeed, almost all mainstream information coming out of the West—movies, books, TV, radio, newspapers, government pronouncements, schools at all levels, think tanks—has very little to do with truth or reality and everything to do with advancing the agenda of the Invisible Government that rules the USA and its colonies.

That power defies belief. Che Guevara stated: “Our every action is a battle cry . . . for the alliance of the world’s people’s against the great enemy of humanity: the United States of America.” This is the ABC of international relations, the guiding light of decent and informed people everywhere.

And yet, I’ve lived and traveled in scores of countries that have been laid to waste by the USA—and most of the people I interacted with looked up to America as the City on the Hill. They play and dance to its music—whose lyrics they often don’t understand and whose melodies are no better than their own. They watch US/UK imbecile TV series, sport teams, and commercials, and read their “bestsellers.” They adore imperial agents intent on robbing and enslaving them and revile their own champions.

All this and more is a testimony to the brilliance of the Invisible Government’s soft power (and to the vulnerability of most people to crass propaganda).

Over the last few years, Russia has taken some steps to counteract that power—impressive enough for British censors to threaten Russia Today with “sanctions.”

Likewise, in 2014, Russia wisely passed a “law limiting foreign ownership of media companies.”

Wikipedia—a useful but at the same time disgracefully pro-imperial information source—provides one example of the CIA’s masterful monopolization of most mass information outlets. Russia knows this and plans to create its own online encyclopedia.

But again, Russia’s infowars gambits do not go far enough:

To begin with, many Russian television outlets—sadly the most influential information dissemination source—are owned directly or indirectly by the state. Thus, in Russia as in the Western world, TV is often government by another name.

As well, even though Russia has been fighting for survival for at least two centuries, and even though the USA now is waging hybrid warfare against it, state-connected Russian media often treat American pronouncements on a variety of topics as the gospel. They timidly defend themselves from Western mendacities and smears, but they often enigmatically refuse to employ their best weapon: revealing outright American criminality at home and abroad.

For instance, Russian mainstream media do not often mention Operation Gladio, nor do they bother to inform their readers that the American government’s versions of the “war on terror” or the assassinations of the Kennedy clan, Martin Luther King, Princess Diana, Dr. Kelly, or Gary Webb, are pure, unadulterated, claptrap.

Additionally, there are such fifth-column media as the Moscow Times. Here is Israel Shamir describing such media—as well as the scandalous behavior of state-supported media:

“Can you imagine Fox TV transmitting Russian propaganda? In Russia, a major chunk of Russian media, state-owned or authorized by the taxpayer, transmits pro-Western and anti-Russian agenda, alleged the eminent film director Nikita Michalkov, a staunch supporter of Putin, in his video seen by over two million viewers in a few days. He called upon Putin to assert his line and banish the enemies within, but state TV refused to broadcast the video.”

To sum up: In the last 15 years there have been some improvements in presenting the Russian government’s position to the world and limiting the power of CIA- and oligarch-supported media. But in reality, the Russian government betrays democratic ideals by monopolizing TV (instead of handing most of it to genuine grassroots organizations).

At the same time, some mainstream Russian media are still indirectly owned by hostile foreigners and their agents. And state-owned, independent, and private media are still afraid to tell the people of Russia and the world ugly truths about the West and Russia, still try to curry favor with Washington and the bankers who control it, still champion at times CIA propaganda. It is hard to reconcile such ambivalence with the view that the Russian government serves the interests of the Russian people—or of humanity.

IV. Environment: Russia is Just as Recklessly Suicidal as America

“Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year might be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or ten thousand years.”—Stephen Hawking, 2016


Scream of the Earth (sculpture in the Carved Forest of El Bolsón, Río Negro, Argentina)

The most critical issue facing humanity is survival. Elsewhere I cataloged the numerous tipping points and argued that—given humanity reckless tendency to foul its own nest, its propensity to employ any technology regardless of its destructiveness, and the speed at which new technologies are invented—that the probability of human extinction within the next 200 hundred years might exceed 90%. If so, everything—even such precious things as freedom, real democracy, justice, peace, space conquest, search for truth, or spirituality—pale into insignificance when placed side by side with environmental policies. ­

When it comes to the environment, the USA, as one might expect, gets a straight grade of F—and so does Russia. Here is a sampler of Russian environmental policies.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). These comprise the only sustainable spot I could find. Russia will no longer import dangerous GMO products, stating

“If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them . . . We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.”

Climate Disruptions

“Now we can only wait till the day, wait and apportion our shame.

These are the dykes our fathers left, but we would not look to the same.

Time and again were we warned of the dykes, time and again we delayed:

Now, it may fall, we have slain our sons, as our fathers we have betrayed.”–Rudyard Kipling

Earth’s climate is extremely complex. So, even with the best available models, temperature measurements, and other data, we can only make probability statements. It is also true that science now is often the maidservant of the Invisible Government—rather than the truth—and so the scientific consensus about climate change might be fraudulent. It is certainly true that, after decades of suppressing the truth, the bankers are about to substitute money-making schemes for real actions, thereby cleverly derailing genuine environmental struggles.

politicians discussing global warming.Cordal

Isaac Cordal’s sculpture, popularly nicknamed “politicians discussing global warming.”  (click to expand)

And yet, my own decades-long holistic study of environmental politics leads me to believe that the chances of catastrophic climate disruptions before the year 2115 exceed 70%. But let us humor climate “skeptics” and assume that the chance of a catastrophe is “only” 7%. Should we take that chance?

