Archive | August 23rd, 2017

PALESTINE: PROMISED LAND – SHATTERED LIVES ‘VEDIO’

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on PALESTINE: PROMISED LAND – SHATTERED LIVES ‘VEDIO’

NAFTA Is 23 Years Old – Here Are 20 Facts That Show How It Is Destroying The Economy

NOVANEWS

So if NAFTA is so bad for American workers, then why don’t our politicians just repeal it?

Well, unfortunately most of them are not willing to do this because it is part of a larger agenda.  For decades, politicians from both major political parties have been working to slowly integrate North America.  The eventual goal is to turn North America into another version of the European Union.

Just check out what former general and CIA chief David Petraeus had to say about this

After America comes North America,” Petraeus said confidently in answering the question about what comes after the United States, the theme of the panel discussion. “Are we on the threshold of the North American decade, question mark? I threw that away — threw away the question mark — and boldly proclaimed the coming North American decade, says the title now.” He also boasted about how the three economies have been put “together” over the last 20 years as part of the “implementation” of the North American Free Trade Act.

The “highly integrated” forces of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, Petraeus continued, will become the world’s powerhouse for energy and science. “There are four revolutions that are ongoing at various levels in each of the countries but foremost in the United States,” said the former CIA chief, who now serves as chairman of the KKR Global Institute. “The energy revolution is the first of those, which has created the biggest change in geopolitics since the rise of China since 1978.” The other “revolutions” include IT, manufacturing, and life sciences, which, “as highly integrated as they are, allow you to argue that after America comes North America,” he added.

When you hear our politicians talk about “free trade”, what they are really talking about is integrating us even further into the emerging one world economic system.  And over the past couple of years, Barack Obama has been negotiating a secret treaty which would send the deindustrialization of America into overdrive.  The formal name of this secret agreement is “the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, and it would ultimately result in millions more good jobs being sent to the other side of the planet where it is legal to pay slave labor wages.  The following is a description of this insidious treaty from one of my previous articles

Did you know that the Obama administration is negotiating a super secret “trade agreement” that is so sensitive that he isn’t even allowing members of Congress to see it?  The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being called the “NAFTA of the Pacific” and “NAFTA on steroids”, but the truth is that it is so much more than just a trade agreement.  This treaty has 29 chapters, but only 5 of them have to do with trade.  Most Americans don’t realize this, but this treaty will fundamentally change our laws regarding Internet freedom, health care, the trading of derivatives, copyright issues, food safety, environmental standards, civil liberties and so much more.  It will also merge the United States far more deeply into the emerging one world economic system.  Initially, twelve nations will be a party to this treaty including the United States, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.  Together, those nations represent approximately 40 percent of global GDP.  It is hoped that additional nations such as the Philippines, Thailand and Colombia will join the treaty later on.

Unfortunately, most Americans are as uneducated about these issues as they were back in 1994.

That is why we need to get this information out to as many people as we can.

Posted in USA, MexicoComments Off on NAFTA Is 23 Years Old – Here Are 20 Facts That Show How It Is Destroying The Economy

Trumping NAFTA: Free Trade versus Democratic Planning

First published by Global Research on July 20, 2017

Opposition to ‘free trade’ is in the air again, though not in the way most of us expected or hoped. Three decades ago, the move to guarantee, extend and deepen Canada’s economic integration with the United States by way of the bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the two states mobilized an impressive though ultimately unsuccessful opposition. This opposition continued, though with less intensity, when that agreement was later extended to include Mexico via the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Since then, however, with so many other free trade agreements (taking these first ones as their foundational model) deployed as key political levers in fostering neoliberal globalization, NAFTA came to be widely perceived by labour and the left in Canada as just another part of an unfriendly landscape, as one imposition among so many others passively accepted by a dispirited populace. And even when Canadians managed to raise their spirits in the course of finally banishing Harper’s somber moods in favour of Trudeau’s sunny ways, they soon found that the new government was even more intent on quickly seeing through the vast expansion of ‘free trade’ through the trans-Atlantic Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) as well as reinforcing Harper’s support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and a host of bilateral trade agreements being pursued in Asia in particular.

The crucial point about so-called free trade agreements is that they are not in fact primarily about trade, but about the free flow of corporate and financial investment through promoting and protecting the property rights of capital (as with the so-called FIPAs, or Foreign Investment and Protection Agreements, of which Canada has dozens). In the case of NAFTA, its most crucial provisions are contained in the notorious Chapter 11 which addresses the security of foreign investments. It gives private corporations the right to sue governments when their actions negatively affect corporate profits. In many of these cases, governments were already anxious to play this role but were limited by popular opposition. With such clauses, governments could do what they wanted to do anyway and blame the agreement – ‘We have no choice’. In that sense, it is not state sovereignty that is lost (states are in fact freer to serve capital) but the popular sovereignty/democracy of workers and communities to control capital movements. A CCPA Research Paper published in January 2015 captured very well what this meant for Canada:

Image result for eli lilly

“Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS [investor state dispute settlement] claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over $6-billion in damages from the Canadian government. These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon). Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages totaling over $170-million and incurred tens of millions more in legal costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204-million. The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.”

More generally, and especially in the context of the growing unpopularity of neoliberalism and austerity, these types of agreements have been accompanied by a restructuring of states which, to the end of protecting corporate rights, shifts state power toward agencies like central banks and ministries of finance that are responsible for the globalization of capital and not coincidentally well-insulated from democratic pressures. Frequently sold under the banners of “regulatory independence” and “good governance,” it is this which allows for crucial commitments to restrict social and economic policies to be made by trade representatives at the international level. In this context, such environmental or labour ‘safeguards’ that were added by them as ‘side agreements’ did very little to slow down a process that was inherently socially regressive.

A New Conjuncture

Then the unforeseen happened. Britain voted to leave the European Union (Brexit) and Donald Trump, adopting a xenophobic ‘America First’ platform, stunningly became president of the world’s foremost economic and military power. In this new international conjuncture, the Canadian government’s orientation to expanding ‘free trade’ became problematic. Suddenly the cons as well as the pros of free trade were being widely debated again.

The difference between the earlier opposition to free trade and its current expressions couldn’t be greater. Prior opposition was led by the left, with such political reverberations in Canada that the Liberals stood against the FTA in the 1988 election. Today – while the frustrations with free trade are still expressed in the streets in the inchoate mass protests that have stretched from Seattle, Quebec City, and Genoa at the turn of the century to the G20 meetings in Toronto in 2012 and in Hamburg this summer – the political opposition to free trade in the electoral arena has been usurped by the far right. One result has been confusion and division among progressives. Many are today wary of outright criticism of free trade, fearing this will aid and abet nationalist and xenophobic reaction. This has led to muted opposition to freer trade or to qualified support, the caveat being the extending of the safeguards previously tacked on to protect labour rights, the environment, democratic sovereignty, and jobs in particular sectors (as in Canada from the auto industry in Ontario to the lumber industry in British Columbia).

