Archive | August 20th, 2017

Catalonia Violence: Terrorism or False Flags?


Featured image: Police officers speaking next to a rolled over car at the location where police shot dead five terrorists in Cambrils, Spain, 18 August 2017 © Tjerk Van Der Meulen / Global Look Press

Numerous earlier incidents in America and Europe reported as terrorism turned out to be false flags.

Was Catalonia violence in Barcelona and Cambrils more of the same? It’s too soon to know, wise to be suspicious.

On Thursday, a white van, traveling at high speed, struck pedestrians and cyclists in Barcelona’s Las Ramlas district, killing a dozen or more, injuring scores of others.

Conflicting reports left unclear if the driver was dead or alive, one report saying he fled on foot, another saying he was killed, regional police chief Josep Lluis Tapero unable to confirm if he was shot dead.

Witnesses described panic and chaos. Hours later in Cambrils, a seaside resort town around 70 miles from Barcelona, a black Audi sedan rammed more pedestrians, one person killed, others injured.

Reports said five attackers were lethally shot by police. The Barcelona attack was the deadliest in Spain since explosions on four Madrid commuter trains left 192 dead, around 1,800 injured, a false flag incident reported as terrorism.

An ISIS statement claiming responsibility for the Barcelona incident remains unverified. Yet it made headlines, likely getting most people to believe it. Anyone can call themselves ISIS and claim responsibility. The statement is meaningless.

Incidents like Barcelona, Cambrils and numerous similar earlier ones are used to stoke fear, erode civil liberties, and justify unjustifiable aggression on targeted nations.

They’re usually strategically timed for an intended purpose, designed to capture world headlines, conceal responsibility of the perpetrator, and point fingers at convenient patsies.

Passports or other IDs are usually found, automatically raising red flag suspicions of something not as reported.

Following an earlier false flag attack, a cartoon on independent media showed an individual dressed in black, a suicide jacket strapped to his chest, his finger on the triggering mechanism, saying “s..t, I forgot my passport” – mocking the absurdity of a criminal leaving identifying documents at the scene of the crime, making capture all the easier.

The 9/11 mother of all false flags revealed a treasure trove of information, showing what happened was other than the official narrative.

Most obvious was how could a handful of terrorists outwit America’s 16 intelligence agencies, including sophisticated NSA eavesdropping on anyone or anything suspicious.

Discussing the Catalonia incidents, Michel Chossudovsky said

“(r)eports concerning the Barcelona attack, reveal exactly the same feature of passports and IDs left behind which occurred in Manchester, Paris, Nice, London, New York, and now Barcelona…”

Suspects are usually lethally shot, not arrested. Dead men tell no tales. The official narrative alone is reported, time and again proven false.

Posted in EuropeComments Off on Catalonia Violence: Terrorism or False Flags?

Damascus International Fair Signals Syria’s Revival


Syria is returning to peace and planning for future prosperity


For the first time in five years, Syria has held The Damascus International Fair, the Middle East’s first modern trade fair dating back to 1954.

Below is a video of the fair in 1969.

The fair saw companies from across the world, including from Europe come to the fair to show off their goods to international consumers including big businesses and fellow governments. The primary theme to this years fair was one of national revival and infrastructural renewal.

The big winners of the fair were China, Russia and Iran whose companies took centre state at the fair and will soon take a primary role in rebuilding the parts of Syria that have been damaged by years of war and foreign funded chaos.

For ordinary Syrians who attended, the fair was a symbol that their country is slowly returning to normalcy and that the secular government which provides for equal rights between religious and ethnic sects as well as equality  between men and women is more determined than ever to build a modern country that reflects the real values of the stalwart Syrian people.

In addition to companies demonstrating their products, the fair also featured events displaying Syria’s rich cultural heritage.

Syrian political commentator Afraa Dagher reports,

“Damascus is alive and embraces its visitors again! After a five year cancellation because of the global war launched against Syria since 2011, the Damascus International Fair reopened, launching its 59th session. Forty-five countries have raised their flags in Damascus and joined this historic city in celebration.”

Challenging the war and the sanctions, these 45 countries joined the Damascus international fair. This occasion has the value of being an economic, cultural, social and artistic demonstration.  Among the 23 countries who officially have joined the Fair are Russia, Iran, Iraq, China, and Venezuela.  The Omani Chamber of Commerce paid an early visit to Damascus, on 8 August”.

She continued,

Prime Minister Emad Khamis started the occasion with his speech stating that his exhibition has a message: ”The will of Syrians for life was and is still stronger than terrorism,” adding that “it’s the victory flag of Life over murder, honesty over treason, right over wrong and sovereignty over dependency.” PM Khamis ended his speech by greeting the sacrifices of our brave army and our allies.

Dr Bouthina Sha’aban the senior presidential advisor in an interview to pan Arabic Almayadeen TV expressed that the re-holding of this exhibition is a symbol to the military and political crisis’ route, and it implies that the war is over and that we defeated the project of others in Syria (meaning the project of destroying Syria). This event is the start of the reconstruction and rebuilding of Syria. However she maintained that this victory doesn’t mean it’s a total victory. Full victory requires more sacrifices”.

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban has previously described reconstruction efforts by Syria’s partners as the equivalent of a new Marshall Plan, referring to the funds the United States used to rebuild western and central Europe after the Second World War.

Syrian fashion designer Manal Ajaj

Dagher additionally writes,

“Syria also used to have another international events like Buildex International Building construction and advanced equipment. I have visited this great event once in 2010 before this sabotage war against my country. This war of which their masters aim was to kill the civilization in Syria so that they would stop its life in order to eliminate its cultural identity and history. They directed their savage rebels since the very beginning of the war to destroy the historical locations as well as the modern ones!

In February, the Khallouf Trading Company announced the reopening of its manufacturing plant in Hama, in partnership with the Chinese Dongfeng Motor Company, and the launching of two new vehicles, a sedan and an SUV.

The Damascus International Fair session opened 17 August and continues through  26 August”.

While winning the war against radical Salafist/Wahhabi terrorism is crucial, securing a peace that is based on the future prosperity of the Syrian people is essential. The Syrian government, its state partners and private businesses and entrepreneurs from around the world seem to determined to view the challenges of post war Syria as mutual opportunities.