The answer is: of course not: We should never risk humanity’s future.

Moreover, there is absolutely no reason to gamble with that future. We can solve or curtail the prospects of climate disruptions—and at the same time significantly improve our health, wealth, and prospects of survival. Here are just two examples: We know how to make cars that would be just as good as current cars, but that would be at least four times as fuel-efficient—and we likewise know how to make alcohol.

The only problem with such steps is that they would harm the bottom line of both American and Russian oil and gas companies. And so, on this issue, at least, the madmen in charge of this planet are in accord. According to Jim Hansen, the late 2015 Paris climate change agreement is “just worthless words.” Another expert points to a “lack of political will in Russia to address climate change.”

Nuclear Power

By 1980 I decided to move from smog-filled Irvine to another California location, setting my sights first on the town of Eureka. But, once I noticed the presence of a nuclear power plant nearby, I  moved to Oregon. I did so because the horrors

Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42008
    • View Profile

Decoding the US Empire of Chaos: The Global Reversal of the Social Evolution of Humanity

By Prof. John McMurtry and Biljana Đorović
Global Research, February 11, 2016
Region: USA
Theme: Culture, Society & History, Global Economy

Empire USA déclin

The interview (transcript below)  from questions with Prof. John McMurtry was conducted for the 15th Anniversary of “Geopolitika” a journal of geopolitical and cultural analysis in Belgrade which was broadcast on Radio Belgrade by the weekly show “Silen” on February 12 from questions posed by Biljana Đorović.

The depth of the abyss into which the world is falling is ever clearer to people, but not the cause or the way out. Could you give us some kind of structure to explain what is at the heart of this empire of chaos that is reigning across the world?

In a nutshell, social evolution itself has been reversed by a US-led war on social and ecological life organisation driven by one corrupt master value – to free transnational corporations and their shareholders from social responsibility to multiply private fortunes without limit. It is a counter-revolution against the long development of democratic government and the welfare state that once crossed across the divisions of the Cold War.

The ultimate driver of the disorder can be explained in one underlying principle. The sole and absolute organising principle of the world’s reproduction and growth is turning private money into maximally more money for private money controllers. The ‘empire of chaos’ is the result.

The more this transnational financial capitalism is deregulated and subsidized , the more it multiplies itself through organic, social and ecological life hosts, the more predatorily destructive it becomes at all levels. This is ultimately a cancer system at the macro level, and it has quickly spread through the world. It was effectively with the Reagan-Thatcher counter-revolution against the social state with a US $500-billion tax-cut to the rich deliberately bankrupting the base of social programs, simultaneously pervasive media worship of the ‘free market’ and hatred of socialism, behind-the-scenes presidential permission of mass media monopolies proclaiming this mindless propaganda line, the systematic smashing of organised labour and sites of progressive intellectual discourses, ghoulish leashing of death squads in Latin Central America to reverse socialist forces while spending the opposing superpower USSR into bankruptcy on the arms race, and – finally but perhaps most importantly – preparation and passing of the world’s first major binding treaty absolutizing transnational corporate rights over all past or future democratic policies or legislation reducing foreign profit opportunities.

This sets the historical parameters of the current empire of chaos by reversing the post-1945 social evolution towards life security for all by the master principle of commodity and money-demand maximization across cultures and permanent war against any alternative.

How could this possibly be proclaimed, as it always has been, a victory for global freedom morality and justice?

The key is always in the US-designated Enemy whose destruction is equated to the victory of Good over Evil. There is no positive substance of the Good but destruction of the designated Enemy. There is in fact no common life interest of US civilization. There is the Enemy that must be defeated on the collective level, the sole collectivity. The money that must be made to survive is the only obligatory individual value, with self-maximization the logic of success.

The global turning point to ‘Communism’ as the Enemy came in 1991 with the fall of the USSR. This was triumphally proclaimed the victory of US freedom, the death of marxism and socialism, and the end of history itself.

In fact, the USSR fell by being hollowed out by the arms race and the Cold War, a deliberate US strategy, and from fighting the first jihadi terrorist uprising financed by the US in quasi-socialist Afghanistan. It was on Russia’s border, and the way to “bleed Russia to death” when it intervened to assist the secular social order with new equality for women. Yugoslavia at this same time was an iconically successful socialist society across ethnic divisions. But its US-led financial destruction was planned by secret presidential directive in 1981, and led to a chaos of ethnic wars and hatred ending in the 1999 bombing of Belgrade by NATO – - which was also during the US-British sanction bombing of Iraq, and more society-destroying bombings to come across the Middle East. Now the new designated Enemy was Saddam once the USSR fell.