The political dangers that come with this right wing nationalist reaction, above all in the grave consequences that can follow scape-goating immigrants and foreign workers, are indeed severe. And it is crucial to recognize the broader negative impacts on workers and public services that would come from the kinds of modifications in trade agreements that would symbolically salvage a few plants while promoting even greater deregulation of both foreign and domestic capitalists. But it is important that such concerns not lead to support for an allegedly ‘kinder’ version of free trade amidst neoliberal globalization. This would in fact only further the continuation of the now two-generation-long defeat of labour and the left. It’s been that orientation on the part of liberal and social democratic forces over the past quarter century, reflecting a depressing combination of political naivety and strategic timidity, that in fact opened the way for the Farages, Le Pens, and Trumps to deploy xenophobic appeals to express popular anxieties.

For many on the left, this moment is to be understood as reflecting some kind of fundamental crisis in neoliberal capitalism. They view the anti-free trade rhetoric – especially that coming from the new American president and his extreme advisors – as reflecting the economic decline of the U.S. empire, the retreat of its state from global economic responsibilities, and the possible collapse of globalization itself. Yet the underlying dynamics of internationally integrated finance, production, and multinational corporate trade in fact still continue, with working classes everywhere showing all too little capacity to undermine their operation. China may more confidently assert its growing weight within the global order, but it clearly has little capacity, especially with its own internal contradictions to deal with, to assume the U.S. role and responsibilities for overseeing global capitalism. Globalization may briefly slow down and suffer a loss of legitimacy, but it is the historical form that capitalism now embodies and will remain the only game in town absent widespread political challenges to capitalism itself.

It is worthwhile in this regard to more precisely contrast the orientation of the Trump administration with its predecessors. In the post-war making of global capitalism, the American state found it necessary to make concessions to other states. Sometimes, as with South Korea and Japan, this was for geopolitical reasons and took the form of allowing them access to the crucial American market without a matching opening of their own markets. More common was the use of American concessions to induce states to liberalize their economies to international penetration. Those trade-offs negatively affected some American firms and sectors – and especially their workers and the cities and towns where they were located. This led to some protectionist lobbying (protectionist sentiments are, after all, hardly anything new in the U.S.), in order to maintain its universalist thrust toward a liberalized international order, the American state acted to limit their impact. It won the right to fast-track trade agreements, with Congress having to accept or reject them through a simple up or down vote in a relatively short time horizon, thus avoiding amendments for particular exceptions that disturbed their essential purpose. It established institutional channels for arbitrating grievances whereby workers and firms had to prove that any harm they suffered was the direct result of free trade, channeling frustrations into securing, at best, some financial compensation or temporary import reprieve. And all the while, it used the domestic pressures for protectionism as a lever to get other states to further open their markets, thereby strengthening rather than weakening the neoliberalization of global capitalism.

What distinguishes the Trump administration in this regard is that rather than circumventing particularistic protectionist claims articulated in Congress, it is itself making such claims on behalf of certain American workers and industries. Its expressed determination is to claw back concessions previous administrations made in order to draw other countries into the American-led global neoliberal order, and to make others bear the burden of the contradictions which that order has systematically generated. While NAFTA led to a massive flood of subsidized U.S. agribusiness corn exports that drove the Mexican peasantry off the land, this also had the effect of both providing a cheap labour force for the subsidiaries of U.S. manufacturing moving to Mexico and impelling the flow of Mexican migrants to become cheap labour in the USA. That they became the targets of Trumps xenophobic appeal to workers which U.S. manufacturing firms had abandoned in the industrial ‘rust belt’ was only the most glaring example of how the contradictions of NAFTA have now come to play into the hands of a capitalist scoundrel like Trump. But a further consequence of this may be that it undermines the legitimacy of free trade within other states. In the case of the Canadian state, for example, an especially important selling point in selling free trade agreements was the argument that they would protect Canadian capital from the politicization and arbitrariness of American trade decisions. This was never all that convincing to Canadians; Trump’s call for renegotiating NAFTA to assert ‘America First’ seems to confirm that earlier skepticism.

Image result for NAFTA

It is not completely certain what Trump and his closest advisors fully intend with their planned redoing of NAFTA and the attendant rejection of other multilateral free trade agreements. But we can be sure that rather than any attempted unravelling of globalization and the leading role of the U.S. in it, it will involve a mix of further advantages for American investors in different sectors, such as the internet and e-commerce, extending intellectual and property rights, and challenging existing regulatory limits to corporate penetration, along with efforts to further strengthen the reach of the Chapter 11 ISDS tribunals. What is also clear is that, even while the Trump administration demagogically promises to bring work to certain pockets of U.S. workers, it has no intention of cutting off U.S. capital from global or regional value chains. Rather, it seeks to strengthen the reach and power of U.S. capital globally. The central contradiction here is that the reconfiguration of the institutions of the American state under Trump, not to mention its international posture, may render it incapable of playing the central role it has heretofore played in containing the tendencies to economic as well as ecological crises which the system of global capitalism continually spawns.

Reframing the Debate

The fundamental task of the left is to reframe the debate, all the while engaging in ongoing collective efforts to challenge the expansion of ‘free trade’ and the structures that underpin it. This means going beyond our past opposition to free trade agreements. The problem during the years of the “anti-globalization” movement, and the lesson we must confront now, is that simply blocking another such agreement – as important as that is – doesn’t address the underlying trajectory of global capitalism’s determined expansion and penetration into all aspects of our lives.

An important recent CCPA paper by Pierre Laliberté and Scott Sinclair (What is the NAFTA Advantage?) has put forward a left case for Canada leaving NAFTA. While not suggesting there are “no costs to leaving NAFTA,” by concentrating only on demonstrating this might only entail an overall 1.5% tariff hike, they feel able to propose that “we collectively approach the whole renegotiation process with the knowledge that the cost of the worst-case scenario would be modest, and that Canada has more latitude than is often appreciated to stand its ground and assert its national interests in the coming negotiations.”

However, any discussion of the costs of leaving NAFTA requires consideration of much more than the level of overall tariff costs. The real problem is the private profit-based restructuring of workplaces and communities by both international and domestic corporations and financiers. The kind of international competition this is specifically designed to foster among workers weakens solidarity at home and abroad while undermining the very meaning of popular democracy and curtailing struggles for economic democracy. It would, in this respect, be an error to underestimate the challenge that curtailing the ever deeper degree of Canadian inter-dependence with U.S. capitalism presents, or the protections that internationalizing Canadian capital also seeks from FTAs and ISDS processes.

Certain strategic conclusions follow from this. First, we need to shift the Canadian economy in a more inward-oriented direction. This doesn’t mean rejecting any involvement in trade, but it does mean diminishing the chase for export of capital and goods and finding local and national mechanisms that block the internationalization of capital and contain global value chains. This especially applies to moving away from the extreme integration of the Canadian economy with that of the U.S., and it equally applies to its corporations and financial institutions as well as to those of the Canadian federal and provincial states.

Second, any such reorientation must address struggles over the state. Protests and advocacy can only get us so far. However militant, they have failed to reorient states away from neoliberal policies or even to check the power of corporations within the existing neoliberal frameworks. The shift from protest to politics we have seen on the left with the rise of new parties like Syriza and Podemos and the insurgencies in old ones like those led by Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders reflects a growing recognition that to protect both workers and the environment requires engaging in such effective electoral channels as are still available at the national level of the nation state since there is no possibility of democratic control at the international level, nor of effective resistance to market pressures locally. The necessary break with existing international trade agreements can only occur with a rupture in the neoliberal state – its political alignments, policies, personnel, and institutions.