Below is the video of members of the French delegation celebrating Syrian unity with locals.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Damascus International Fair Signals Syria’s Revival

Syrian Conflict Nearing Its End: Adviser to President Assad


Featured image: Bouthaina Shaaban, the political and media adviser to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

The political and media adviser to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says the six-year militancy in her country is nearly over as foreign states cut their backing for Takfiri terrorist groups, vowing that government troops would fight against any “illegitimate” forces, whether Turkish or American.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with Lebanon-based Arabic-language al-Mayadeen television news network on Friday, Bouthaina Shaaban said the inauguration of Damascus International Fair and regional participation proves a “U-turn was achieved” in the foreign-sponsored crisis.

She added the war has reached its “penultimate stage” as foreign powers that backed militant outfits are changing their policies.

“The exhibition is a defeat for their project, but it does not mean that we have won the war completely. We are just at the beginning of the road towards reconstruction and rebuilding Syria,” Shaaban commented.

The senior Syrian official later criticized Turkey for sponsoring terrorists, arguing that Ankara government says one thing but does another.

Shaaban accused Turkey of playing with all parties in order to win a major regional role through destruction of Syria.

“The presence of Turkish troops is an attack that we will address in a timely manner,” she said, adding that Damascus rejects Ankara’s role in de-escalation zones as Ankara tries to legitimize its presence.

“Just as we defeated terrorism, we will fight any illegitimate presence on our land, whether it’s the United States or Turkey,” Shaaban said.

Shaaban stressed that the United States will not be able to implement any plan to partition Syria.

The remarks came on the same day that Syria’s official news agency SANA reported that army troops, backed by allied fighters from popular defense groups, have made territorial gains against Daesh extremists in the western-central  province of Hama, and almost entirely surrounded them in Uqayribat town.

Syrian soldiers and their allies also engaged in fierce clashes with Daesh militants in the Tal al-Sawaneh district, killing and injuring scores of them.

Syria has been fighting different foreign-sponsored militant and terrorist groups since March 2011. UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura estimated last August that more than 400,000 people had been killed until then.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian Conflict Nearing Its End: Adviser to President Assad

Dire Consequences of Short-sighted Western Policy Towards Middle East


Just one year ago, Director of Europol Rob Wainwright warned Europe of further terror attacks.

A month ago, the same position was shared by Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader in Britain. Mr Corbyn also warned about danger of the EU’s policy towards the Middle East. Then Labour leader called such kind of policy as short-sighted. In fact, the British politician predicted what is happening in Europe now.

According to Bloomberg, from 2014 to 2017, the number of terror attacks increased by 8 times. Since the beginning of this year, terror attacks have conducted in France, Britain, Germany and Belgium. Europeans have already forgotten what it is like to feel safe and calm for their relatives and friends.

The new attack wasn’t long in coming. On August 17, at least 12 people were killed and dozens more injured after a van plowed through a crowd on Las Ramblas avenue in Barcelona, Spain.

Of course, a few hours later, police shot dead four people in a van who tried to launch a similar attack in Cambrils, 100km away from Barcelona. A fifth attacker, who was injured, later died. However, no one is better off because of this – people can’t be brought back to life. Wasn’t it easier to properly build a policy in the Middle East and not escalate tense with those who are effectively countering terrorism?

This opinion is also shared by the American analyst Richard Johnson. He insists that the power of states that can successfully fight terrorism is not aimed at counting it.

According to Mr Johnson, constantly escalating relations with other countries, in particular with Syria, Iran and Russia, the U.S. and Europe are impeding cooperation between the international special services in fighting terrorism. For extremists, this situation is a wake-up call, and that is why the geography of their criminal activities is rapidly expanding.

Obviously, nowadays, the world is facing an enormous danger, the consequences of which will be irreparable. Europe and the United States must realize that international terrorism will not stop. Moreover, flirting with terrorists or using them for different political purposes often leads to civilian casualties.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Dire Consequences of Short-sighted Western Policy Towards Middle East

Will Blackwater Replace the World’s Most Powerful Military to Win Afghan War?


Established in 1997, the Blackwater private security company was not so aged when hired into the US’ lengthiest Afghan war in 2001 and later Iraq war in 2003. Not so later from 9/11 tragedy, the company entered into a contract worth of US$ 5, 4 million with the US government to secure CIA headquarter in Kabul. On the Iraq side, it had earned enough US trust to strike a deal of US$ 27 million with Pentagon to ensure the security of military headquarter in the country.

The Blackwater is not a US-wide but a worldwide giant security company that undertakes critical Pentagon and CIA missions across the world. This security firm, which is notorious for its rebellion, irresponsibility and lack of conscientiousness, has displayed its non-compliance to international and the related nation’s rules and laws in Iraq war.

Afghanistan has its own grim record of the security company’s inappropriate and fatal operations. In 2010, Afghan government unexpectedly stepped forward and disbanded all the national security firms for its inadequacy and risk-posing to the nation. Many years later now, the US is considering putting those bitter experiences back into play.

Once approved, the Blackwater would get the entire responsibility for combat and training missions. The Blackwater and DynCorp security companies have previously led operations in Afghanistan that has left a stain on people’s memories from the US’ military mission. Following the end of US forces’ combat mission in 2014, both companies’ role waned. A possible comeback of an already tasted allied force would bear nothing but grow cynicism and wrath among people against the US government’s military arrangements in Afghanistan.

A switch to the Blackwater as well as mismanagement of Afghan war at its hand as a subsequent case could backfire by wresting any US-favored population into rebel’s embrace. Situation would go from worse to worst, not to mention it would superhumanly outperform in restoring security as the declared goal of the US government.

The Blackwater Company might have barely missed foothold in any territory worldwide where the US has intended intervention. Amid Ukraine crisis, reports gave away about traces of the Blackwater’s footing in the country to fight in favor of the US against Russia. The company’s role in Ukraine’s standoff circulated explosively after Crimea’s annexation to Russia gave rise to new heights of the US-Russia tensions.

The story began when news websites posted a video report about presence of anonymous armed forces in Donetsk, Ukraine. Based on reports, these masked men stormed a pro-Russia rally. While dispersion, the marchers were shouting “Blackwater”.

On September 16, 2017, a Blackwater squad sprayed fires on a bulk of civilians in Nisour Square in Iraq and killed 17 people. The squad claimed the assault was an act of defense to threat posed from people, while investigations and eyewitness accounts found no ground for preemptive attack.