One can see here that always a great Enemy is declared. It was long Communism which covered any alternative secular order with any socially owned economic base, the real danger being that it outperforms capitalist societies in serving the life needs of its people. But no sooner had this threat been apparently eliminated in even the Third World with death squads, international slanders and financial sabotage usually doing the trick than a new great Enemy called Saddam was declared just as the USSR was falling next door and unable to intervene.

Another new war, worse than the Cold War went into motion. As always there was constructed pretext, but this time without any USSR to limit it, the US (and Britain) bombed the long-evolved socialist infrastructure of Iraq into ruins and perpetrated an eco-genocidal invasion from 1991 to 2003 that was, as always, justified by the Enemy it attacked – although the enemy Saddam was long on the CIA payroll, just as Osama Laden, the next great Enemy to appear, was financed and armed by the US in Afghanistan to begin the new greatest enemy of all replacing Communism.

This Enemy is Islamic Terror which still morphs on into ISIS suddenly appearing in June 2014 to keep the ball rolling into Syria bombing by NATO, a reprise of the complete society destruction of Libya by US-led NATO bombing in 2011. The end of the Cold War gave rise not to peace, but wars of aggression by the US whenever it could take the people along with false cover stories. The constant throughout is a great Enemy, the cornerstone of US ideology, with constructed pretext or false flag event always justifying war against the now perpetually changing Enemy – in fact, sitting duck with no air defenses to stop imperial bombing and expansion of the transnational money-cancer system.

Do you think there is a fundamental difference between the US-led empire during the Cold War and after it? The years of the US-Soviet conflict seem almost pastoral compared to now.

1991 was supposed to bring about the great Peace Dividend with no US enemy to justify the always rising military spending to stop the “communist plot for world rule”. Now we know better who was aiming for world rule, as always projecting onto the designated Enemy the US’s own objective. The carpet bombings of helpless societies by US-led forces since 1991 are, like Vietnam, eco-genocidal in nature, only now one after another. They force-metastasize the exponential private financial growth of Wall Street and company, but transnational corporate treaty and social-state stripping is the ultimate inner logic of the US-led spreading chaos.

Before 1991, the US and allies had developed social life support systems and a welfare state to compete with state socialism. No longer. Since the fall of the USSR, whole peoples and their life conditions are destroyed and looted across continents from Yugoslavia to the Ukraine, from Iraq to Libya to Syria to who knows where next. Propelling every degenerate trend from behind has been the carcinomic financialization of real economies into multiplying private money sequences devouring life and life support systems as ‘global market freedom and prosperity’. This is the borderless transnational globalization of the private money-power system that has changed all the rules.

Dividing societies into civil war or helpless bankruptcy or both is the new and unnamed master pattern, destroying whatever collective economic and social success has been achieved everywhere, clearing s the way for foreign control of once sovereign resources, markets and peoples. Greece is a current example of these external money sequences cored in transnational banks hollowing out an evolved Western society to recoup foreign bank revenues after the Wall-Street-engineered bank collapse of 2008 – stripping ever more peoples to pay for big banks’ ponzi schemes even if the society’s unemployment goes over 30%, the public sector is dismantled and looted at fire-sale prices, and the majority’s lives and life conditions are turned towards the living hell formerly reserved for the Third World death-squad dictatorships.

This systemic money-sequenced destruction of evolved societies, their public resources and life support systems is now plundering all societies including the US and Britain. It is inconceivable that what is now normalized as “necessary market reforms” today could have been even proposed by these countries from 1950 to 1991. But things have also changed at the oppositional level. Latin America has largely evolved out of the US-led oligarchies of fascist tyranny.

Why is this underlying pattern – essentially a global multi-front war against humanity – not recognised in even academic discourses?

This is a very complex matter in all the levels of systemic degeneration and attack. The inherited methods and categories of understanding are incapable of comprehension so long as they are divided into siloes, mechanistically organised into atomic agents and aggregates, and increasingly funded for proprietary corporate research for profit.

The academy led by its own multiplying corporate managements has been largely converted into a servo-mechanism to the financial cancer system, a long war, with a new underclass of casualized worker- profs doing most of the teaching with no time for research. System diagnosis is prohibited at every step by this context. Marxist analysis itself is bound to categories unable to grasp the system’s disorder where more means and conditions of life are now destroyed than produced.

So-called ‘economics’ is most of all a set-point of the self-referential stupefaction. It is based on a life-blind liquid mechanics of the nineteenth century disguised by algebraic notations whose referents are idealized money coordinates in dyadic and exponential repetitions. The reigning models are structured a-priori not to see any of the real-life failures and depredations of the runaway disorder. Policy-setting ‘economics’ is without any framework to factor in the life needs of people, societies and environments at all. Academically trained critics name the problem as ‘neo-liberalism’, but this is a vacuously equivocal slogan. – - The classical liberals John Stuart Mill and John Dewey were both mild socialists and advocated a reasoned social progress of humanity’s permanent life interests, which this transnational private money-sequence system rules out in principle.