Third, we must move toward democratic planning. This must be a two-tracked strategy. It means building workers’ struggles in workplaces and in communities for control over investments in infrastructures and plants and the flows of surplus capital and profits. And it means, if these struggles are at all to be successful, directly struggling over – and entering – the state with an orientation to transforming its institutions and building the capacities to allow for the democratic transformation of the economy, with all this necessarily means in terms of transforming social relations. Only the democratic planning of what is invested, where it is invested, and how it is invested will allow for an escape from the unceasing narrowing of democracy to serving ‘competitiveness’ and the scourges of constant job insecurity, obscene growth in inequality, and aggravation of the environmental crisis that comes with it.

The focal points of democratic planning would be stable and better jobs, steadily improving social services, redistribution of income and wealth, and an ecological transformation to responsible and sustainable production for use not exchange. These are all interrelated. Only planning can possibly deal with the ever greater threats to the environment, since countering this requires a fundamental reorientation of the economy that must include the planned conversion of workplaces, homes, and infrastructure. This, in turn, requires a ‘jobs agenda’ addressed to doing useful and rewarding work for adequate pay, in addition to social programs to fairly address the educational, occupational, and geographic transitions involved in this. But for all this to be possible such planning must be based on democratic public control over the investment of capital, both international and domestic – which is precisely what multilateral and bilateral capitalist trade agreements are above all designed to prevent.

This emphasis on democratic planning at the level of nation state, envisioning a more inward-oriented, ecologically-balanced and socially-solidaristic economy, may strike some as uncomfortably ‘nationalistic’. We certainly cannot be oblivious to the need for international cooperation among states to make capital controls and the democratic decisions over investment effective. But to imagine getting to some abstract internationalism without prior change at the national level is delusional. It is only as each society develops this kind of democratic planning foundation that a new internationalism becomes feasible. Transforming the state at the national level remains the essential base for rejecting the dog-eat-dog world of global capitalism and developing the kind of internationalism that allows for a planned complementarity of trade between economies, and the solidaristic sharing of skills, resources, and technologies.

None of this denies the importance of joining with other progressive movements and allies in Canada, as well as the U.S. and Mexico, to call for an end to NAFTA and working to undo CETA as well as the TPP that the Trudeau government has championed as part of Canada’s unqualified support for ‘free trade’. This will require joint campaigns, in Canada and across all three countries, for abrogation of the Chapter 11 investor protections (and FIPAs more generally) in order to expand popular sovereignty in controlling the socially and ecologically destructive actions of international capital. Similar national and international campaigns need to be taken up in other areas as well, such as the protection of freshwater from bulk water exports, privatization, fracking and effluent discharges. It also requires challenging the Trudeau government’s groveling to accommodate the demands of the Trump administration for military spending increases and NATO interventions in order to assuage the U.S. president on the trade front. Any break from NAFTA that Mexico proposes, which will be led by the Mexican left, must be met with solidarity from Canadian workers and movements against the opposition and sabotage that would inevitably come from both American and Canadian capital.

That socialists today don’t now have anywhere near the collective power to seriously engage in democratic planning isn’t a reason to despair. It is rather a matter of explicitly recognizing that the key issue for us is not the contradictions in the workings of capitalism but in our collective failure to organize ourselves to build that requisite capacity. This isn’t a matter of setting immediate issues like confronting NAFTA aside. It is a matter of emphasizing that in opposing all such international treaties that place corporate rights and freedoms above all others, we consistently place such opposition in the larger context of challenging capitalism, and then get on with the most ambitious organizational task of building the capacities and institutions adequate for engaging in that longer term battle.

Posted in USA, MexicoComments Off on Trumping NAFTA: Free Trade versus Democratic Planning

Conflict in Syria Far From Resolved

NOVANEWS

US Bombings Targeting Raqqa Residential Areas. 78 Civilians Killed in Last 24 Hours

Russia’s intervention nearly two years ago significantly changed the dynamic on the ground – much of the country liberated from US-supported terrorists’ control, from ISIS, al-Nusra and other groups.

At the same time, US terror-bombing continues, notably in Raqqa, targeting residential areas, massacring civilians daily, likely thousands since the aerial campaign began in early June.

In the last 24 hours alone, local media sources and survivors reported US-led so-called coalition warplanes massacred 78 civilians in three Raqqa neighborhoods.

Homes and infrastructure were targeted, no ISIS or other terrorists at or around areas struck. The attack was cold-blooded murder like so many others in all US war theaters – Nuremberg-level high crimes.

On Tuesday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry blasted White House hypocrisy, continuing phony accusations of CW use by Syrian forces, despite the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons confirming the country’s entire stockpile was destroyed.

“We don’t rule out the very regrettable official comments (from Washington) are composed to offer grounds for (its) possible future intensification of interference in Syria’s domestic affairs,” a ministry statement said.

Separately, a May commentary by YaleGlobal Online contributors Carol and Jamsheed Choskyirresponsibly and illegally called for partitioning Syria as a way to resolve years of war.

They argue

“Syria was never a country whose 14 provinces and 8 main communities were voluntarily bonded together by secularism and tolerance. Not surprisingly the six-year civil war became violently sectarian and ethnic.”

For millennia, America was never a country. Land was stolen from its indigenous people. The same goes for Israel, historic Palestine stolen to create an apartheid Jewish state, numerous other countries artificially created – notably by imperial carving up of continents belligerently.

Syria is Obama’s war, now Trump’s – naked aggression, the country invaded by US-supported terrorists, recruited from scores of countries. There’s nothing civil about years of conflict.

The Choskys accused Russia, Iran and Turkey of “greatly abet(ting) the strife…” True enough for Turkey. Erdogan can never be trusted.

Russia and Iran are the only foreign powers genuinely supporting conflict resolution – through Astana/Geneva peace talks and establishment of deescalation zones, hoping to extend them nationwide.

The authors claim Russia and Iran aim to enhance their regional influence and control. Their goal is diplomatic conflict resolution, liberating Syria from the scourge of US-supported terrorism, preventing its spread to their own countries.

The authors:

“(T)he United States and its EU partners have been more distant players, supplying funds and armaments to anti-Assad rebels while occasionally bombing Syrian government and Islamist terrorist bases.”

False! War was planned and orchestrated in Washington. US-led terror-bombing has been ongoing for nearly three years, massacring thousands of civilians, destroying vital infrastructure, several times attacking Syrian and allied forces – supporting ISIS and other terrorists, not combating them.

The authors:

“Syria already has been de facto partitioned by the opposing forces of the civil war. No political leadership represents the many domestic factions, and none could control the territory militarily and politically, or run a national administration.”

“(T)here is no currently-envisaged governing coalition that would be acceptable to the major international players.”

Syria is partly occupied, not partitioned, democratically elected governance in Damascus the only legitimate authority over the entire nation.

So-called “major international players” have no legal right to dictate policy to any other sovereign nations, including Syria and other countries victimized by US aggression.