New York Times in one of its earlier issues had revealed that the Blackwater’s agents in concert with CIA led plenty covert operations in Iraq between 2004 and 2006. The report elucidated that then-CIA director Leon Panetta denied involvement in the operations with the private company.

Moving on to Pakistan, the Blackwater drew up and conducted sweeping terrorist operations in 2009, while Musharraf-led government often played down presence of the company in the country. On September 2010, a high-profile American journalist and columnist Wayne Madsen brought out evidences about the Blackwater’s role behind terrorist blasts in Pakistan. He maintained that the Blackwater’s operatives are the leading organizers of terrorist attacks in that country and “Pakistani Taliban” was just a name used to pin these attacks on them.  At the time, relevant Pakistani authorities’ investigation revealed that the Blackwater under its new title “Total Intelligence Solution” was active in Islamabad, Peshawar, Quetta and Karachi.

The long-awaited new US strategy on Afghanistan would be nothing other than doubling the reinforcement as Sen. John McCain declared his own strategy that would clear the path for a likely switch to deployment of private forces. Donald Trump’s advisors who own private security companies insist on shifting Afghanistan’s security job away from the US army to private forces.

Now if we contemplate the White House’s recent discourse on Afghan war from a different viewpoint, it comes out that there is only concentration about war options and no alternative to conflict is imminent. Oil, arms, intelligence and private security experts encircling White House are in command of foreign policies. For certain, all the pronouncements from the White House have something to do with war.

Two of Trump’s advisors including his son-in-law Jared Kushner attempt to hand Afghanistan’s lengthy war over to the Blackwater and the DynCorp private security firms. Although a dramatic cut in military expenditure from US$ 45 billion a year to US$ 10 billion a year as well as a slash in the US troop’s causalities have been presented as supporting reasons by advisors, it is not a matter of a tiny war zone to be handled by an organization when a powerful government [the US] admits failure on the ground. The advisors like Jared Kushner may be serving as a broker between the White House and familiar sources such as Erik Prince founder of the Blackwater who are relatives.

Donald Trump acceded to the White House as a businessman almost completely incognizant of the US’s war operations throughout the world. He unexpectedly didn’t speak a single word about the US’s protracted and costly Afghan war, all because he’s not interested in wars. Even today, he breaks into argument with his advisors about Afghan war and opposes any plan that multiplies the US’s war costs.

Things are running counter to his plans; else the global war games might have gone upside down if he was at the helm of everything. The President Trump also noted that Pentagon is left with no option to continue war in Afghanistan. In a meeting with its national security team, Trump argued that the US is “losing” war in Afghanistan while pointing to a map depicting regions captured by the Taliban. He even suggested that GenJohn Nicholson, the US commander in Afghanistan be fired, NBC news reports.

Reports say in spite of the US defense department’s repeated demands, Trump is unwilling about lasting Afghan war and views it groundless to add in already 9,000 US troops on the ground. Trump disagrees with National Security Advisor McMaster’s roadmap. In a recent US National Security Council’s meeting, although the security advisor resisted with Trump’s refusals, he failed to bring him on the track. The US State Secretary Rex Tillerson also said that Trump is asking tough questions about Afghanistan’s war and is reluctant to see the war continuing as before.

While Trump is likely to accept the private security plan, defense secretary James Mattis and McMaster, among others, disapprove with it. As Trump tends to abolish whatever he regards as unnecessary just to make cuts in expenditures, he may lean on privatization of security efforts in Afghanistan. It would also rid him of mulling over new strategy on Afghanistan. He’s a big taxpayer himself, so he understands the worth of money very well, yet he’s not up to end the war.

Posted in USAComments Off on Will Blackwater Replace the World’s Most Powerful Military to Win Afghan War?

The Political Roots of Russophobia. Turning Vladimir Putin into a Bogeyman

“The Black Guide to Russia is nothing more than Propaganda or Not warmed over with a dark face.”

Featured image: US Representative Barbara Lee

The scoundrels and misleaders in the Democratic Party are leaving no stone unturned in their effort to escape responsibility for their ignominious defeats. There is no evidence of the Russian government “hacking” the election. Instead evidence points to a leak at the Democratic National Committee which revealed the gory details of their corruption and incompetence.

The lies have fallen apart one by one. After months of repeating that seventeen intelligence agencies agreed on Russian election interference they finally admitted that the number was actually three. The Democratic Party is willing to risk hot war and irreparable damage to the system in order to escape blame for their electoral failures. They have been exposed as little more than a brand management team that does nothing to help the millions of people who are still willing to vote for them.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus such as Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters have been in the forefront of this charade and now they have been joined by others. The Root online magazine announced it is joining this dubious group in doing the business of the bipartisan war party and the discredited democrats. “How Russia Used Racism to Hack White Voters” was the first installment in a new series, Black Guide to Russia. The Root promises that “each story will analyze the latest developments of the Russia investigation with a fresh, black perspective.” What is the black perspective on 21st century McCarthyism, on the craving for endless war or supporting the party which consigns black voters to the losers’ column?

“The Root promises that ‘each story will analyze the latest developments of the Russia investigation with a fresh, black perspective.’”

The answers to these questions are found in the history of The Root itself. It was founded in 2008 by Henry Louis Gates and Donald Graham of the Washington Post family. It is now part of the Gizmodo media group and Gates is still editor. Gates continues in his role as the go-to black man for white people. His influence is confined to cutting deals for himself in exchange for access to white people who are hostile to black interests. The Root takes Russia bashing to a new low, claiming that racist white Americans voted for Donald Trump in part because the Russians tricked them into it.

This media outlet which purports to present news of interest to black readers has chosen fealty to the Democratic Party over all else. If Trump’s victory is to be analyzed it must be through the lens of willful white racism. Republicans traditionally used winks and nudges to make clear their role in the duopoly as the white people’s party. Trump dispensed with code words and dog whistles. He made it clear that he would be the white people’s representative. Everyone from the corporate media to the Republican Party establishment to this columnist missed how much his message resonated with white America.

“Gates continues in his role as the go-to black man for white people.”

But according to The Root, white people were swayed by Russian “hybrid warfare” and fake news into doing what they have always done, support people who promised to put them and their interests first. Peddling this high level of foolishness requires a delicate balancing act, so The Root simultaneously blames white racism but says that the Russian government helped to peddle lies.

“The Root will investigate the social conditions that made the American populace so vulnerable to being played.”