Could you say more about the “false ruling categories” misleading even the academic Left and most concerned citizens?

To begin with, this system is not as almost everyone assumes, a ‘free market’. Its trade and investment treaties across borders prove it to be a transnational corporate dictatorship in principle. Corporate lawyers write all the rules in secret. They override the policies of elected legislatures. Global supply and demand are controlled by dominant transnational corporations. Open market competition is ruled out by predatory and transfer pricing, corporate lobby control of state policies, and vast and growing government subsidies to favoured players.

While “the free market” is still absurdly assumed as given, “efficiency” is even more universally assumed as its regulating discipline and logic of progress. Indeed it is the justification for all the jobs continuously lost, all the deregulations, pollutions, resource-mining horrors, and inhuman exploitations from one place to the next across the globe.

Yet in fact this system is the opposite of ‘efficient’ in life means production and reproduction – the substance of any real economy. What is miscalled ‘efficiency’ merely lowers money costs for private profit agents. In reality, this system is now by far the most wasteful system ever, wasting more life value than it produces. 90% of the biomass it converts into commodities for profit end up as waste within six weeks. 40% of even final food products are thrown away without consumption. Fresh water lakes and aquifers are everywhere polluted and drawn down without efficient water use entering the equations. .

‘Absence of waste’ is the definition of efficiency. But this system wastes everything to multiply private money sequences with ever more people jobless, species in spasm extinctions, oceans poisoned and hollowed out, junks of every kind becoming more dominant across domains.

Do you think there are dark corridors of power where the game is rigged by master manipulators with their own ruling goals and forms of action? If so, what are they

Well they definitely exist as a self-flattering transnational money party bending the system to limitless rule. In the cases I know, the imaginary global free market is covertly structured to make private money rights sovereign over all that exists with no accountability to any human or ecological life need at all. This is conceived as “global market freedom”. The corrupt self-conceit is mind-stopping.

Banker David Rockefeller elliptically expressed this program back in 1991. “A supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and bankers”, he intoned to fellow Bilderburgers, “is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries”. This statement has never been denied. It implicitly entails a dark meaning. The ruling goal and form of action is to stop history’s democratic trend, to end peoples bonded by national identity, to override people’s say over their collective future, to eliminate public sectors except as serving this private money sovereign, and to accept this banker sovereignty as the proper replacement of the self-determination of nations and peoples.

Banker Rockefeller only refers to the ‘intellectual elite’ to deploy their Platonic conceit. He is more ignorant than they that Plato’s ‘philosopher kings’ live in community ownership of goods without private money gain to corrupt their reason by the lowest level of the soul, the self’s appetites. In contrast, Rockefeller’s ‘intellectual elite’ are exemplified by Rockefeller’s own money-obsequious German protégé, Leo Strauss who preaches the sovereignty of private money over society in Talmudic style that is hard to decipher. Yet as Rockefeller’s parachuted University of Chicago professor and godfather of the U.S. National Security Council, Strauss affirms the goal in his Natural Right and History: “limitless [money] capital accumulation” is “a moral duty and perhaps the highest moral duty”. Wasted expenditures at will , no productive function, genocides of the conquered, each and all are rationalized away by Strauss as moral rectitude by the ‘natural right’ of private money capital. He justifies every one.

This is only one dark corridor leading to the financial cancer system we face today. Its NSC branch rooted in Harvard’s graduate apparatus of ‘political science’ over decades is still dominated by the Russia-hating Zbigniew Brzezinski. Undergirded by the more substantial ‘free market’ worship dominating graduate schools everywhere up to US presidential appointees, all agents are propelled by big corporate and bank money power which they all worship. This ultimate money power explicitly and bilaterally seeks ‘full spectrum dominance’ of the world, as in the 2000 project for a New American Century signed by US leaders and advisers across parties. Its dark vision was then followed into 9-11 and the 9-11 Wars.

9-11 itself was corridors covered by darkness in how it happened. The first question of forensic justice, cui bon (who benefits?), remains publicly silenced. The official conspiracy theory of the World Trade Center buildings melting and collapsing into their own footprints violated the laws of physics at every step, beginning with the blamed Arabs with box-cutters and no remains. The US secret state is so covered in dark hidden corners that we can only predict in principle what will happen next – for recent example, the fully-armed ISIS killing machine springing onto the stage out of nowhere mass murdering everywhere it can, but somehow never touches Israel.

But a cautionary word. The deep global game-changers here are institutional moves at the level of sweeping trade treaties and thousands of new bureaucratic laws and regulations. They silently replace sovereign government and democratically legislated policies and laws everywhere “to compete in the global market”, with few observing that they are massive corporate-lawyer fiats multiplying protections of transnational business profits as their single unifying objective. They too are secret in negotiations, corporate lobby construction, thousands of pages of prescriptions, and closed tribunals punishing states which disobey. It is hard to see where the dark financial global coup d’etat stops.

Could you step us through a paradigm case of this financcial cancer system’ at work and how progressive voices fail to see its meaning?