International law prohibits interfering in the internal affairs of any other nations – accept in self-defense if attacked. Syria is the victim of aggression, not its perpetrator.

The authors irresponsibly propose partitioning the country into Sunni-controlled Homs, Hama, Idlib, Aleppo, Raqqa and Deir Ezzor provinces and governorates, a Kurdish northeast, along with southwestern and southern areas run by Damascus.

If adopted, their proposal would flagrantly violate international law. It would fail to achieve peace. Syria’s legitimate government rejects foreign powers carving up their country at their discretion, repeating the horrors following WW I.

The authors falsely called Assad a “dictator.” In June 2014, he was overwhelmingly reelected democratically, a process independent observers called open, free and fair. Syrians want no one else leading them.

The authors:

“Partition may not the ideal outcome for Syria’s crisis, but is necessary and can be done correctly.”

Partition would be illegal destruction of a nation-state, a flagrant violation of international law – likely exacerbating things, not responsibly resolving them.

Conflict never would have begun if not launched by Washington, using ISIS and other terrorists as imperial foot soldiers, aided by US-led terror-bombing, serving as their air force.

The way to restore peace and stability is by defeating the dual scourge of terrorism and US imperial aims.

Partition is a scheme only hegemons and their supporters endorse.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Conflict in Syria Far From Resolved

Update: Barcelona Attacks, Many “Suspects” Executed by Police

NOVANEWS
Featured image: Spanish authorities say Younes Abouyaaqoub was driving the van that killed 13 people in Barcelona. (Photo: Mossos d’Esquadra/Catalan Police)

On Monday it was reported that Younes Abouyaaqoub, the terrorist suspected of driving the van that killed 13 people in Barcelona last week, was shot dead by Catalonian police.

A 14th fatality occurred when Abouyaaqoub stabbed and carjacked a motorist during his getaway from La Rambla, and a 15th occurred after other members of the terror cell drove their car into pedestrians and stabbed a woman in the town of Cambrils before being shot and killed by police themselves.

Like the five suspects killed in Cambrils, Abouyaaqoub was also wearing a fake suicide bomb belt when police fired at him. It is interesting to note that the alleged perpetrators of the London Bridge attacks in June of this year were also supposedly wearing fake suicide bomb vests during their attack.

It is also claimed that Abouyaaqoub shouted “Allahu akbar” before police shot him, another recurring feature of recent terrorist incidents.

Furthermore, while it was not initially clear whether there was a link between this incident and the attack in Barcelona, the white Ford Focus that rammed two police officers at a terror checkpoint on Thursday evening is now said to have been driven by Abouyaaqoub.

Other developments in the narrative include that the terrorist cell’s imam, Abdelbaki Es Satty, allegedly the ideological ringleader of the cell, is believed to have been killed in the explosion that occurred last Wednesday night in the town of Alcanar. It is claimed that he was radicalized while serving time in prison for smuggling hashish, as during his prison term he met Rachid Aglif, who is serving an 18-year term for his role in the 2004 Madrid train bombings. However, some may find this explanation lacking as it is also being reported that Es Satty lived with Mohammed Fahsi between 2003 and 2005, shortly before Fahsi was accused of being an al-Qaeda recruiter and jailed for funding terrorism.

In the first days after the attack in Barcelona, the press was quick to point out how none of the suspects were known to authorities, unlike the many ‘known wolves’ 21WIRE has reported on in the past. However, it would be hard to make that claim about the ringleader Es Satty, who had not only served time in prison and been granted a reprieve from deportation, but who also shared an address with a known terrorist financier and recruiter.

One other thread in the story concerns a Madrid court which has been receiving the testimony of surviving members of the terror cell. Confidential information from the proceedings is being anonymously leaked to the press. Among this leaked information are claims that other attacks were planned, including a possible bomb attack on the Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona.

More on this story from The Telegraph…

Mossos d’Esquadra, the police force in Catalonia, shot and killed (Photo: Feliciano Guimarães. Source: Wikicommons)

Hannah Strange, James Badcock & Martin Evans
The Telegraph

The terrorist who went on the run after killing 14 people in Barcelona has been shot dead while wearing a fake suicide belt.

Younes Abouyaaqoub was shot on Monday by armed police in the town of Sant Sadurni d’Anoia in the district of Subirats, around 30 miles west of Barcelona, bringing to an end a five-day international manhunt.

The 22-year-old Moroccan reportedly shouted “Allahu akbar” as he was challenged by officers, leading to fears that he was about to launch a bomb attack. Police used a remote-controlled robot to check his body for explosives, but later confirmed that the suicide belt he was wearing was fake.

Abouyaaqoub was the last remaining member of the jihadist cell responsible for last week’s twin terrorist attacks in Barcelona and Cambrils. Police now believe he was at the wheel of the van when it ploughed into crowds on Las Ramblas on Thursday afternoon, killing 13 people including Julian Cadman, a seven-year-old British boy.

Posted in Europe, SpainComments Off on Update: Barcelona Attacks, Many “Suspects” Executed by Police

BRICS: Turning Point to the New World Economic System, China’s Crucial Role

NOVANEWS

Interview to the Peoples Daily

Interview of China’s People’s Daily with renowned author and former foreign minister of Yugoslavia Zivadin Jovanović

As the host of this summit, what new elements can China bring to the BRICS?

ZJ: First of all, it is natural that China, one of the founders and the host country of the BRICS Summit will reaffirm remarkable achievements of BRICS cooperation and development, in the democratization of the world trade, development and financial institutions and in bringing the world economy out of recession. At the same time, China is expected to offer the best ways how to deal with new challenges in the field of global trade, investments, and rapid changes in economic structure and technology. Speaking of “new elements”, those in my opinion, may be – further expansion of the BRICS membership in line with real roles and potentials of emerging economies; timely contemplating challenges of the new industrial revolution bringing enormous development potentials but also unprecedented changes in economic, social and working force structures; reinforcing struggle for principle based international trade and investment cooperation, against autarchy, protectionism, economic, financial or any other form of confrontation.

2. What kind of role has BRICS played in the global governance? Has the role of the BRICS in the world changed in the past few years? What role should the BRICS play in the future?

ZJ: BRICS, especially China, has played crucial role in reforming global economic governance toward building up new just economic world order free of domination, exclusiveness and exploitation. BRICS is the symbol of the New Economic Order based on sovereign equality, inclusiveness, shared benefits and responsibilities, win win cooperation. Establishment of the New (BRICS) Development Bank, of Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, Belt and Road Fund and a number of other new specialized economic, financial and monetary institutions established by BRICS, or by China as a leading member has already changed the world economy governance. This process of paramount importance is not finished. New challenges, obstacles and even open resistance to the democratization of the world economic relations do call for vigor new initiatives of BRICS and emerging economies, in general.