In 2016 white Americans played themselves in the way they always do. Donald Trump proved that they put whiteness first. They don’t care about Russia or traditional right wing ideology as much as they care about being white. They saw themselves in Trump and more than 60 million people gladly voted for him.

The only ones spreading lies are The Root, the Democratic Party and corporate media. If The Root wants to analyze the election results by all means they should. They should analyze how black people are trapped within the confines of the Democratic Party as they try to stave off Republican victory. They should talk about how the resulting risk aversion made Hillary Clinton the nominee and doomed black people to loser status within the loser party. They should look at the millions of black voters motivated only to support Obama who promptly stayed home when his name was no longer on the ballot. The Root might do what the Democratic Party refuses to do, expose the degree of voter suppression which prevents black people from exercising their right to the franchise.

“According to The Root, white people were swayed by Russian ‘hybrid warfare’ and fake news into doing what they have always done, support people who promised to put them and their interests first.”

There is a plethora of worthy subject matter in reporting on the 2016 election but The Root chooses to follow official propaganda instead of giving readers anything worth considering. Black Guide to Russia is nothing more than Propaganda or Not warmed over with a dark face. PropOrNot was a blatant if clumsy effort on the part of the Washington Post and the Democratic Party to keep the media within the confines of manufactured consent on the issue of United States foreign policy. The Black Agenda Report team was on the list of outlets condemned for doing what journalists ought to do, print what powerful people would like to see disappear.

Barack Obama’s babbling about fake news began shortly after election in a desperate attempt to keep the sinking ship afloat. Trump’s talk of rapprochement with Russia and the end of trade deals beloved by the duopoly threatened the established order. Turning Vladimir Putin into a bogeyman is an attempt to right the ship of neo-liberalism and empire. It is sad that The Root has joined corrupt people and institutions to uphold what ought to be torn down.

Hopefully this sham journalism will disappear from public consciousness. If Putin didn’t exist the Democratic Party and its operatives would have had to invent him. They keep going back for more, and make themselves less credible in the process. If a Black Guide to Russia is any indication, the sooner they all disappear the better.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on The Political Roots of Russophobia. Turning Vladimir Putin into a Bogeyman

Confirmed: Police Told to Stand Down in Charlottesville—Did Nothing as War Broke Out

The ACLU confirmed late Saturday that police were given stand-down orders in Charlottesville. This invited violence and only fueled the chaos.

Charlottesville, VA — The events that unfolded in Charlottesville, Virginia this Saturday were tragic, hateful, insidious and even deadly. Saturday will go down in history as the day America’s hate reared its ugly face and proved to the world that this country is being divided — to be conquered. Adding fuel to the fire of hatred and violence were politicians who told police not to intervene and allowed the unchecked carnage to unfold before their eyes.

The stand down was confirmed by the ACLU who quoted a police source saying,

“We’ll not intervene until given command to do so.”

Clash between protesters and counter protesters. Police says “We’ll not intervene until given command to do so.” 

There is no shortage of violent footage of clashes between neo-nazi white supremacists and counter protesters from Antifa and the like. Multiple violent battles raged on for several minutes as blood spilled onto the streets of this college town. Only several feet away were police officers — who did nothing to stop it.

As ProPublica reports:

It was a scene that played out over and over in Charlottesville as law enforcement confronted the largest public gathering of white supremacists in decades. We walked the streets beginning in the early morning hours and repeatedly witnessed instances in which authorities took a largely laissez faire approach, allowing white supremacists and counter-protesters to physically battle.

Officials in Charlottesville had publicly promised to maintain control of the “Unite the Right” rally, which is the latest in a series of chaotic and bloody racist rallies that have roiled this college town, a place deeply proud of its links to Thomas Jefferson and the origins of American Democracy.

But the white supremacists who flooded into the city’s Emancipation Park — a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee sits in the center of the park — had spent months openly planning for war. The Daily Stormer, a popular neo-Nazi website, encouraged rally attendees to bring shields, pepper spray, and fascist flags and flagpoles. A prominent racist podcast told its listeners to come carrying guns. “Bring whatever you need, that you feel you need for your self defense. Do what you need to do for security of your own person,” said Mike “Enoch” Peinovich on The Right Stuff podcast.

And the white supremacists who showed up in Charlottesville did indeed come prepared for violence. Many wore helmets and carried clubs, medieval-looking round wooden shields, and rectangular plexiglass shields, similar to those used by riot police.

Clad in a black, Nazi-style helmet, Matthew Heimbach told ProPublica, “We’re defending our heritage.” Heimbach, who heads the Traditionalist Workers Party, a self-declared fascist group, said he was willing to die for his cause and would do whatever it took to defend himself. He was surrounded by a brigade of white supremacists, including members of the League of the South and the National Socialist Movement.

Several members of the militia — armed with AR-15s and who appeared to be neutral in the fight — were recorded on multiple occasions attempting to keep the peace by breaking up fights and tending to the wounded. Their actions proved far more effective than the inaction of the police.

The only thing police seemed to be instructed to do was to break up the lawful assembly which only seemed to add fuel to the violent fire that was stoked throughout the day.

According to ProPublica, Charlottesville Vice Mayor Wes Bellamy defended the police tactics, noting

“I’m not in the business of throwing our police department under the bus, because they’re doing the best job they can,“ said Bellamy. “I don’t think the police officers were just twiddling their thumbs.”

While policing violent crowds, like the ones in Charlottesville on Saturday, is no easy job, we’ve seen police across the country move in and act in situations far less chaotic.

Whatever the reason police were told to stand down, the result of their inaction was the same. Whether deliberate or not, Saturday’s police response served to fuel the already exponentially growing divide.

If ever there were time to call for peace in this country — it is now. The rapid growth of Antifa and white supremacists illustrates the polarizing effects that ‘divide and conquer’ tactics being pushed by the state and media are having.

We must realize that as long as the citizens keep fighting amongst each other, the behemoth state will continue to usurp our freedoms, rob us, divide us and control us to the point of complete despotism or civil war.