The recently released Oxfam Davos Report (January 16) is a perfect example because it clearly succeeds in informing us of the escalating extremes of inequality which this system has produced – a fact on which now everyone agrees. The first essential fact it identifies reports from global business statistics that 62 individuals now own more wealth than 50% of the world’s population. More shockingly, the second essential fact reported is that this share of wealth by half the world’s people has collapsed by over 40% in the last five years.

Yet even in this report the big lie continues that “the world has made great progress in tackling world poverty” and that “extreme poverty has been halved since 1990”. The near automatic assumption that the poor are being “lifted out of poverty in greater numbers” thus persists even though the business evidence itself shows that, in fact, the poorer half of humanity has lost 42% of their wealth in just the last few years. What does this mean for “trickle-down theory”, “global competition nets more wealth for all”, and “Parteo optimal markets”? It means that they are all delusionary. The World Bank and other figures purporting to show great gains for the poor are based on income gains of less than a cup of coffee a day – typically of emigrants forced into big polluted cities who formerly had at least a family home, clean air and green surroundings.

Yet observe that throughout the revolutionary redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, the magic of the market and globalization are proclaimed as “enhanced competition”, “liberalized de-regulation”, “‘more labour flexibility”, “reduced welfare costs” and “austerity programs to correct excesses”. In fact beneath the pervasive propaganda conditioning citizens to believe in the money shell game devouring the world, the poorer half of humanity has been deprived of one trillion dollars of wealth in five years while the 62 richest people have gained almost twice as much for themselves by the operations of this system.

But the end is not yet. Other figures in the Davos Report show that a further $760 billion flowing to non-producing investors has been gained by transnational tax evasion with impunity across the world. This is another revolutionary turn of ‘globalization’ to enrich the richest while doubling down on deprivation of the poor. Yet at the same time, it strips the funding of public sectors and institutions which have evolved to serve the common life interest of societies outside the global market. Governments which could once protect the deprived at all levels of life organization are now widely bankrupted or debt enslaved along with most citizens. Who has reported any of this?

In consequence, the world slips into deeper recession from the collapse of demand at the public and majority levels as the poorest half’s share of wealth is almost halved and the share of the richest is more than doubled for accumulation. But this cause of the Great Recession is ignored by governments and international policy meetings as if it did not exist.

As these and other facts show, borderless and de-regulated corporate globalization is eating the world alive. That is why these facts are never reported by the mass media or politicians. It is why claimed actions to stop the world bleeding never face the system disorder causing them. It is why even concerned organizations continue to repeat falsehoods as if they were true. Once again like a cancer system at the macro level, this exponentially multiplying private money-sequence system has no committed life functions but to feed on life and life conditions to grow itself. But what progressive journal or even book connects all of these dots?

Can there be any resolution to the fragmentation and paralysis of unifying vision?

Our problem now is that is not even the informed and the progressive join the dots and realise the meaning of their own senses and the rising evidence. As with Oxfam, they pre-consciously deny the collapsing position of the majority of humankind by repeating the lies of the ruling doctrine like ‘progress in eliminating poverty’ and ‘halving of absolute destitution’.

Nowhere is the criterion of human needs across cultures identified. Nowhere are the truly ‘changed rules of the game’ specified and shown as cause of the systemic catastrophes for humanity and planetary life support systems. Nowhere do we see a policy-structure change spelled out that connects across crises. Yet everywhere the diagnosis and tracking of financial- ization can detect and show the CSC drivers of world society today.

Resolution requires recognition of the ultimately regulating principle of humanity’s social evolution that moves underneath technological development to what it is for and the basic institutional bases to rule out the great blind alleys of post-1900 social evolution such as state Stalinism and global financialization. The underlying pattern of progress is now lost in superstructural debates, but is control of currency and credit by public-bank authority linked to defined life standards of investment and production to protect human beings and their shared life support systems. History shows this underlying pattern of progress in varying degrees such as the Scandinavian countries and the old Yugoslavia, but a conscious life code has been lacking at the society-wide level. This missing link is a life-coherent collective value system  translated into self-evident principles of how to live as a society beyond individual choices.

I leave this ultimate issue and its challenges to our next discussion.

John McMurtry is University Professor Emeritus at the University of Guelph and elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. His work has been translated from Latin America to Japan, and he is the author/editor of UNESCO’s three-volume Philosophy and World Problems, as well as more recently, The Cancer Stage of Capitalism; From Crisis to Cure.

The original source of this article is Geopolitika
Copyright © Prof. John McMurtry and Biljana Đorović, Geopolitika, 2016
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42008
    • View Profile
Freedom Rider: America’s Endless Wars
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2016, 12:52:24 PM »'s_endless_wars

Freedom Rider: America’s Endless Wars

Submitted by Margaret Kimberley on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 08:27

    U.S. imperial wars

Share this story...

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

There is no “peace” wing in either the Democratic or Republican parties. “Not only has Obama declared unending war against the rest of the world, but so has the rest of the two party duopoly.” When the warmongers scream “Jump,” the only question leaders of either party ask is, “How high?” It’s a matter of tone, not substance. “The Republicans openly brag about aggressions while Democrats dissemble and use weasel words to pretend they won’t do the same thing.”
Freedom Rider: America’s Endless Wars
by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

“How can Bernie Sanders bring social democracy to the United States if he won’t cut the military budget or foreswear interventions?”

America’s grand fantasy of a Project for a New American Century has experienced a serious setback. Yet this country still isn’t dissuaded from pursuing the imperial effort. For five years Syrian president Bashar al-Assad stood his ground and ignored Barack Obama’s refrain that he “must go.” Fortunately Assad didn’t leave or give up the fight. Russian president Vladimir Putin finally stood beside him in deed and not just in words. The alliance is a textbook case of how nations ought to behave within the parameters of international law.

Russian air strikes bolstered the Syrian army and in just four months ISIS and the rest of its jihadists allies are on the run. The Syrian peace conference in Geneva is now under a “temporary pause” (*link pause) for the simple reason that there is no longer any need for it. The issue is settled. Assad isn’t going anywhere.

For nearly five years the Syrian people have suffered as a direct result of American aggression. More than 250,000 people are dead and 9 million are refugees in their country and abroad. The humanitarian disaster is a direct result of America’s intervention and blame for the bloodshed should be placed at Barack Obama’s feet. Now that America’s jihadists allies are losing, there is suddenly concern expressed for the Syrian people who wouldn’t be suffering at all absent the regime change plot.

“Blame for the bloodshed should be placed at Barack Obama’s feet.”

While Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, including “socialist” Bernie Sanders, express unending support for imperialism and brutality in Syria, the project is falling apart. The failure is a good thing for humanity. The United States should not be allowed to act like the schoolyard bully who steals lunch money for fun.

The Russian success should have taught America a lesson but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The United States has pursued another brand of warfare against that country for the past two years. First by overthrowing the president of neighboring Ukraine and then by exacting sanctions which have damaged the Russian economy. The corporate media has played its part by fanning the flames with anti-Russian propaganda. One day they claim that Russia threatens European nations, then they claim Russian submarines will cut underwater cables. Any Russian who was ever murdered is now said to have died at Putin’s hands.

The United States is determined to try and snatch some victory from the jaws of defeat. While the Syria project is heading south, the cold war appears to be getting warm. The defense department announced that it will take the unprecedented action of  installing weapons and personnel in the Baltic states bordering Russia. (*link weapons) The most hawkish American presidents respected the old Soviet spheres of influence and didn’t dare provoke so openly. Now it is clear that there will be no respite from imperialism even as it fails.

“Any Russian who was ever murdered is now said to have died at Putin’s hands.”

Barack Obama will be president for less than one year but his successor won’t be any better for the rest of humanity. The Democratic and Republican candidates sound alike as they eagerly proclaim their loathing for Putin and their determination to continue war by other means. Not one of them has dared to call the Syria intervention the unlawful aggression that it obviously is and none has expressed an intention to change foreign policy. Even liberal darling Bernie Sanders spouts nonsense about “Saudi skin in the game” in Syria when the Saudis have been an integral part of the regime change effort. Not only has Obama declared unending war against the rest of the world, but so has the rest of the two party duopoly.

The lack of debate among the establishment and the slavish devotion of the corporate media make America a very dangerous country. If candidates like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders are slick enough they can market themselves as peacemakers when in fact they will create as much chaos and suffering as any of the Republicans.

How can Bernie Sanders bring social democracy to the United States if he won’t cut the military budget or foreswear interventions? He learned a lot from Barack Obama’s 2008 comment that he was only opposed to “dumb wars.” The Republicans openly brag about aggressions while Democrats dissemble and use weasel words to pretend they won’t do the same thing.

Every global conflict from the small, like Haiti, to the largest, like Iraq and Syria, is the result of American interventions. But presidential candidates and major newspapers won’t acknowledge American responsibility for the suffering of millions of people. It is yet another reason to reject the Democrats and Republicans and their tag team politics of pretense. No one can say for certain who will be president of the United States one year from now. We do know that he or she will continue to bring disaster all over the world.
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42008
    • View Profile
Russia’s Ongoing Predicament
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2016, 11:06:47 PM »

Russia’s Ongoing Predicament

Feb. 12, 2016 As Moscow gains ground in Syria, it is faltering in almost every other state objective.

By Lili Bayer and Jacob Shapiro

It may seem counterintuitive to write about Russia being in crisis today. After all, Russia’s limited military deployment in Syria seems to be paying substantial dividends. Backed by Russian air support, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has pushed forward with a two-pronged military offensive. Assad’s forces have managed to drive rebels out of Latakia province. Now instead of a desperate fight to defend core regime territory in the Alawite coastland, Assad’s forces are ready to stage attacks into key rebel positions in Idlib province. Meanwhile, the Assad regime has managed to strike at both Islamic State and rebel positions in Aleppo. Now that the Assad regime has ended the IS siege of Kuweires air base, Russia has deployed hundreds of personnel and air defense systems. Most significant, Assad regime forces have scored key victories around the city of Aleppo, and on Feb. 3 captured the towns of Nubl and Zahraa, cutting key rebel supply lines to Turkey.

Meanwhile, headlines today have focused on the administration of President Barack Obama opening a two-front campaign on Syria: ending the war on Assad through negotiations and stepping up the war on IS. Headlines can often be misleading, but when it comes to Syria, they are especially so. It wouldn’t be a normal week if there weren’t at least one article about a new diplomatic initiative to bring the Syrian civil war to a close and unseat Assad. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and representatives of more than a dozen other nations met on Feb. 11 in Munich. Kerry and Lavrov announced that they had agreed to cease hostilities and facilitate humanitarian aid in Syria, but did not know whether the leaders of rebel groups would adhere to the ceasefire. Of course, the Islamic State and other radical fighters in the region were not included in the ceasefire agreement. But the diplomats will meet again soon, with great fanfare and few concrete results.

The truth is that there are no real steps to take. The U.S. does not have a fundamental interest in seeing the Assad regime removed from power. The U.S. wants to see the Islamic State defeated. And while Russia is indeed striking mostly at Syrian rebel groups, Russia is also fighting against Islamic State. As Assad’s regime gains strength, IS has fewer opportunities to expand. Furthermore, moderate Syrian rebel groups are not the chief combatants of the Russian-backed Assad regime. Many of Assad’s recent gains have come at the expense of Jabhat al-Nusra – al-Qaida’s affiliate in Syria and the strongest of the rebel groups on the ground in Aleppo. If the Islamic State were not so active in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra would be seen as the main radical Islamist threat in its own right.

These movements seem to indicate that Russia has scored a victory in Syria in its support of the Assad regime. And the Russians have indeed succeeded in demonstrating, albeit in a limited capacity, the potential effectiveness of their military. But Syria is ultimately peripheral to Russian interests. Russia became involved with Syria because it wanted to develop leverage in its dealings with the West, particularly with the United States. The primary issues for Russia don’t hang on Assad’s success. They hang on Russia’s precarious domestic situation and on its western frontier.

The Kremlin’s primary concern is Russia’s ongoing economic crisis, which threatens to undermine domestic stability. Low oil prices are forcing the government in Moscow to revise its budget yet again, and decision-makers are scrambling to find opportunities to raise extra revenues. Russia’s GDP fell by 3.7 percent last year, and the value of the ruble has reached record lows. But critically, the crisis has had a tangible impact on the daily lives of Russian citizens. Their real incomes fell by 9.5 percent in 2015 compared to the previous year, according to official figures. For the first time in 18 years, Russians are collectively spending more than they earn. These expenditures are in part due to shrinking incomes and rising prices, but another factor is likely the uncertainty surrounding the value of the ruble and the future of the Russian economy, since foreign currency purchases are considered expenditures in official statistics.

Putin’s regime is in a relatively strong position domestically, but the Kremlin is highly aware that deteriorating economic conditions undermine its core social contract with the Russian people. The Kremlin enjoys widespread legitimacy mainly due to the belief that it is guaranteeing stability.

Moreover, financial troubles are forcing the Kremlin to focus its expenditures inward, thus limiting the amount of funding available to spend on fulfilling foreign policy objectives. While the Kremlin is busy attempting to mitigate the impact of Russia’s economic crisis, it must also continue pursuing the country’s primary strategic goal: maintaining buffer zones between Russia’s vulnerable core and the West. Ukraine is one of these key buffer areas. Ukraine has its own economic troubles, and the government in Kiev is heavily dependent on external financing to pay its bills. At the same time, the Ukrainian government is weak and divided. International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde warned on Feb. 10 that the future of the country’s ongoing $40 billion bailout program may be jeopardized if reforms are not implemented.

On one hand, Russia benefits from a weak Ukraine plagued by financial difficulties. Ukraine is less likely to successfully pursue Western integration if corruption, weak governance and poor economic performance persist. On the other hand, the Kremlin understands that the 2014 regime change in Kiev signified a shift in Ukrainian society and politics as well as in Ukraine’s relationship with the United States. Regardless of their squabbles, the majority of Ukrainian political factions are pro-Western and the annexation of Crimea and war in eastern Ukraine turned the tide of public opinion against Moscow. Most important, the U.S. and key European powers like Germany are committed to the pro-Western regime in Kiev. Moscow does not have the military or financial ability to occupy Ukraine, and cannot afford a direct confrontation with the West. Russia’s options in Ukraine, therefore, are very limited. The best the Kremlin can hope to achieve is a nominally pro-Western but practically neutral Ukraine.

Ukraine, however, is not the only country in the historical buffer area that Moscow is worried about. Following the annexation of Crimea, both the U.S. and NATO committed to boosting their presence along the alliance’s eastern edge.

On Feb. 10, NATO ministers approved a framework for a plan to boost multinational troop reinforcements in eastern member countries. This decision came after Obama’s administration announced on Feb. 2 that the U.S. will more than quadruple military spending in Europe in 2017. The U.S. government plans to deploy more weapons and equipment to Central and Eastern Europe, as well as a full armored combat brigade. Russia lost the Baltic states and former members of the Warsaw Pact like Hungary and Poland as buffers years ago when these countries joined NATO. However, the deployment of U.S. and NATO troops and equipment in ever larger quantities close to Russia’s borders adds to Moscow’s insecurity and highlights that an increasingly weak Russia is unable to fulfill its basic strategic goal.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
Re: Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2016, 12:28:03 AM »
It may seem counterintuitive to write about Russia being in crisis today.

Yes, it does.  In fact such a biased load of crap could only have been written by Stratfor.

In Syria, Russia has achieved more in 4 months than the US and its international coalition of puppets has achieved in 18 months.

In Ukraine, the Crimea is so de facto Russian that no one is complaining, and Donbass still stands firm against the fascists. Meanwhile Kiev is rife with corruption and on the point of being deserted by the IMF.  No one in Europe wants to touch the basket case, and so they have gritted their teeth and are offering Russia to re-open the South Stream pipeline negotiations, which leaves Ukraine out in the cold.

Mysteriously, Belarus and Armenia seem to have switched sides, according to the map, and Kaliningrad has disappeared.

Meanwhile the US sanctions against Russia are being openly deplored by France, Germany, Austria, Italy and Greece, and it is only the fear of the US collapsing the European banking system that "keeps the cats herded". 

NATO is turning into an all-US coalition, with only the UK spending the required 2% of GDP for its upkeep.  European anger at NATO member Turkey over the flood of refugees is rife, to the point of the EU putting 3 warships off Turkey to keep them out.  Turkey stands accused of helping shift Syrian oil, stolen by ISIS, and shipping in on to Europe, and no one has come forward to defend them.

Russian-Chinese trade and financial ties get stronger by the day, and the various central Asian states and BRICS are being tied in further.  China still has more GDP growth than the US, and no debt.  The Yuan is on the point of becoming the new world reserve currency, backed by the biggest stash of gold the world has ever seen.

Putin's popularity at home has never been stronger, nor the average Russian's anti-US feelings.  Some crisis.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2016, 12:41:42 AM by Palloy »
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2016, 03:22:10 AM »
It may seem counterintuitive to write about Russia being in crisis today.

Yes, it does.  In fact such a biased load of crap could only have been written by Stratfor.

In Syria, Russia has achieved more in 4 months than the US and its international coalition of puppets has achieved in 18 months.

True, if you accept the official story that the US is interested in "rolling back" ISIS.  The government of the FSoA has been vigorously funding ISIS through a variety of indirect means. I watched a VICE news report the other night which detailed the process. American "military contractors" destroy their own equipment, and sell the parts to a third-party, who himself is duly authorized by the US government to engage in trade of these parts. The engines and other material are then sold to "Pakistan," which in the Kandahar region of Afghanistan is known to be synonymous with the Taliban. And the contractors? They requisition new equipment. All paid for by Joe six-pack. And who gets paid at every stage of the process? The weapons manufacturers. In Iraq, as in Afghanistan. Wash, rinse, repeat. Which is the point of the business model.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2016, 05:21:58 AM by Surly1 »
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
Re: Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2016, 06:34:20 AM »
All paid for by Joe six-pack.

Really?  I thought it was all paid for by the Fed's money printing.  I'm prepared to accept that there is some racket going on with secondhand parts, (didn't Sergeant Bilko do the same thing?), but that would be small time compared to the budget for a whole war.

We know that US-Turkey-Saudi tried to do a regime change on Assad, but then the US changed track when ISIS started the beheading videos.  Now it couldn't have been because of the awfulness of beheadings, because Saudi has been doing it for years.  And it couldn't have been simply the deaths, because the US has killed millions.  So it must have been something else.  I reckon it was a failure of Turkey-Saudi to control their proxies like they said they could, and that made the US very angry - maybe those hostages were particularly important CIA assets, and they were supposed to be released for a huge ransom.  Or something like that.

Anyway the US changed tack and suddenly became anti-ISIS, while still supporting the other rebels.  Saudi publicly agreed to go along with it, but information on what they actually did is limited.  We do know that UAE dropped out of the coalition and we didn't hear about it for six weeks, and we do know that Turkey didn't join the anti-ISIS coalition for a year, and even then in name only.  So the US's Arab allies are not really the good allies we are told they are.

So yes, the US supported the proto-ISIS group, but they turned against them later, and now they are stuck with allies that hate them and are working against them most of the time.  Yet the US can't be seen to fall out with a NATO member or the world's biggest oil exporter.  Is it any wonder that progress against ISIS looks odd?

And you're trying to tell me that it's all to do with making money off spare tank parts!  No, that doesn't fit, sorry.
The State is a body of armed men


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
Last post January 26, 2015, 08:01:38 PM
by MKing
1 Replies
Last post August 11, 2019, 10:40:59 AM
by RE
0 Replies
Last post December 01, 2019, 04:09:36 AM
by RE