3. How do you assess the performance of the BRICS in the past few years? What kind of characteristics does BRICS have?

ZJ: Establishment and the role of BRICS is of historic importance for the present and for the future of the world economic relations and development. BRICS represent a turning point from the world system of domination to the world sovereign equality and equal chances for all. From the system of deepening economic and social gaps to the system of equitable distribution of wealth and human well-being centered strategies. From sewing interventionism and destabilization aimed at controlling the earth’s wealth to solidifying peace, development and sovereign control of natural wealth of every country. BRICS establishment ushered irreversible process of ending the era of domination of few the richest and opening new era of equal opportunities and inclusive sustainable development for all. BRICS is led by conviction that only equitable and sustainable development serves the interest of peace, stability and well being of mankind. What make BRICS strong, trustworthy and with bright future are its openness, equality and distinctive efficiency. New (BRICS) Development Bank, for instance, brings its decisions on credit demands solely on economic merits, free of any political conditionality.

4. China has played a leading role in the process of cooperation of BRICS. What should China do to lead the BRICS to a better future?

ZJ: Reinforcing win win cooperation which is symbol of China’s global approach to international economic cooperation, continued adherence to the principle of sovereign equality and harmonizing bilateral and multilateral approaches to the development strategy and other challenges will be the best way to lead BRICS to even better future. While remaining open for equitable cooperation with developed parts of the world, the development strategies of BRICS countries should be designed to facilitate economic exchange among themselves and among emerging economies, in general.

5. China has been the second largest economy in the world. What kind of positive influence has China made to the reform of world economic and financial system?

ZJ: China commands great potentials not only for own modern socioeconomic and cultural development but also for the growth of the global world economy. The fact that China has risen to the post of second largest economy of the world with real possibility to take the lead as the first one in not distant future, is proof by itself of unprecedented potentials and clear vision of the future of equal chances for all. Chinese strategy of reforms and opening led not only to the fastest GDP growth in the world but also to strengthening of science, innovation and green development technologies. By introducing the concept of win win cooperation and later Global multidimensional Belt and Road Initiative China in fact presented new pattern of international cooperation based on long term common objectives, not on shortsighted calculations and temporary gains. All this made China worldwide distinct, highly desirable partner in both – practical cooperation and in building New World Order.

China has gained strong international support in pursuing win win cooperation especially from developing countries. This naturally led to China’s very positive influence in promoting reforms of the world economic and financial institutions opening the door that the interest and voices of less developed parts of the world be better understood and respected. Coordination of efforts within BRICS, SCO and other integrations made China’s influence in G20, WTO, IMF and UN institutions much more visible and efficient. No doubt that China’s influence to further reform the world economic and financial systems will grow from strength to strength. China’s membership to WTO and entering of renminbi into the IMF basket of international currencies (SDR) make China’s influence stronger and stronger. Finally, the institutions which China, BRICS, or SCO have already established, such as New Development Bank, AIIB, BRI Fund and others, are pillars of the emerging new global financial and economic systems.

6. BRICS voices the interest of developing countries. How should both developed countries and developing countries enhance cooperate to boost world economic growth?

ZJ: First of all, by pursuing open, unhindered trade, investment and transfer of new technologies. Developing countries should be supported particularly in strengthening their inter-connectivity through expansion and modernization of infrastructure. To be in harmony with sustainable peace economic cooperation should be free of shortsighted geopolitical calculations characteristic of the cold war and unipolar periods. There is no way of returning back to the system of domination.

Posted in ChinaComments Off on BRICS: Turning Point to the New World Economic System, China’s Crucial Role

ISIS Defense Rapidly Collapses in Central Syria ‘Video’

NOVANEWS

The ISIS defense in central Syria is rapidly collapsing under the pressure of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and other pro-government formations supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces.

Government forces, led by the SAA Tiger Forces, have liberated the villages of Wadi Latum, Dagher, Latum, Quwayr, and Dahr Matla south of the recently liberated village of Taybah at the Sukhna-Resafa road.  Army troops and pro-government militiamen are now within only 10 km from creating the second ISIS pocket in the province.

Some sources even speculate that government forces have already done this.  However, no photos or videos have been provided.

In the Uqayrabat area, government troops, led by the 5th Assault Corps ISIS Hunters, have liberated the Huwaisis, Wadi Huwaysis, Taraq Sawwanat Hasw, Wadi Awabid, Jub Shuyukh, Sharqa Reservoir, Aydiyah, and the nearby points.  Huwaysis had been an important ISIS strongpoint used by terrorists as a foothold for counter-attacks against the SAA and its allies advancing in the area.

Warplanes of the Russian Aerospace Forces deployed in Syria have made 316 combat sorties over the past five days and carried out 819 airstrikes on ISIS terrorists, the chief of the main operations department of the Russian General Staff, General Sergey Rudskoy, announced on Monday.

Since the start of August, Russian warplanes have carried out 990 sorties and conducted 2,518 airstrikes on terrorist targets.  The airstrikes destroyed 40 units of military equipment, 106 trucks carrying heavy machineguns, and up to 800 terrorists.

Rudskoy added that the operation to liberate “central Syria from terrorists is nearing completion.” This is why ISIS terrorists are pulling their strongest units to the province of Deir Ezzor, preparing for the last stand against the SAA and its allies.  Many militants from Mosul and the most battle-ready units from Raqqa reportedly moved there.

As soon as the ISIS defense fully collapses in central Syria, the SAA and its allies will focus on lifting the ISIS siege from Deir Ezzor.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on ISIS Defense Rapidly Collapses in Central Syria ‘Video’

Ukraine’s Mis-understanding of Lenin Helps Explain America’s Fight with Re-invented Historical Statues

Featured image: Vladimir Lenin (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

While the United States remains embroiled in a controversy relating to the presence of statues paying tribute to leaders of the former Confederate States of America, the Ukrainian regime has engaged in and approved of the destruction of numerous statues, busts and monuments to the Bolshevik leader V.I. Lenin. According to TASS, 2,389 Lenin statues and monuments have been destroyed on territory controlled by the Kiev regime.

This helps explain the bitter irony of the current crisis in the United States. Without Lenin and the Bolsheviks, a Ukrainian state would probably not have ever come into existence after 1991.

The current borders of Ukraine are largely the work of the Bolsheviks who re-wrote the internal Russian map which consisted of local units called губерния (governorates). The Bolsheviks keen to destroy a united Russian state in order to promulgate the notion of a fraternal brotherhood of nations, re-drew the map creating a series of Soviet Socialist Republics of which the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was one.

The pre-1917 map of governorates in western Russia clearly shows that the borders of what is now Ukraine, is a series of governorates which in spite of their formal absence from official maps, broadly correspond to the real regional delineations which when aggregate form the geo-political and demographic mish-mash known as the Republic of Ukraine.

Map of governorates of the European part of the Russian Empire, pre-1917

The very fact that these lands were drawn back to Russia after years of rule by foreign powers, primarily the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to the west and the Ottoman Empire to the east and south, is due to the following events which transpired under Tsarist Russia.

In 1667, the Treaty of Andrusovo affirmed Russian sovereignty over historic Russian lands that had been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since the 14th century. These areas were de-facto Russian ever since the Treaty of Pereyaslav, signed in 1654 as an alliance between local Cossacks and the government in Moscow.

The restoration of Russian lands was affirmed in the 1686 Treaty of Perpetual Peace.

These regions became known as Malorossiya (Little Russian) and formed the triumvirate of the Three Russias under a single sovereign (Great Russia, Little Russia and White Russia). The lands of Malorossiya on the left-bank of the river Dnieper were later incorporated into further territorial gains from Poland-Lithuania on the right-bank of the river Dnieper in 1793.