In the 16th century, [Niccolò] Machiavelli – in an attempt to get back in the good graces of the powerful – wrote a slim volume called The Prince. In that book he showed the powers that be how to control the people. That book is a statement: separate and rule, divide and conquer. That’s five hundred years ago and it still works, because we allow ourselves to be led around with holes through our noses. – Maya Angelou

Posted in USAComments Off on Confirmed: Police Told to Stand Down in Charlottesville—Did Nothing as War Broke Out

Action Alert: NYT Claims US Opposed Honduran Coup It Actually Supported


The August 14 New York Times reported that the threat by Donald Trump to use the US military against the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has brought together Latin American leaders, divided on other things, in opposition to US intervention.  Along the way, reporter Nicholas Casey cites a regional expert who says, “An often ugly history of US interventions is vividly remembered in Latin America — even as we in the US have forgotten.” Which the Times followed thus:

Under President Barack Obama, however, Washington aimed to get past the conflicts by building wider consensus over regional disputes. In 2009, after the Honduran military removed the leftist president Manuel Zelaya from power in a midnight coup, the United States joined other countries in trying to broker—albeit unsuccessfully—a deal for his return.

There’s a word for that kind of statement, and the word is “lie.”

Zelaya was indeed overthrown in a military coup, kidnapped and flown out of the country via the joint US/Honduran military base at Palmerola.

NYT: Trump’s Threat Against Maduro Unites Latin America, Against U.S.

New York Times (8/14/17)

Now, the US is supposed to cut off aid to a country that has a military coup—and “there is no doubt” that Zelaya’s ouster “constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup,” according to a secret report sent by the US ambassador to Honduras on July 24, 2009, and later exposed by WikiLeaks. But the US continued most aid to Honduras, carefully avoiding the magic words “military coup” that would have necessitated withdrawing support from the coup regime.

Internal emails reveal that the State Department pressured the OAS not to support the country’s constitutional government. In her memoir Hard ChoicesHillary Clinton recalled how as secretary of State she worked behind the scenes to legitimate the new regime. In the days following the coup, her book relates:

I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary Espinosa in Mexico. We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras, and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.

Let’s add, for the record, that with a corrupt, drug-linked regime in place—thanks in large part to US intervention—the murder rate in Honduras soared, rising to fully 50 percent above the pre-coup level. Many of the murders involved criminal gangs, but a great deal was political, with resuscitated death squads targeting journalists, opposition figures, labor activists and environmentalists—of whom indigenous leader Berta Cáceres was only the most famous.

Honduran military suppressing protests after the 2009 coup. (Source: Roberto Breve)

So is it really that we in the US have forgotten what happened in Honduras? Or is that many of us believe falsehoods about that history brought to us by media like the New York Times? The paper may run a correction or a letter to the editor; we’re providing contact information below for readers to contact the Times to encourage them to set the record straight.

But really, how can you see such an outright inversion of reality as a slip-up? “Oops, did we say the US opposed the coup? What we meant to say is that the US, virtually alone in the world, supported it.” The real lesson is, when the US government declares a country an enemy, keep in mind that for corporate press, that basically means—anything goes.

ACTION: Please contact the New York Times and ask it to correct the false claim that the United States tried to restore the democratically elected president of Honduras.


Posted in South AmericaComments Off on Action Alert: NYT Claims US Opposed Honduran Coup It Actually Supported

The Burka Comes to Australia’s Parliament: Pauline Hanson’s Panto


Featured image: Senator Pauline Hanson wears a burqa during question time at Parliament House in Canberra on Thursday 17 August 2017. Fedpol. (Photo: Andrew Meares / Great Lakes Advocate)

In few environments could this work. A member of Parliament (barely breathing, but still a parliament) running within a Muslim minority country (a small minority, at that) with mocking intent, dons a burka, sits in the stands, and receives appropriate mind bending outrage when she strips it off.

One thing can be said: Australia’s Pauline Hanson of her self-described One Nation Party was, in the basest way, impressive. She donned the religious garb of a religion she detests, whose injunctions and mores she barely knows how to enunciate. Her ignorance is profoundly encyclopaedic, and she is proud of it.

Her command of the various types of Islamic religious costume also leaves something to be desired, not to mention her awareness of the formalities that attend it. To that end, she is the textbook example of one terrified by the hidden, the unknown, even the invisible. What are they hiding underneath all that, this dress called the burka? “Many Australians are very much in fear of it.” [1]

Never mind the point made by the speaker of the Senate that she was checked, ahead of this display, that she was, in fact, a One Nation Senator, a security screening process that has been in place for years and requires no revision, let alone updating.

And with each attack, each series of inflicted apocalyptic murders by van, gun, and knife, supposedly perpetrated in the name of Islam, she gets more enthused, determined to wind back what she sees as the aspirations of a caliphate in Australia, a dangerous blooming that must be stomped and severed.

The response from various spokespeople of the Islamic faith was one of vigorous head-shaking, more in sorrow than anger. Nail Aykan, executive director of the Islamic Council of Victoria had to “look twice, thinking ‘is this real?’” Then came the dismissive judgment:

“The quote that you can never underestimate the predictability of stupidity, it came to my mind. But this is a new low.”[2]

The theme of foolishness, idiocy, a clown in a hurry, was also expressed by Kazim Ates.

“Australians don’t believe the burka, the wearing of the burka by a handful of women, is jeopardising the security of Australia.”

By wearing it in Parliament, Hanson had merely “made a fool of herself.”

In a world rapidly spinning on the motifs of the next Trump sensation, the next news propulsion of smacking reality (or fake news), the next tweet, this was sensational and less inappropriate than it would have otherwise been. Its foolishness can only be understood in Trumpland’s new code of reality television and the visual stunt.

US President Donald Trump has already been laying the ground, with his daily utterances that demand, not merely a second look but a third and fourth. His executive order placing various Muslim majority countries on a banned list in terms of entering the United States was a Hansonist measure writ large.

Even more notable is the Hanson copyright, her intellectual property, that can be extended to various Australian policies on refugees and asylum seekers. The “Turn Back the Boats” policy of Prime Minister Tony Abbott had its Hanson imprint, a violent response that barely concealed the fact that he was, and remains suspicious, of Muslim arrivals.

Prime Minister John Howard, in an attempt to neutralise her as a threat to the Liberal National Party coalition in the later 1990s, assimilated Hanson’s clumsy intolerance, giving it a visage of political respectability. The Pacific Solution, Manus and Nauru, not to mention third country resettlement are all legacies of the Hanson diatribe, a bureaucratic-military response that has, at its core, deep suspicions, manic fears. Fittingly, Howard had himself been strongly opposed to immigration – of the Asian variety – in the 1980s.