In 1764, former Ottoman regions around the Black Sea including the cities of Odessa and Donetsk, formed Novorossiya or New Russia. The former Ottoman Khanate of Crimea formally linked up with this region in 1783”.

In this sense, Lenin is both the cause of modern Ukraine’s existence and also the cause of the troubles which have befallen modern Ukraine.

Whether the pre-1917 governorates of the region remained in the Russian Federation after 1991 or formed independent units, they would in either case have more accurately corresponded to the actual linguistic, ethnic, religious and economic identity of the modern regions. The make-up of the regions has not changed drastically since 1917 with the exceptions of the post-1945 removal of European populations such as Poles from Galicia which was part of the Second Polish Republic after the First World War before being transferred to Soviet Ukraine after the Great Patriotic War. Similarly, Ukraine’s Jewish population has declined over the course of the 20th century while other European peoples such as Greeks, who once formed an important part of cities like Odessa, have also largely gone to the Hellenic Republic or elsewhere in the wider world.

Other than this, the make-up of the regions is mostly unchanged.

What has changed, is the interpretation of the identity of some of the regions. Prior to 1917, the word ‘Ukraine’ was rarely if ever used to define the area known commonly as Ukraine.

In the Russian vernacular Malorossiya (Little Russia) was common and for regions of modern Ukraine that were ruled by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the region was called Ruthenia and its people Ruthenians.

The word Ukraine which literally means ‘borderland’ in Russian and related languages and dialects only came into prominence in the 20th century, primarily as a means of Ruthenians attempting to carve an identity beyond second class citizens of Austria or third class members of Polish regions.

The first world leader to assign full legitimacy to the term Ukraine was in fact Lenin. Prior to that, only the fledgling and widely unrecognised Ukrainian People’s Republic and the even more fledgling West Ukrainian People’s Republic used the name. Both of these states were short-lived rump regimes which briefly existed in a unilateral fashion during the period of the Polish-Ukrainian (1918-1919) and Soviet-Polish (1919-1921) wars.

History however has a way of reinventing the meaning of past leaders and Lenin is a prime example. For most Russians, Lenin is either an ideological communist hero or a murderous menace who destroyed an Orthodox Christian empire. However, for Russians outside of Russia, Lenin is often a hero of Russian patriotism and resistance against anti-Russian regimes. This is true even among non-communists. Inversely, among followers of anti-Russian regimes, Lenin represents Russian patriotism, even though Lenin decried the Russian national character as ‘chauvinistic’ and called Russia a ‘prison of nations’ (sometimes translated as a ‘prison of peoples’.

This can help one understand the political violence over old statues in the United States. The US isn’t currently re-running its 1860s Civil War. Instead, the statures commemorating that era have had their meaning re-assigned. Robert E. Lee is no longer the symbol of state’s rights, a slave based agrarian economy, low taxation and the freedom to export American agricultural products to Europe. He is now the symbol of: Donald Trump’s support base, opposition to immigration, opposition to homosexual politics, opposition to 20th century style radical black political movements and opposition to post-modern secularism.

Just as the people of Donbass see Lenin as a symbol of resistance and the Kiev regime sees Lenin as a symbol of ethno-linguistic and also political Russian patriotism, so too have both the American so-called alt-left and so-called alt-right bought into narratives that are deeply detached from the historical meaning of the statures over which they are agitated.

Of course, as a Communist, Lenin is a convenient target for a Kiev regime whose ideology is neo-fascist, but the fact that Lenin was in many ways the inventor of modern Ukraine, is an inconvenient fact that is being totally ignored as it would spoil the symbolism of a ‘good old fashion statue toppling’.

The issues plaguing both Ukraine and the US are distinct from statues of leaders falling during a genuine revolution. In the case of both Ukraine and the US, the statues which are causing consternation are of statues which represent leaders of long gone countries that have no possibility of coming back.

In order for statues of long dead individuals to fall, it is necessary to bring them back to life with a present day narrative which was authored around issues which transpired long after the figures who inspired the form of the statutes, literally decomposed.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Ukraine’s Mis-understanding of Lenin Helps Explain America’s Fight with Re-invented Historical Statues

Venezuela: “Regime Change” and Washington’s Battle Against Multipolarity

NOVANEWS

The battle between the established unipolar “international order” dominated by Wall Street, Washington, and London and an emerging multipolar order appears fixated on Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and across the entirety of Asia. However, it extends to virtually every corner of the globe, from competition in the Arctic to politically-motivated controversies in Earth orbit

The South American nation of Venezuela also seems far-removed from this ongoing competition engulfing the world’s hot spots in the Middle East, Central and Asia, but the fate of this besieged nation is directly linked to the that of the rest of the world, either contributing to an emerging multipolar world order, or providing sanctuary and legitimacy to the established unipolar order currently dominated by Wall Street, Washington, and London.

The nation has been the target of US-backed subversion for decades. The latest iteration of American interference began with the rise of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and a failed US-backed coup in 2002 organized to oust him and place a US-controlled client regime in power.

Venezuela’s “Opposition” are US-Backed Agitators  

Many of those involved in the failed 2002 coup are now leading US-backed protesters in the streets in a bid to overthrow the government of President Nicolás Maduro, who succeeded Chavez after his death in 2013.

The opposition includes former presidential contender, Henrique Capriles Radonski, who heads Primero Justicia (Justice First) which was co-founded by Leopoldo Lopez and Julio Borges, who like Radonski, have been backed for nearly a decade by the US State Department.

Primero Justicia and the network of foreign-funded NGOs that support it have been recipients of both direct and indirect foreign support for at least just as long.

All three co-founders are US educated – Radonski having attended New York’s Columbia University (Spanish), Julio Borges attending Boston College and Oxford, and Leopoldo Lopez who attended the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (KSG), of which he is considered an alumni of.

The Harvard Kennedy School, which hosts the notorious Belfer Center, includes the following faculty and alumni of Lopez, co-founder of the current US-backed opposition in Venezuela:

John P. Holdren, Samantha Power, Lawrence Summers, Robert Zoellick, (all as faculty), as well as Ban Ki-Moon (’84), Paul Volcker (’51), Robert Kagan (’91), Bill O’Reilly (’96), Klaus Schwab (’67), and literally hundreds of senators, ambassadors, and administrators of Wall Street and London’s current global spanning international order. 

Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (KSG) is one of several universities that form the foundation of both creating corporate-financier driven international policy, as well as cultivating legions of administrators to execute it. This includes creating cadres of individuals to constitute Wall Street and Washington’s client regimes around the world.

Venezuela’s Problem, Like Other Targeted States, is US Sedition, not “Socialism” 

It is true that Venezuela is deemed a “socialist” nation, and its policy of heavily centralizing the economy has not only failed to alleviate the many longstanding socioeconomic conflicts inflicting Venezuelan society, but has also created an ample vector for Wall Street and Washington’s meddling.

By placing all of Venezuela’s proverbial “eggs” in one centralized “basket,” the United States – through the use of various well-honed geopolitical and socioeconomic tools – has managed to knock that “basket” from the government in Caracas’ hands and is now using its well-funded and organized opposition to crush whatever “eggs” survived the fall.

Unfortunately for Venezuela, the Western political landscape is so deeply rooted in blind, poorly developed political ideology, practical geopolitical and geostrategic analysis has been overlooked across both traditional and alternative media platforms, and instead, many – including opponents of US-backed regime change worldwide – have found themselves cheering on what they believe is the self-inflicted collapse of the socialist Venezuelan government at the hands of “free market” protesters.

In reality, they are cheering on yet another episode of US-backed regime change, wrapped in a protective layer of ideological, political, and economic rhetoric to justify otherwise unjustifiable, extraterritorial meddling, interference, chaos, division, and destruction.

Venezuela’s Place Within the Unipolar-Multipolar World 

Depending on the ultimate fate of the Venezuelan government, the success of US-backed proxies, and the ability of Venezuela to reconstruct itself after decades of foreign-backed subversion, Venezuela can either enhance or set back the emerging multipolar world order.

Regardless of Venezuela’s fate if and when the government in Caracas is toppled, the US-led unipolar international order will benefit. The elimination of competition, even at the cost of creating a center of regional destabilization is considered favorable versus allowing a bastion of alternative socioeconomic and geopolitical power to persist. And in many ways, the creation of a regional center of destabilization may help the US create “synergies” between the chaos it is fostering in Venezuela and in neighboring South and Central American nations the US has likewise targeted for geopolitical coercion and/or regime change.

For Russia, China, other nations of BRICS, and even emerging economies across Southeast Asia and Central Asia, the loss of Venezuela as a means of counterbalance to US hegemony both in the region of the Americas and globally will allow the US to concentrate more resources toward remaining alternative centers of geopolitical and economic power it seeks to target.

This – not the nature of Venezuela’s “socialist” government – is the focus of US efforts and is what defines the consequences of either US success or failure regarding regime change in Caracas.

Any government, socialist or otherwise, operating outside of Wall Street, Washington, and London’s sphere of influence is a target. Competition, not ideology defines and drives Western foreign policy – and for those who oppose this policy – it must be practical geopolitical and geostrategic analysis that defines conclusions and courses of action – not the ideological debates the US itself is using as a pretext and as rhetorical cover to justify its latest regime-change project.

Venezuela may be geographically far removed from the focal point of the great unipolar-multipolar struggle, but understanding how it fits into conflicts raging in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and across Asia illustrates just how encompassing the “international order’s” reach and ambitions really are – and how deadly dangerous they are to global peace, security, and stability.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Venezuela: “Regime Change” and Washington’s Battle Against Multipolarity

Trump’s Fascism Versus Obama’s Fascism

NOVANEWS

Barack Obama was the only U.S. President who at the United Nations defended nazism — racist fascism — and Holocaust-denial. It received almost no reporting by the press at the time (or subsequently). But his successor President Donald Trump could end up being removed from office because he said that racist fascists are just the same as are people who demonstrate publicly against them. Trump’s politically stupid (not to say callous) remark became viral, and apparently the press (which had ignored Obama’s defense of nazism at the U.N.) just won’t let go of Trump’s statement unless and until he becomes replaced by his even-more-far-right Vice President, Mike Pence.

Why is there this intense press-coverage of Trump’s support of racist fascism, when there wasn’t of Obama’s (which was actually far more meaningful)?

The answer comes closer if we ponder first a different question: How could the Republican Party, which is right-wing at its core, condemn a Democratic Party President who goes out of his way at the U.N. to protect today’s nazis? That wouldn’t be politically practical for Republican politicians to complain about (a Democrat’s being too far to the right); so, they didn’t do it. Similarly, no Democrat will criticize a Republican for being too leftist. There may be a few exceptions, but that’s the general rule: Successful politicians don’t offend their base.

But that still doesn’t fully answer why the press ignored it when Obama defended nazism at the U.N. The rest of the answer comes when we recognize that America’s press gets its cues from the two political Parties.

If the ‘opposition’ (and not just the President’s own Party) is hiding something egregious that a President is doing or has done (such as happened there with Obama, and with many other conservative policies that Obama executed), then the press will hide it, too. Republicans weren’t calling attention to Obama’s defense of nazism, because they’d then be offending some of their own supporters. (Democrats weren’t calling attention to it, because a Democrat was doing this, which didn’t fit the ‘progressive’ storyline.) And, if the ‘opposition’ isn’t pointing it out, then neither will the press. The matter will then just be ignored — which is what happened. This was thus bipartisan non-reporting, of what Obama did. There was a lot of that while Obama was President.

In other words: America’s press are tools of, and are led by, the same people who actually, deep down, control both of America’s political Parties — the billionaires. They control both politics, and also the press. Numerous social-science studies have shown that the wealthier a person is, the likelier that person is to be politically conservative — at least to the extent that political conservatism doesn’t threaten his or her particular business and financial interests. As America’s billionaires have come to control America’s politics, this country has been moving farther and farther to the right, except on the relatively few issues (such as immigration, gay rights, etc.) where their own economic interests are served better by a progressive position (or, at least, by a position that seems to most people to be progressive). 

Trump’s problem here is that he’s too obviously playing to his Party’s base. Obama didn’t need to do that, because he had massive support from billionaires, and he was a much better liar than Trump, good enough to keep many progressive voters with him even after he had already shafted them in his actual policies. For example, when Obama dropped ‘the public option’ as soon as he became elected, he was excused for it because most Americans thought he was simply being practical and avoiding an ‘unnecessary’ conflict with the opposite Party in Congress. This view ignored that he gave up on it even as being a bargaining-chip to get concessions from congressional Republicans to drive new legislation to be more progressive. Obama had no interest in progressivism. Actually, Obama didn’t want to offend his mega-donors. He thus handed the task of drafting the Obamacare law to the conservative Democrat, and public-option opponent, Max Baucus, instead of to the progressive Democrat and public-option supporter, Ted Kennedy, who desperately wanted (and expected) to have the opportunity to draft it.

Both Trump and Obama (in their actions, if not also in their words) are proponents of what Benito Mussolini called “Corporationism” — big-corporate control of the government, which Mussolini more-commonly referred to as “fascism.” President Trump has been widely condemned both here in the U.S. and around the world (which his predecessor President Barack Obama never was), for his recent blatant statement equating the worst of fascists, which are racist fascists, as being comparable to the people who in Charlottesville Virginia had marched and demonstrated against racist fascists and who were violently attacked and one of them killed by racist fascists, against whom they had been protesting. Trump was equating anti-fascists with fascists, and he even equated racist fascists — ideological nazis — with the people who were protesting specifically againstnazism. Apparently, the press won’t let go of it. They treat this event as if top-level U.S. nazism were unprecedented in today’s post-WW-II America — as if this nation were still anti-nazi (as it had been in FDR’s White House), and as if this incident with Trump says something only about Trump, and not also, and far more meaningfully, about today’s American government, including Trump’s own immediate predecessor-in-office, and also about America’s current press-institution, and about what it has become.