More to the point, caution, maybe disbelief, struck certain members in the Australian Senate. Was this pantomime with an edge, the vulgar panto that can only be carried off in certain settings (an English public school, for instance, with a taste for the inappropriate)? It was clear that those on the government side were hesitant to applaud their own member, the Attorney-General, George Brandis, who gave Hanson what can be mildly described as a tongue-lashing.

Visibly shaken by Hanson’s burka act, Brandis proceeded to answer Hanson’s questions on whether the burka should be banned with suitable authority. In a sense, that was the other fact that added to the panto: an attorney-general who has been indifferent to civil liberties (data retention, secrecy provisions and restrictions on reporting security matters) happy to defend the fundamental entitlement to wear such dress.

“I would caution and counsel you with respect to be very, very careful of the offence you may do to the religious sensibilities of other Australians.”

Working with each director-general of security and the Australian Federal Police had impressed Brandis that a cooperative Muslim community was vital. Deriding them would, effectively, hive off any chance of averting the next attack, or quashing the next plot.

“And to ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do and I would ask you to reflect on what you have done.” [3]

In her gesture, the One Nation Party leader got exactly what she bargained for. She is immune to critique, let alone criticism, and no doubt plotting the next display that will grab the headlines. And optimistic observations, such as those of David Borger of the Sydney Business Chamber that Hanson’s “cheap shot” will fail in driving a wedge in communities such as Western Sydney, will have to be tested.

Unalloyed bigotry does sell, even if the returns are modest.

“She was making a point about security,” suggested Western Sydney commuter Bruce Burke to the ABC, “and I’ve gotta agree with her.”



Posted in EuropeComments Off on The Burka Comes to Australia’s Parliament: Pauline Hanson’s Panto

Locked and Loaded: War with North Korea Cannot be Contained but Must be Prevented

“On two occasions, Colin Powell blithely threatened to turn North Korea into charcoal briquette.” An Interview with K.J. Noh

After Donald Trump threatened the Democratic People’s Republic of [North] Korea with “fire and fury like the world has never seen,” I spoke to K.J. Noh, a peace activist and scholar on the geopolitics of the Asian continent who writes for Counterpunch and Dissident Voice.

Rehearsing Armageddon

Ann Garrison: North Korea is standing up to the US’s 4800 “locked and loaded” nuclear weapons with an estimated 30 to 60 of its own. Do you think it would still be standing without them?

K.J.Noh: It’s hard to imagine so. North Korea has been in a defensive crouch since the inception of its state. It has been under risk of nuclear attack almost continuously since 1950. Starting during the Korean War (1950-1953), the use of nuclear bombs against North Korea was considered; after the cessation of hostilities in 1953, the US refused to enter into further negotiations, letting the 90-day requirement to negotiate a peace treaty expire. It subsequently refused to remove troops and weapons, and not introduce new weapons systems into the peninsula, as required by the Armistice Agreement (Paragraph 13d).

Starting in 1958, the US placed “Honest John” surface-to-surface nuclear missiles, 280mm atomic cannons, and nuclear cruise missiles on the peninsula, and kept them there until 1991. Then, after the fall of the Soviet Union, ICBM’s pointed at the former Soviet Union were redirected at North Korea.

War Games conducted every year (Key Resolve-Foal Eagle and Ulchi Freedom Guardian) rehearse the attack and occupation of North Korea and decapitation of its leadership. The recent spring war games (Key Resolve-Foal Eagle) have been twice the size of the Normandy Invasion, involving carrier battle group and submarine maneuvers, amphibious landings of mechanized brigades, naval blockade, live fire drills, special forces infiltration, as well as B-1B, B-2, & B-52 nuclear bombing runs. North Korea’s leadership is also well aware of the fact that Clinton’s 1997 Presidential Decision Directive 60 authorizes pre-emptive nuclear war.

“After the fall of the Soviet Union, ICBM’s pointed at the former Soviet Union were redirected at North Korea.”

Let’s also not forget the fact that North Korea was literally bombed back into the Stone Age during the Korean war, when between 20-30% of its population was exterminated. The country was turned into a moonscape, scorched with napalm, and flooded. Independent reports allege the use of bioweapons. You have to go back to the Punic Wars and the sack of Carthage to imagine destruction of such scale and violence. Even General Douglas MacArthur, no stranger to bloodshed, said in his congressional testimony: “I have never seen such devastation…you are perpetuating a slaughter such as I have never heard of in the history of mankind.”

The current threats by the current president, although a little more off-the-cuff and colorful than usual, are nothing new for the North Koreans. For example, on two occasions, Colin Powell blithely threatened to turn North Korea into charcoal briquette—a chilling statement to a country that for three years had 50,000 gallons of Napalm dropped on it daily.

The North Koreans, having lived through, not merely the threat of Armageddon, but the experience of it, are highly unlikely to let go of nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

Framework of Distrust

There was once a possibility of denuclearizing North Korea, back in the 90s. The North Koreans had agreed to monitoring and dismantling of their nuclear reactor, in exchange for normalization of diplomatic relations, removal of sanctions, fuel oil, and a light breeder reactor, whose byproducts would be more difficult to build a nuclear weapon with. The North Koreans fulfilled the bargain for four years, but the treaty (the 1994 Agreed Framework) was dead on arrival in Washington two weeks after signing, and none of the conditions were upheld by the US side. After eight years of Waiting for Godot, the North Koreans found themselves branded as part of the “Axis of Evil.” The North Koreans read the writing on the wall, withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and restarted their nuclear program in 2003.

In 2005, the Chinese negotiated a deal—through the six party talks from 2003-2005—between the US and North Korea, whereby the North Koreans would again dismantle their program, and the US would normalize relations. The very day after the signing, the US charged North Korea with counterfeiting currency and increased sanctions. North Korea withdrew from the deal, and in 2006, tested a nuclear device.

“The North Koreans fulfilled the bargain for four years, but the treaty was dead on arrival in Washington.”

The pattern of distrust is repetitious, going all the way back to the armistice of 1953, which the US announced its intention to abrogate on the day after signing, as it has to the current moment. The current situation, a nuclear armed North Korea, is the result, and it’s unlikely that it can be reversed. Given their own history, not to mention the examples of Libya and Iraq, the North Koreans are unlikely to give up their deterrent, and have said so explicitly. That horse has long left the barn.

The Political Economy of Fear

AG: Does the U.S. have an issue with North Korea aside from the fact that it exists and has a few nuclear weapons?

KJN: The current system is a political economy of fear. From a viewpoint of propaganda, it’s the recycling of the Aristotelian devices of Fear and Pity for the political theater of this current historical moment.

But it’s also the psychology of the political economy: a culture built on individualism lives always in an existential terror of isolation, and has to dominate its way out of its fear. On a national level, this becomes the bad conscience and projected, karmic terror of a system built on genocide.

In reality, most commentators have assessed North Korea’s actual threat as the threat to defend itself in the case of attack by the US. If there is no attack on North Korea, there is little chance of an actual threat to the US. North Korea’s nuclear program is, as Tim Beal put it, a suicidal “Sampson Option,” and a deterrent unlikely to be exercised except under the threat—or perceived threat—of its own annihilation.

Like revolutionary Cuba, the example of North Korea must be extinguished because it poses the threat of a counterexample of resistance to global geopolitical design.

Imagined Resistance, Lethal Force

By way of analogy, we can think, for example, of the policing of African American communities. The history of slavery renders the policing of African American bodies subject to a threshold of compliance and submission so immediate, so absolute, so total, that lethal force is routinely exercised at the first sign of imagined resistance, threat, or non-compliance.

US engagement in Asia, Africa, and America involve a similar paranoid “threat” inflation and a similar exercise of lethal “compliance.” The Korean War itself was referred to as a “police action.”

It’s useful to re-examine the history in this light.

US-Korea relations go back to 1866, when the USS General Sherman forced its way up the Taedong River in Korea, attempting to force open the closed, isolationist state through gunboat diplomacy. The last dynasty of Korea, the 500 year old Chosun dynasty, was steadfastly Confucian and isolationist, and refused to trade and interact with US, European, or Japanese colonial powers, believing that these colonial powers were “totally ignorant of any human morality” and utterly alien to them, and “craved only material goods.” They sent envoys entreating the Sherman to leave, and to leave Korea alone. The Sherman refused to take “No” for an answer, defied entreaties to leave, took the envoys as hostages, and opened fire. It in turn was attacked and burned to the ground, and its troops killed.

“US engagement in Asia, Africa, and America involve a paranoid “threat” inflation and a similar exercise of lethal “compliance.”

Five years later, the US returned to settle scores in 1871 with a full scale marine invasion—5 warships and 24 supporting vessels, and obliterated the Korean defenders. After this, Korea (Chosun) surrendered and opened wide its borders and ports to Western trade, and a “friendship” treaty was eventually signed in 1882. Similar to the treaties that the Native American nations signed with the US, the treaty guaranteed “perpetual peace and friendship,” “a perfect, permanent and universal peace, and a sincere and cordial amity,” and promised to “render assistance and protection” if other powers “deal unjustly or oppressively” with it. Twenty-three years after the signing of this mutual “friendship treaty,” the US went into secret talks with a rising, imperialist Japan, and pawned Korea over to Japan—green lighting the colonial occupation of Japan—in return for Japan’s non-interference in US colonization of the Philippines. This is the infamous “Taft-Katsura memorandum” of 1905, which is widely viewed in South Korea as an abrogation and betrayal of the 1882 treaty.

The Japanese colonial occupation of Korea from 1910-1945 was brutal. Koreans were conscripted by the millions into slave labor, where they died in untold numbers. One out five people killed in atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conscripted Korean slave laborers. The Japanese also kidnapped and enslaved hundreds of thousands of Korean women as military sexual slaves, euphemistically called “comfort women,” in the world’s largest and most violent system of sexual slavery and trafficking. This became the prototype for modern transnational sexual trafficking. Between 75-90% of these women would die during their sexual enslavement.

Manchurian Candidates

To understand this current moment, you have to go to Manchuria of the 1930s. Japanese-colonized Manchuria, the puppet state they called Manchukuo, is where these excesses were the worst. Historian Mark Driscoll compares Manchukuo to the Belgian Congo in terms of its wanton brutality and disregard for human life, and coins the term, “Manchurian Passage,” an Asian “Middle Passage,” to characterize the mass enslavement of Chinese and Koreans to fuel forced industrialization of Manchuria. This became the industrial engine that powered the Japanese imperial war machine that went on to conquer and colonize all of Asia.

Three key figures are associated with Manchuria; all three are key influences on the current situation: Park Chung Hee, a Korean collaborator who served in the Japanese imperial forces smashing anti-Japanese resistance; Kishi Nobusuke, the minister of munitions and development, and Kim Il Sung, a guerrilla leader fighting the Japanese colonization. Kishi, rehabilitated by the US, later becomes Prime Minister of Japan. His grandson, the far right militarist, Shinzo Abe, is the current president of Japan. Park Chung Hee later becomes the president/dictator of South Korea. His daughter is the recently impeached quisling president of Korea. Kim Il Sung, the guerrilla leader fighting Japanese colonization, later becomes the Leader of North Korea. His grandson, Kim Jung Un, is the current Leader of North Korea.

“Historian Mark Driscoll compares Manchukuo to the Belgian Congo in terms of its wanton brutality and disregard for human life.”

Fast forward to 1945, the end of the war. Japan surrenders, Korea is liberated. The liberated Koreans create their own state, the Korean People’s Republic, a democratic, populist state comprised of thousands of people’s committees who had fought the Japanese colonization. Its political economy is an indigenous socialism consisting of thousands of labor and farming cooperatives.

US cold war policy cannot countenance an indigenous, grassroots socialism, especially within the possible orbit of a newly arisen China. It divides Korea in two, much like Vietnam, thwarts national elections, creates a capitalist state in the south by force, and installs an American puppet, Syngman Rhee, as dictator. It also puts Japanese collaborators back into power, and the entire structure of Japanese colonial domination back into place: police, courts, prisons, military, even comfort women. The almost complete reinstallation by the US of this military colonial capitalist system, with the same despotic bloody Japanese collaborators back in power, is the worst nightmare the Koreans can imagine. They fight back, first in mass civil resistance, which is suppressed by mass killings, then guerrilla resistance, which results in scorched earth tactics. The suppression reaches genocidal, atrocity-level proportions in the South: hundreds of thousands are mowed down and murdered by the US-installed Southern dictatorship. Eventually, this crests into a full scale war in 1950.

“Closer than Lips to Teeth”

The Chinese, who fought together with the Koreans against the Japanese in Manchuria, consider the creation of the People’s Republic of China indelibly linked to the efforts of Korean fighters, a blood debt. When the US sends troops into the Korean War, the Chinese, despite being impoverished and weary from their own liberation struggles, send over a million volunteer troops to fight with the North Koreans–just as they had in 1592, when they sent 300,000 troops to repel an earlier Japanese invasion.

“Closer than lips to teeth” is how Chairman Mao characterizes the Korea-China relationship. He sends his own sons to fight in the Korean war; one of them is buried in Korean soil.

The Chinese repel the US and South Korean Army in the early stages of the war. The US reacts with a carpet bombing that takes on the character of a full-blown genocide, a military violence unseen in the annals of warfare. North Korea is razed to the ground, “bombed into the Stone Age” and beyond, napalmed into one long fiery barbecue pit, then flooded as dams are destroyed. Mass slaughter of civilians is routine, and blamed on the North, although later studies indicates that 95% of civilian casualties were caused by the US or the South Korean Army under US control.

In 1953, an armistice is signed, but the key provisions of the armistice are not upheld: to withdraw foreign troops, not to introduce new weapons, and to initiate proceedings to procure a lasting peace within 90 days. No peace treaty is ever signed or pursued; in fact the US announces its intention to let the clock run down on the 90 day provision, covertly introduces new arms the following year, including 166 fighter planes, then dismantles the UN Neutral Nations Inspection Team when they report on these violations. By 1968, there are 950 nuclear weapons on the peninsula threatening North Korea, and the DMZ is routinely punctuated with sporadic raids, border incidents, and firefights.

“By 1968, there are 950 nuclear weapons on the peninsula threatening North Korea.”

US troops still occupy South Korea to this day; all of South Korea’s military and facilities still fall under US Operational Control the moment the US president decides—by declaring Defcon 3. Nuclear weapons have been on the ground or in play since the beginning. Every entreaty on the part of North Korea for negotiations for a peace treaty or a non-aggression pact has been rebuffed or conditioned on non-starter demands such as unilateral disarmament. Instead, the US conducts, twice yearly, the largest military exercises on the planet and recurrently threatens North Korea with annihilation. Donald Trump’s “fire and fury like the world has never seen” is just the most recent threat.

A clear eyed assessment of the history and the situation would conclude that it would be irrational for North Korean survival if it gave up nuclear weapons. They also seem to have been using a calibrated tit-for-tat approach for escalation and de-escalation of threat—the only strategy to prevent war under a situation of deep distrust. However, this capacity for deterrence itself is seen as a threat from the standpoint of the US.

The Chinese Connection

AG: Syria has no nuclear weapons, but they probably wouldn’t be standing without Russia, which got some backup from China. China sent its destroyers and aircraft carriers into the Mediterranean, though I didn’t hear of them actually engaging. Do you think China and Russia can somehow defuse this?

KJN: China is enmeshed with North Korea through culture, history, geography, proximity, propinquity, and consanguinity. It’s also bound to North (and South) Korea through tradition and treaty. There is the 1961 Mutual Defense Treaty between China and North Korea that is still binding, and has never been disavowed: China will come to North Korea’s aid if North Korea is attacked. Recent top level statements have reaffirmed and emphasized this; Chinese party officials who have suggested otherwise have been shown the door. In other words, a war with North Korea, will be a war with China.

It’s also important to remember that Russia also shares a border with North Korea, and has interests in maintaining the current status quo.

“China will come to North Korea’s aid if North Korea is attacked.”

China is currently leveraging all its diplomatic forces to de-escalate the possibility of war. It would rather have a nuclear North Korea than war or chaos on its border, but the US seems to be suggesting that the first will inevitably lead to the others. In 2003, China spearheaded the six-party talks which also attempted to stop a similar escalation. China has also backed the North’s “double freeze”—freeze nuclear programs in exchange for freezing military exercises—although both the Obama and Trump administrations have ignored these proposals. It has also warned the US that if there is any attempt “to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean peninsula,” it will prevent them from doing so. Moreover, it will not do what the US expects it to do: force North Korea to disarm by strong arming it economically or politically. China voted for the recent UN sanctions only in the interest of de-escalation.

China has neither the power nor the inclination to be a subcontractor to US foreign policy; any policy that takes that as a starting point is doomed to fail. However, that may be the point for certain involved parties.

China’s goals in the region are significantly, if not diametrically, opposed to those of the US. China is acutely aware that the US has been pursuing a policy of military and economic encirclement/containment, from the 90s onward, but most overtly since 2011, when Hillary Clintonannounced the “Pivot to Asia.” An explicit war doctrine has been mapped out and elements have been progressively implemented vis-a-vis China. Those factions analyzing or proposing war with China have pointed out that it will be less costly to the US if this happens sooner rather than later.

At the Catastrophic Edge of the Eternal Present

AG: Is conventional warfare even imaginable in this situation?

KJN: War is always a failure of the moral imagination. In the case of Korea, it’s also a limit situation of imagination itself. It’s hard to conceive of a “limited” attack that would not spiral into something much more catastrophic. The cascading contingencies are just too complex and unpredictable; the historical trauma vortex is simply too overdetermined.

French mathematician René Thom developed a model of “catastrophic” change where, for example, the axes of fear and rage, of threat of war and its cost, slide the situation incrementally and discretely into an unstable, unpredictable, catastrophic attack. Threat signaling of the type we have seen is not cost-free. It will not bring about de-escalation through tit-for-tat actions, or submission, or escape, but rather push parties deeper into the cusp of the catastrophe, fixing an enraged “war trance,” setting the stage for unpredictable, catastrophic violence.

The last Korean War was beyond imagination, which is why it has been completely forgotten and repressed in the West. For the North Koreans, it is eternally present. They live in the eternal present of that experience, which they cannot, will not, metabolize or release into memory, until a lasting peace and security is created on the peninsula. That’s why all concerned parties have to put their shoulders into negotiations for peace. Otherwise the consequences will be unimaginable. Inside this current crisis, there is a seed of opportunity; the current South Korean president, who is in favor of de-escalation with North Korea, has put forth concrete measures to initiate the process.

Peace is possible on the Korean Peninsula. If the planet is to survive, there is no other choice.

Posted in USA, North KoreaComments Off on Locked and Loaded: War with North Korea Cannot be Contained but Must be Prevented

Shoah’s pages