As this reporter had headlined on 24 November 2014, “U.S. Among Only 3 Countries at U.N. Officially Backing Nazism & Holocaust-Denial; Israel Parts Company from Them; Germany Abstains”. Obama and his friend and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power were unapologetic about having done that at the U.N., and Obama’s U.N. representative continued in that vein. As I headlined a few months later, on 21 June 2015, “America’s U.N. Ambassador Continues Standing Up for Nazis”. Both of those two news-articles were submitted to all of the U.S. and also to much of the European mainstream — and additionally to some of the ‘alt-news’ — international-news media, but each of the two articles was published only in around a half-dozen of only alternative-news sites. The ‘news’media (especially the mainstream ones) weren’t nearly as concerned about Obama’s blatantly racist-fascist, and specifically anti-Russian, actions, as they are concerned today, about the current U.S. President’s bending-over-backwards to retain his support from America’s racist-fascist or nazi voters, whom he apparently considers an essential part of his base. (Why else would he even say such a thing?)

Whereas Obama was imposing an actual nazi international campaign (via a violent anti-democratic coup, followed by an ethnic-cleansing campaign to cement it) in which his U.N. Ambassador played her necessary role, Trump was politically supporting an important portion of his voting-base, but not doing anything in actual policy-fact — at the U.N. or anywhere else — such as Obama had done. But the press focuses on Trump as if he were initiating the acceptability of nazism in the U.S. body-politic. Trump wasn’t.

Obama had done something truly remarkable: he was the first U.S. President, since the pre-Civil-War U.S. had ended and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln courageously led this nation clearly and explicitly away from its deeply racist past, to support publicly, and to carry out in policy a clearly racist policy-initiative, a blatant ethnic-cleansing military campaign. It aimed to remove from Ukraine’s voter-rolls the residents of the areas of Ukraine where from 75% to 90% of the voters had voted for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom Obama in February 2014 had just overthrown by hiring racist-facist gunmen to drive out of power that man whom those people had so heavily voted for, in what now turned out to have been Ukraine’s final democratic nationwide election. Unless Obama eliminated those voters — ethnic Russians — the far-right politicians whom he had placed into power after the U.S. coup wouldn’t last through the first Ukrainian national election after the coup. Ethnic-cleansing was the only way to make Obama’s coup-regime stick; so, that’s what he wanted his Ukrainian stooges to do, and they tried their utmost to do it (and they’re still trying).

With all of the decades that have passed after World War II, not only Americans but also publics elsewhere, including publics in nations that America considers to be ‘allies’, such as Israel, seem to have lost any consciousness they might have had in the wake of Hitler’s defeat, about what racist fascism — what the ideology (and not just the German political party, where it had an initial capital letter) nazism — actually was, and what it meant. It wasn’t just anti-Semitic fascism that had been defeated in that war, but anti-Korean fascism, and anti-Chinese fascism, and anti-Russian fascism, and more forms of racist capitalistic dictatorship, the nazi ideology, which were defeated in WW II. During John F. Kennedy’s Presidency, the U.S. federal government very reluctantly started to deal with this country’s deepseated residual institutional racism against America’s Blacks; but, still, the ethnocentrism in America — even among Blacks and Jews — remained so pronounced, so that President Obama on 28 May 2014 could, without shame or any political embarrassment, tell the graduating class of future U.S. military leaders at West Point:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.

 But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm. Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as Commander-in-Chief, there have been those who warned against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing. Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans. 
A different view from interventionists from the left and right says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos.

He said that all nations other than the U.S. are “dispensable.” He said that the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums,” and that “It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.” He said that “conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are … ours to solve.” He derided “self-described realists” who didn’t share his international idealism, of his own nation’s seeking out, instead of warning “against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing.” He said that “America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and that George Washington was wrong.

He was saying that Hitler and Hirohito were right; that they had merely led the ‘wrong’ countries.

This man, who had just led the bloody coup and instigated the ethnic-cleansing campaign that forced two regions of the former Ukraine to secede from Ukraine and to seek instead Russia’s protection (and he then instituted sanctions against Russia for providing that protection to them), was there and then lecturing America’s future military leaders, to instruct them that they would have the right to invade “dispensable” countries, and to “apply force around the world,” in order to deal with the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes [that] compete with us, and governments [that] seek a greater say in global forums.” (He wanted none of that freedom for them.) He said that ignoring George Washington is “the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and is somehow in accord with America’s values, even if not of George Washington’s values. 

The ultimate insult was that this was coming from a man who considered himslef to be a Black — as if he were somehow in the tradition of Martin Luther King, who had urged America to quit its invasion of Vietnam. Instead, Obama invaded and wrecked Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen.

Well, that wasn’t actually quite the ultimate insult: the ultimate insult was that Blacks continued to believe in him, and never turned against that nazi. They evidently keep what some of them call (as if it were a racial trait) ‘White man’s values’.

Values are not a racial trait, but stupidity and small-mindedness are the human norm everywhere, and no nation is ‘indispensable’ — far less, is any ‘the one indispensable nation’: not ancient Rome, not Germany, not Japan, not the U.S. — none, at all.

That statement by Obama to America’s future military leaders, was only verbal, but its underlying value-system is clearly fascist. When Obama defended racist fascism at the United Nations, it wasn’t by any such mere speech, but by his actual actions, at the U.N., carried out there by his friend and U.N. Ambassador, Samantha Power, as I reported on 24 November 2014. To an intelligent person, actions speak far more convincingly about a person than that individual’s mere words do. Obama’s defense of nazism at the U.N. was a stunning action by him (via his agent), which made unequivocally clear what his actual values were. Obama there and then set a new precedent, established a new low, as to how bad an actor in the international community, the U.S. had become — the depths to which this nation has sunk, after it had performed such an important and very positive role in helping to defeat nazism during World War II — this was a complete reversal of America’s position, on the basic issue of that war, which issue was nazism itself.

Trump’s foreign policies seem to be mainly aiming to out-do his predecessor’s. But, in no way is Trump yet the nazi that Obama proved himself to be. Trump could turn out to be that bad, if the people who are urging him to intensify America’s war against Russia and/or against Iran have their way. The “neoconservatives” (the foreign-policy ideology that’s sponsored by America’s billionaires of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties) seem still to be basically in control. Trump nonetheless could turn out to be the idealist that Obama, Hitler, and Hirohito, were, but there’s at least the possibility that he will instead turn out to be one of “the self-described realists” whom Obama had derided. Trump hasn’t yet exposed his true self, to the extent that Obama did during his eight years. But the ‘news’media are already calling Trump a “White racist.” First (and even before Trump was elected), Democrats, and most billionaires, and their ‘news’media, demagogued that Trump is unfit for the Presidency (and that the super-neoconservative Hillary Clinton must be elected instead) because ‘Trump is Putin’s stooge’. Now, it’s because Trump is a nazi, or because he’s insane, so they’re urging that Trump be replaced by his Vice President Mike Pence. It seems that the people who cheered-on Obama’s nazism (except when they said that Obama was being ‘too cautious’ about it) don’t like Trump, at all.

But, are America’s billionaires really that eager to replace Trump by Pence? One might wonder how far this campaign will go.

Posted in USAComments Off on Trump’s Fascism Versus Obama’s Fascism

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING