Archive | Politics

The Truth War Is Being Lost to a Global Censorship Apparatus Called Google

NOVANEWS
 

We are fast approaching the time where the informational war being waged between the establishment (specifically the vested interests of the rich and powerful) and the independent news outlet is rapidly heading towards its final showdown. Personally, although somewhat defeatist, I think this battle is already lost, it is simply a matter of time. The supposed defenders of free speech, that is the political establishment and their billionaire media cronies have taken sides and this is becoming more evident every day.

Today, the mainstream media has a self-inflicted credibility problem. In 2006, about 65 percent of the general public believed what they read in British newspapers in and in little more than ten years this high level of trust has crashed to little more than a quarter. In fact, trust in the four institutions of government, business, media and NGO’s has taken a dramatic dive in just the last three years alone.

However, 60 percent of people now get their news from search engines, not traditional human editors in the media. It is here where the new informational war takes place – the algorithm. Google now takes 81.2 percent of all search engine market share globally.

 

By NetMarketShare – Total global search engine market share

This dangerous monopoly should have been controlled years ago. In the end, monopolies such as these restrict free trade, prevent the market from setting prices, from evolving and finding new markets. Google are often buying up the competition or competitive technologies and exploiting or killing it. The EU has just fined Google a massive €2.42 billion for precisely this. So-called ‘disruptive’ technology is the enemy of monopolies.

Google has the ability to drive demand and set the narrative, create bias and swing opinion. Monopolies can get into cartel agreements with what competition they do have to create the false facade that there is some sort of competition.

PayPal co-founder, major investor in Facebook (their first outside investor) and eBay investor Peter Theil once said

“All happy companies are different: Each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: They failed to escape competition.”

Using his vast wealth, Peter Thiel is now chairman of Palantir. That Palantir was originally funded by the CIA and has the NSA and GCHQ as  major clients should give rise to suspicion. In all, 500 freedom of information requests by non-profit Muckrock and Motherboard about Thiel’s activities have met with the response from the NYPD, the CIA and the NSA –  “that any responsive documents were exempted to protect national security.”

Palantir are now in the frame along with another dark dystopian data company called Cambridge Analytica for swinging Britain’s EU referendum. The Guardian is now facing a massive lawsuit for publishing The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked

Here The Guardian asks the question

A shadowy global operation involving big data, billionaire friends of Trump and the disparate forces of the Leave campaign influenced the result of the EU referendum. As Britain heads to the polls again, is our electoral process still fit for purpose?”

This is the same story that I wrote for TruePublica three weeks earlier in “The Link Between Brexit And The US Election, MI6, Fake News And Dark Money.”

In my report I was able to highlight that the London School of Economics was now warning that “new technology has disrupted British politics so much that current laws are visibly unable to ensure a free and fair election of any type or indeed control the influence of money in politics.”

“One company, Cambridge Analytica (CA) is in the frame for influencing not just Brexit but the US election where personal data is used to target voters. Its parent company SCL Group  is known for involvement in military disinformation campaigns of social media and voter targeting and is used by the military and politicians to study and manipulate public opinion and political will.”

As you can see, Billions are being spent on supplanting real democracy and functional capitalism in a desperate attempt to save what is left of the neoliberal wet-dream. Not content with trashing democratic principle and free speech, censorship is the latest preferred tool of reckless billionaires.

As mentioned in a previous article, TruePublica’s readership rose month-on-month reaching 160,000 unique visitors a month before inexplicably crashing to 25,000 a few months ago. It has been a rollercoaster ever since. These are small numbers compared to the big players but TruePublica had a two year horizon simply to collaborate and help drive independent news to mainstream readership. Faced with such powerful enemies of the truth and free speech, what’s the point?

Last December The Guardian reported How Google’s search algorithm spreads false information with a rightwing bias. 

It reported that

“Google’s search algorithm appears to be systematically promoting information that is either false or slanted with an extreme rightwing bias on subjects as varied as climate change and homosexuality.”

The World Socialist Website has been equally brave in investigating and publishing their predicament as they saw a fall of 67 percent in user traffic. Their article  Google’s new search protocol is restricting access to 13 leading socialist, progressive and anti-war web sites is enlightening and corroborates the Guardian story.

New data compiled by the World Socialist Web Site, with the assistance of other Internet-based news outlets and search technology experts, proves that a massive loss of readership observed by socialist, anti-war and progressive web sites over the past three months has been caused by a cumulative 45 percent decrease in traffic from Google searches.”

The drop followed the implementation of changes in Google’s search evaluation protocols. In a statement issued on April 25, Ben Gomes, the company’s vice president for engineering, stated that Google’s update of its search engine would block access to “offensive” sites, while working to surface more “authoritative content.”

The World Socialist Web Site has obtained statistical data from SEMrush estimating the decline of traffic generated by Google searches for 13 sites with substantial readerships. The results are as follows:

* wsws.org fell by 67 percent
* alternet.org fell by 63 percent
* globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent
* consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent
* socialistworker.org fell by 47 percent
* mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent
* commondreams.org fell by 37 percent
* internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent
* democracynow.org fell by 36 percent
* wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent
* truth-out.org fell by 25 percent
* counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent
* theintercept.com fell by 19 percent

From my own research, these losses of readership in the last six months, from highs to lows amounted to a colossal 30.4 million unique visitors a month. I can’t vouch for other websites but at TruePublica the average visitor reads 1.84 pages per visit. At this calculation over 55 million pages of content a month are being withheld from just the 13 websites listed above. It is not possible to come to any other conclusion that Google has blatantly been involved in an act of global censorship.

In further extracts from the wsws article:

“In late May, changes to Google’s algorithm negatively impacted the volume of traffic to the Common Dreams website from organic Google searches,” said Aaron Kaufman, director of development at progressive news outlet Common Dreams. “Since May, traffic from Google Search as a percentage of total traffic to the Common Dreams website has decreased nearly 50 percent.”

The article goes on to say that

“the extent and impact of Google’s actions prove that a combination of techniques is being employed to block access to targeted sites. These involve the direct flagging and blackballing of the WSWS and the other 12 sites listed above by Google evaluators. These sites are assigned a highly negative rating that assures that their articles will be either demoted or entirely bypassed. In addition, new programming technology teaches the computers to think like the evaluators, that is, to emulate their preferences and prejudices.”

Hence the reason why I started off this piece with a negative prediction for the future of truth telling media outlets.

 

Google is a private company, they are not breaking the law. It might be immoral, unprincipled and shameless, but lawmakers across the western world have done nothing to diminish this transnational anti free speech power. But then, why would they?

The WSWS article closes by saying

The fight against corporate-state censorship of the Internet is central to the defense of democratic rights, and there must be a broad-based collaboration among socialist, left and progressive websites to alert the public and the widest sections of the working class.

Whilst this sentiment is surely true, it is not enough and it never will be and it’s not about the working class – it’s about all of us, irrespective.

What is required now is a collaboration project to actually work together – to create a penetrating and deafening noise to alert the unaware, give a bigger motivation and resources to combat the rising scale of censorship and defend the civil liberties of everyone. If we don’t, before long, it will indeed be too late. And then what?

Posted in USA, PoliticsComments Off on The Truth War Is Being Lost to a Global Censorship Apparatus Called Google

The World Order – How It Works

NOVANEWS

Here is another thought-provoking article from Pakistani physics professor and author Dr. Mujahid Kamran. If you would like to help cutting-edge Muslim intellectuals like Dr. Kamran find a bigger audience, check out our Radio Free Islam project.  –Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor

THE WORLD ORDER – HOW IT WORKS

Mujahid Kamran

21 July 2017

_

The bandits of the World Order have succeeded in robbing the whole world through the technique of the bal masque, the disguise that enables them to carry on their Satanic work without being identified and prosecuted. The bal masque is the ideal vehicle for this program, because the World Order gained its present power in Europe of the nineteenth century.  It is a truism among the old European aristocracy that “Balls are given for those who are not invited.” . . . The reward of being a guest at a bal masque is to be one of the Knowing Ones, those who know which masque hid the face of the King, which costume is that of the Grand Vizier. The other guests never knew whether they were talking to a mere courtier, or a powerful personage. The masses, with their faces pressed against the windows of the ballroom, know none of the celebrants and will never know. This is the technique of the World Order to be masked in mystery, with its hierarchy protected by its anonymity and masks, so that those who revolt will strike out against the wrong targets, insignificant officials who are expendable.”  Eustace Mullins

 

A Dutch whistle blower from the banking/financial sector, Ronald Bernard, has recently revealed that the globe is controlled by about 8000-8500 people who are all connected with each other and work together to run the world [1].  He also revealed that these people attend Satanic churches where they worship Lucifer, and carry out child sacrifice. Ronald Bernard, though not part of these 8000-8500 people, was investing their money and he claimed that they had to communicate directly with him so that the investments did not fail. He also points out that while working at a high level for these people one has to commit that one would never reveal any names, of companies or of individuals involved, and stated that the reason he was probably still alive was the fact that he had not revealed any names. He states that these people look down upon ordinary humans and laugh at their misery. “We looked down on people – mocked them. It was just a product. Waste. Everything was worthless trash. Nature, the planet, everything could burn and break. Just useless parasites.” Mankind is human garbage for these parasitic psychopaths.

In his remarkable book The World Order, from which the quote given at the outset above is taken, the late Eustace Mullins has remarked that the Rothschilds and members of the European aristocracy, who purchased the stocks in the Bank of England around 1700, rank at the number one position in the dynastic families of the New World Order hierarchy [2]. At the next level come families subservient to Rothschilds et al, their “courtiers” as he calls them: the Morgans, the Rockefellers and the Harrimans.  And then at the third level are families which are courtiers of the families at level two. He states that by becoming courtiers of the Harrimans, the Bush dynastic family has joined the World Order families of the third rank. These international banking families are among the top ten stock holders in each of the top 500 corporations of the world as established by Dean Henderson [3]. Dean Henderson writes (emphasis in original):

The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch.  According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.”

 

The highest echelons of the pursuers of the “New” World Order work in absolute secrecy, wearing a mask, and there is a continuity in their leadership and policies that extends over centuries. This continuity can be traced back to the French Revolution quite clearly if not earlier. The French Revolution, the “revolutions” of 1848, the American Civil War, The Bolshevik Revolution, the rise of Hitler, the two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the establishment of the Rothschild fiefdom called Israel, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, the wars in the mid-east and elsewhere, are all the result of their machinations and are meant to lead them to the final goal – a global slave state under their absolute control. Secret societies and “philosophies” of all kinds are their vehicles, tools and tactics for the attainment of their Satanic One World slave state.  Communism Zionism, Liberalism, Socialism, Fabian Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism, Humanism, Terrorism, etc. are their creations and serve their goal. They have laid down in their Protocols that mankind will not be allowed a moment of respite from bloodshed and misery until all nation states are abolished, all traditional religions destroyed, and mankind kneels before them in complete submission. As the banker whistle-blower Ronald Bernard aptly put it: “All misery on earth is a business model.”  This model relies on an inhuman and brutal Satanic philosophy/cult. Any country which opposes them will be met with war and an alliance against them will be met with “universal war”. So say the Protocols.

These families ensure that they recruit young and talented people at an early stage in their lives and train them in secrecy and instil in them secretly, and over a period of time, their Satanic goals and philosophy. Weishaupt was Dean of the faculty of law at Ingolstadt University when he started the Illuminati movement in 1776. His training in secrecy might be connected to the fact that he was brought up by Jesuits. He was born in 1748 and had earned a doctorate at age 20! He soon forced those faculty members who did not share his philosophy out of the university.  David Icke has referred to Oxford as an “Illuminati breeding ground”. The same is true of many Ivy league universities in the U.S., Harvard, Yale, etc. The recruiters of youth and the masters of these recruiters ensure that by inclination and/or training these young men become hardened brutal psychopaths and enjoy wealth, status, and secure careers in return.

Douglas Reed has made the deep observation that the organization has been kept together through terror. He writes [4]: “The young men who were recruited for the conspiracy were sworn in with much intimidating ceremonial, including a considerable mockery of the Christian sacrament. They were required to supply a dossier about their parents, listing their “dominant passions” and to spy on each other.” The recruits were intimidated by the knowledge that they were being spied upon by fellow recruits, an unknown number of seniors (the recruit is only in touch with his immediate superiors) and that the penalty for faltering could be destruction of their live and possibly death. Douglas Reed quotes a writer named Francois Charles de Berckheim, a police commissioner and a Freemason. The words written by Berckheim in 1813, sound so modern as if written 200 years later, in 2013! The same technique is operative in all major Western universities even today. He quotes (emphasis in original) [5]:

It is above all in the universities that Illuminism has always found and always will find numerous recruits. Those professors who belong to the Association set out from the first to study the character of their pupils. If a student gives evidence of a vigorous mind and ardent imagination, the sectaries at once get hold of him; they sound in his ears the words Despotism, Tyranny, Rights of the People, etc., etc. Before he can even attach any meaning to these words as he advances in age, reading works chosen for him, conversations skilfully arranged, develop the germ deposited in his youthful brain.  Soon his imagination ferments. … At last, when he has been completely captivated, when several years of testing guarantee to the society inviolable secrecy and absolute devotion, it is made known to him that millions of individuals distributed in all states of Europe share his sentiments and his hopes, that a secret link binds firmly all the scattered members of this family . . .”

This Satanic psychopathic brotherhood, which recruits fresh blood every year, year after year, and has been doing so for the past few centuries, runs the world in complete secrecy and their power is now so absolute that no Western leader can afford not to do their bidding. Indeed, many leaders in politics, judiciary, media, academia and other walks of life are part of their lower level network.  The Illuminati have been in control of the academia as a source of mind control through teaching of sanitized history and various philosophies that take the youth away from traditional religious values. The Illuminist international banking families have been funding and using scientific research pertaining to the knowledge of the mind as a tool of mind control. Mind control is a means to world control. They control the narrative through teaching of sanitized and false history. Steven Jacobson writes (emphasis added) [6]:

In the book Brainwashing in the High Schools, E. Merrill Root examines eleven American history textbooks used in Evanston Township High School, Evanston Illinois from 1950 to 1952. None of these textbooks make it clear that the government of the United States is not a democracy but a republic. The Founding Fathers defined the government which they set up as a constitutional republic. Not one of these textbooks lists the word “republic” in its index. These textbooks interpret U.S. history primarily as a clash between rich and poor, haves and have-nots, “privileged” and “unprivileged”, which is economic determinism, the essence of Marxism, where the triumph of “the common man” is progress towards a more perfect “people’s democracy.” A trend shared by each of the textbooks reviewed was advocacy of a world government where global commitment is preferable to national interests, thus promoting world socialism and “Big” government.”

Adam Weishaupt, the Rothschild connected founder of the Illuminati, had written down in his papers, seized in 1786 and published in 1787 by the Bavarian government, that the best cover for the Illuminati was Freemasonry and that he had decided to penetrate and gain control of the Freemason movement.   There is little doubt that the Freemason movement is now penetrated and controlled by the Illuminati. In fact, soon after he began his Illuminati movement, Weishaupt had penetrated Freeemasonry, which worried many upright Freemasons of the time. The French Revolution resulted from incessant Illuminati intrigue.

The Illuminati banking brotherhood and its subservient allies have acquired complete control of media, as laid down in their Protocols. Currently 90-95% of U.S. media is owned by five corporations! The movie and entertainment industry owned by them is a powerful weapon in their target of mass and individual mind control. It has been pointed out by Jacobson that when the well- known book, The Media Monopoly, by  Ben Bagdikian appeared in 1983, about 50 corporations owned most of U.S. media; when the 1988 edition of the book appeared this number had shrunk to 29, in 1990 it had shrunk to 26. Currently this number is 5! So there has been a deliberate and planned and predesigned Illuminati move to absolutely monopolise media as laid down in the Protocols. An absolutely monopolised media is a hallmark of dictatorships. In the U.S. we have a Zionist dictatorship Jacobson observes [7]:

The problem is that the media is controlled by corporations that are controlled by the super-rich who have an interest in keeping the public in a trance, ignorant, anxious, fearful, highly suggestible and vulnerable to control and manipulation. The nation is experiencing the effects of a scientifically induced nervous breakdown.  Psychological warfare and economic warfare are both being used against an unsuspecting public. The nation has been placed in a vise and is being squeeeeeezed, causing agitation, stress, anxiety, fear, anger and frustration. One end of the vise is mass media which is used to program, propagandize, badger and wear down the public emotionally and with negative stories. On the other end of the vise is the manipulation of the economy to cause added stress so that people do not know if they are coming or going. No wonder people cannot think clearly or be peaceful! All this creates a dull-mindedness and trance-like state in the population while the nation is looted and Constitutional and human rights are ignored and trampled.”

All this is happening by design. But the average American, brought up on sanitized text books, does not generally comprehend this ongoing destruction of the United States. This deliberate dumbing down of Americans is being carried out day in and day out, year after year, decade after decade for one simple reason: if the Americans wake up, the Illuminati agenda will be smashed. Therefore, the U.S. public must not only be brain-washed but also be subjected to perpetual hardship through wars and through highly detrimental economic policies, determined by the Illuminati owned Federal Reserve,  that create immense hardship for the unsuspecting and innocent people of America. This innocence and dumbing down has cost America and the whole world dearly.   Paedophilia, drugs, pornography, prostitution and promotion of same sex marriages (which have to be issueless and hence do not add to the population) is part of the Illuminati/Zionist agenda because these clash with traditional Christian values regarding the family institution and marriage. It is precisely for this reason that paedophile rings in the West cannot be brought to book – they have Illuminati backing and Illuminati agents sit in all institutions of importance – judiciary, government offices, media, etc. In the U.S. alone over 700,000 children go missing every year [8]. Paedophilia is also used to produce mind controlled individuals. As Ted Gunderson, former FBI chief, California, has also concluded that all these things, paedophilia, prostitution, drugs, etc.  are part of an Illuminati conspiracy, involving the CIA.

In order to achieve their subversive goals, the Illuminati have laid a very great emphasis on secrecy from their inception. The entire network was conceived and designed by Adam Weishaupt. Secrecy was achieved through establishment of secret societies throughout Europe and the U.S., particularly during the nineteenth century and afterwards. Benjamin Disraeli, who enjoyed good relations with the Rothschilds, and who, though Jewish originally, had converted to Christianity to become prime minster of Britain. Because of his Jewish origins and contacts, Disraeli was privy to deep information.  He stated before the British Parliament on Bastille Day in 1856 [9]:

It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a grand part of Europe – the whole of Italy and France and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries – is covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth are now being covered with railroads.”

What was the purpose of such societies? Disraeli stated in 1857 that it appeared to him that the religious views of the British had undergone a change “and instead of bowing before the name of Jesus we were preparing to revive the worship of Moloch.” Moloch worship requires sacrifice of children.  These secret societies had a subversive purpose which was pointed out by Disraeli as destruction of Christianity.  Who wanted to destroy Christianity? The Illuminati. Three individuals, Abbe Barruel, a Jesuit who had witnessed the French Revolution, a prominent Freemason Professor John Robison in Scotland, and Jedidiah Morse, a clergyman in New England, concluded independently that the French Revolution was the result of the intrigue of anti-Christian, anti-government secret societies, i.e. the Illuminati.   Robison had, perchance opened, after years of keeping sealed documents given to him by a Freemason (who had to be an Illuminati) in France, who himself had gone to Russia in a hurry and had not contacted him again. These documents contained a plan to overthrow all governments in Europe. Robison wrote a book pointing this out in 1798 [10].  The word Illuminati appears in the title of Robison’s book.

As a result of having exposed the Illuminati as the real instigators behind the French Revolution, all three, Barruel, Morse and Robison were subjected to vituperative attacks in the press indicating that even at that time the Illuminati were in control of the press in America and England! Douglas Reed astutely observes that the words used to censure the three men who had dared expose the Illuminati were similar to words used against James Forrestal 150 years later! It is instructive to read what Douglas Reed, who had looked at the record, states for it will appear very contemporary – the technique is used even today indicating that it is the same group or brethren or organisation or source that is behind the vituperation to which any independent writer or person is subjected if he expresses himself against the illuminati (i.e. Zionist) agenda. Reed writes [11]:

The three men were accused of starting a “witch-hunt”, of being bigots and alarmists, of persecuting “freedom of opinion” and “academic freedom”, of misrepresenting “liberal” and “progressive” thought, and the like. From that the attack continued to slander and scurrilous innuendo, and I found phrases which recurred in the campaign waged against an American Cabinet member, Mr. James Forrestal, in 1947-9; their private lives were said to be immoral and their financial habits shady; and at the last came the familiar suggestion that they were “mad”. This suggestion is often made today in the culminant stages of a campaign against an “anti-revolutionary” figure and is held to be specially strong medicine in defamation.”

James Forrestal had committed the crime of trying to prevent the American government, in its own interest, from helping in the establishment of Israel. New words like “anti-semitic”, “holocaust denier”, etc. have now been added to this vituperative vocabulary. The way academics like Kevin Barrett, Anthony Hall, Nick Kollerstrom and many others have been treated in recent years reveals the continuing and increasing grip of the Illuminati. Many outstanding reporters and media persons who dared to utter a word against the Illuminati agenda (Zionism i.e. world “revolution” and One World slave state)) have been consigned to oblivion regardless of race, religion or colour, right in front of our eyes. This is how Illuminati/Zionist pressure tactics operate so that any opposition to its agenda is silenced – if someone will not shut up he could be killed as Forrestal was.

Reed quotes what Marquis de Luchet wrote in early 1789, before the outbreak of the French Revolution [12]:

Learn there exists a conspiracy in favour of despotism against liberty, of incapacity against talent, of vice against virtue, of ignorance against enlightenment. . . .  the society aims at governing the world . . . Its object is universal domination.” De Luchet then added that if his warnings were unheeded there would be “a series of calamities of which the end is lost in the darkness of time . . . a subterranean fire smouldering eternally and breaking forth periodically in violent and devastating explosions.”

This is how the World Order proceeds towards its goal relentlessly and remorselessly. From the French Revolution to the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, the subterranean fire has been kept burning for over two centuries, if not more, and ”violent and devastating explosions” like 9/11 and the consequent wars continue. The Illuminati international bankers have now come quite close to their ultimate goal.  As Paul Craig Roberts has noted [13], terrorism is the American (i.e. Zionist) tool for a future destruction of Russia and therefore all mid-East rulers who had put terrorists in their proper place, have been removed and terrorism has been unleashed. This also achieves a Malthusian goal. The tens of millions who have died in these wars serve the goal of reduction of human garbage. The violent depopulation of the globe is part of the hideous Elite agenda. And the U.S.-U.K.-Israel alliance is the greatest current tool of the Illuminati Zionist international bankers.

The trillionaires of today, the richest section of the Illuminati leadership, have amassed their filthy wealth through instigated but managed conflict and usury. When they bring nations to war their members, who are present in all warring nations, give loans to the governments. The winner ensures that the loser will squeeze every penny of its own as well as the loser’s debt with interest from the losing nation. During World Wars I and II the Warburg brothers were present in both Germany and USA and were guiding the leadership of both countries!  Paul Warburg was in the U.S. during WW I and his brother Max Warburg was the head of the German Secret Service! The Warburgs stayed on in Germany just till the eve of WW II, “advising” Hitler, when they left without any difficulty.  In enemy countries the Warburg brothers moved in the highest echelons of power. There were the Schroders who enjoyed Hitler’s confidence while banking in UK and the US at the same time.  In his widely read book None Dare Call It Conspiracy Gary Allen quotes Professor Stuart Crane [14]:

If you will look back at every war in Europe during the Nineteenth Century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a ‘balance of power.’ With every reshuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France, or Austria. They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished.”

This is a simple but brutal satanic technique through which they have amassed and plundered unimaginable wealth which, along with the secrecy of their planning and activities, is the real source of their power. The price has to be paid in terms of millions of dead and untold suffering of generations. This requires utter heartlessness – it requires one to be malevolently and intensely evil. No wonder the unhappy mother of the five Rothschild brothers stated before she died, that if her sons wished so, there would be no war in Europe. Eustace Mullins writes in his book [15]:

The Order’s present goals were originated by Lord Castlereagh at the Conference of Vienna in 1815, when he handed over Europe to the victorious Money Power, as exemplified by the House of Rothschild. This was the “balance of power” which was never a balance of power at all, but a worldwide system of control to be manipulated at the pleasure of the conspirators.”

That manipulation continues today on a global scale relentlessly. Mullins quotes Henry Kissinger in 1991: “We now face a ‘new balance of power’. Today it translates into the notion of a ‘new world order’, which would emerge from a set of legal arrangements to be safeguarded by collective security.” Mullins observes: “When the minions of the World Order such as Henry Kissinger call for ‘collective security’, what they are really seeking is a protective order behind which they can carry out their depredations against all mankind.” This is what Bush called a  sort of “United Nations peacekeeping force.”  This will be a supranational force controlled by agents of the Satanic international bankers. The IMF and the World Bank, the Federal Reserve and other privately owned central banks worldwide hold nations and people in debt bondage. Nations that default face the wrath of bankers through military strength of the Zionist-controlled U.S. and its vassals in Europe. As agreed at a conference of thirteen wealthy and influential men, who gathered in Frankfurt at the initiative of Mayer AmschelRothschild in 1773 [16]: The power of our resources must remain invisible until the very moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can undermine it.” The power of the U.S. is at the service of the Rothschilds; U.S. is the Rothschild tool in suppressing the world.

Debt bondage is the curse of the world despite the fact that the major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam and presumably pristine Judaism, ban usury!  That is one major reason these Illuminati bankers want the destruction of traditional religions and their values. Of course a person without religious conviction and with little or no family bonds is like a speck of dust that can be blown hither and thither at will. One needs to be rooted in religion and family to be strong and firm and to resist and stand against Satanism. Once the bankers had, through bribery, intrigue, deception and other means succeeded in acquiring the power to issue money there emerged a new phenomenon in Europe.  Stephen Mitford Goodson writes in his outstanding book on the history of central banking [17]:

Henceforth a pattern would emerge where unnecessary wars would be embarked upon which simultaneously increased the national debts and the profits of userers. Significantly most of these wars were started against countries, that had implemented interest-free state banking systems, as was the case in the North American colonies or France under Napoleon. This pattern of attacking and enforcing the banker’s system of usury has been deployed widely in the modern era and includes the defeat of Imperial Russia in World War I, Germany, Italy and Japan in World War II and most recently Libya in 2011. These were all countries which had state banking systems, which distributed the wealth of their respective nations on an equitable basis and provided their populations with a standard of living far superior to that of their rivals and contemporaries.”

Do any history textbooks mention what Goodson,  a former Director of the South African Reserve Bank, has mentioned? None. None of the books published by leading publishers mentions this deep reality. That is how sanitized or false history creates the wrong mind set. When the Rothschild et al instigated First World War ended the victorious Illuminati bankers plundered a prostrate Germany and then proceeded to plan for another World War because two of their goals could not be achieved: the League of Nations did not succeed because the people of the U.S. did not want it and the state of Israel was still a dream. So the Rothschilds decided to establish new think tanks that would provide the deceptive arguments to lead mankind to the abyss again and again and again.  They established the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) and its American arm the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Mullins has remarked that the perception that the CFR is the secret government of U.S. is not true. He states [18]: “The members of the Council on Foreign Relations have never originated a single item of policy for the U.S. government. They merely transmit orders to our government officials from the RIIA and the House of Rothschild in London.”  He refers to the CFR members as sort of colonial governors answerable to their overseers of the World Order in London. Mullins also remarks that “the “founders” of RIIA were, one and all Rothschild men.”   Mullins also remarks [19] that the “The Milner Round Table became the RIIA-Council on Foreign Relations combine which exercises unopposed control for the World Order over foreign and monetary policy in both the United States and Great Britain.”

The Milner Round Table was the secret group involving Rothschild and a few others which planned and instigated World War I.  The paid intellectual servants of the Illuminati international bankers like Kissinger, Brzezinski, Huntington and many others before them are/were members of the CFR. These intellectual slaves owe their living standards and wealth and position and influence to the Illuminati international bankers whom they serve loyally and for whom they cook schemes of global pandemonium, perpetual suffering, war and genocide – all for a few paltry dollars or pounds.

At the present moment in the evolution of the World Order a captive, but immensely powerful United States does the bidding of the Illuminati Zionist international bankers. In order to take America into a war that will ravage the planet, these Illuminati international bankers are rapidly destroying the U.S. Constitution and transforming it into a dictatorship where civil liberties and human rights are being taken away. After 9/11, in less than two decades, the country has changed beyond belief.  Patriot Act, National Defence Authorization Acts, unconstitutional surveillance of all, the arming to the teeth of domestic agencies like DHS, constant intimidation and humiliation of the public, body scanners at airports, pat downs, all these are pre-meditated and well thought Illuminati schemes for destroying the self-respect and remnant courage of the American people.  Dictatorship at home and war abroad is the policy. This policy was laid out by the minions of CFR in line with the desires of the Illuminati international bankers. Churchill had referred to this inhuman cabal as “High Cabal” and had held them responsible for the two world wars and the savagery with which these wars were fought. Reacting to the savage bombing of Rotterdam during World War II he said [20]: “Time and the Ocean and some guiding star and High Cabal have made us what we are.”  This Illuminati Cabal controls U.S. government policy at home and abroad.

Russia and China now stand in the way of the complete submission of mankind before an Illuminati/Zioinist controlled, debt-ridden, increasingly brutal, internationally, and perhaps internally, intolerant U.S. The plan is to destroy both Russia and China in a global war and the American public is being brain-washed day and night by media in this direction. One wonders if the average American can think clearly about what is really happening. Paul Craig Roberts has observed [21]:

The false reality constructed for Americans parallels perfectly the false reality constructed by Big Brother in George Orwells’ dystopian novel 1984. Consider the constant morphing of “the Muslim threat” from al-Qaeda to the Taliban, to al-Nusra, to ISIS to ISIL, to Daesh with a jump to Russia. All of a sudden 16 years of Middle East wars against “terrorists” and “dictators” have become a matter of standing up to Russia, the country most threatened by Muslim terrorism, and the country most capable of wiping the United States and its vassal empire off of the face of the earth.”

 

Bolshevik Russia was Zionist where churches were blown up, Christianity denigrated and banned, with tens of millions of Christians driven to concentration camps to die hungry in the harshest winters; Putin’s Russia respects Christianity. A century ago Wilson’s USA was Zionist-controlled and so is Trump’s.  Russia has thrown off the yoke and the U.S. has succumbed to it. Will the American public stop, think and react? Will the patriots in the U.S. Armed Forces think for a moment as to why and for whom are they murdering tens of millions, mostly unarmed men women and children world-wide, and then take measures to save their country? Will they attempt to rid the country of the inhuman anti-American, anti-religion, yoke of Zionist/Illuminati international bankers and take it back to the principles enshrined in the U.S. constitution? Time will tell.

 

REFERENCES AND ENDNOTES

 

[1] Banker Whistleblower *BIG ENGLISH SUBTITLES*  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xptyW0lObpA

First published 27 April 2017

Ronald Bernard has given an interview in four parts which can be located on the you tube easily by typing his name and the words Dutch Banker or Banker Whistleblower. In part 1 of his  interview referred to above, the statement that the world is run by 8000-8500 people appears at the 13 minute 20 second mark. That they are Luciferans is mentioned at about 7 seconds after the 23-minute mark. He also mentions Satanic churches after that and then at the 24 min 34 second mark he mentions human sacrifices and the turning point in his life when he was asked to sacrifice a child. The quoted remarks about humans being worthless parasites begin at 20 minute 36 second mark.

[2] Eustace Mullins: The World Order: Our Secret Rulers: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism; Omnia Veritas Ltd, 1985, p 161.

[3] Dean HendersonThe Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families:  June 01,  2011, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-cartel-the-eight-families/25080

This article appears on numerous web sites and Dean Henderson also has his own web site. It has been taken from a book authored by Henderson. Dean HendersonBig Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network; Bridger House Publishing, 3rd Edition 2010 (first edition 2005)

 

[4] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion; Bridger House Publishing, 2012, p 144.

[5] Ibid, p 159

[5] Ibid, p 172

[6] Steven Jacobson: Mind Control in the United States; Dauphin Publications, revised edition 2015, pp 25, 26.

 [7] Ibid,  36, 37

[8] Ted Gunderson – Former FBI Chief Exposes ‘Illuminati’ (disturbing content)  24 April 2016; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqjNa-Jpsf0

[9] Douglas Reedop cit, p 172

[10] John RobisonProofs of a Conspiracy against all the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried on in Secret meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati, 1798

[11] Douglas Reedop cit, p 153

[12] Marquis de Luchet quoted by Douglas Reed, ref 4, p 149

[13] Paul Craig RobertsPutin’s Assessment of Trump at G-20 Will Determine Our Future, July 7, 2017; http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/07/putins-assessment-trump-g-20-will-determine-future/

[14]   Gary Allen and Larry AbrahamNone Dare Call It Conspiracy; Dauphin Publications, 20113 (first published 1971

[15] Eustace Mullinsop cit, pp 17, 18

 [16 ] Eustace MullinsThe Secrets of the Federal Reserve; Bridger House Publishers Inc., 1991,  pp 55, 56; This was part of a 13 point program which has reproduced in the book. The source cited by Mullins is E.H. Carr’s book Pawns in the Game.

[17] Stephen Mitford GoodsonA History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind; Black House Publishing, 2014, p 42

[18] Eustace Mullins: The World Order, pp 78, 79

[19] Ibid, p 43

[20] L. Flectcher ProutyThe Secret Team The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World; Skyhorse Publishing, second edition, 2011; first published 1972 by Prentice-Hall.  May also be seen at http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/THE%C2%A0SECRET%C2%A0TEAM.pdf

[21] Paul Craig Roberts: Ever More Official Lies from the US Government; 10 July, 2017

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/10/ever-official-lies-us-government/

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on The World Order – How It Works

Naomi Klein on Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and Youth-Led Grassroots Progressive Insurgencies

NOVANEWS

Image result for Democracy Now! CARTOON

Over the weekend, more than 4,000 people gathered for the People’s Summit in Chicago. Among those who spoke was Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who called the Democratic Party’s strategy an absolute failure and blamed the party for the election of President Trump. This comes after the Labour Party in Britain won a shocking number new seats in the British election. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is now poised to possibly become the next British prime minister. For more on these insurgent progressive politicians, we speak with best-selling author and journalist Naomi Klein, whose new book is No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump’s Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This weekend, 4,000 people packed the McCormick Place convention center for a People’s Summit. Independent senator, former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders delivered the keynote speech. During his speech, he repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party, calling it an “absolute failure” and blaming it for the election of President Trump.

SENBERNIE SANDERS: I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election? And my answer is — and my answer is that Trump didn’t win the election; the Democratic Party lost the election. Let us — let us be very, very clear: The current model — the current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure. This is not — this is not my opinion. This is the facts. You know, we focus a lot on the presidential election, but we also have to understand that Democrats have lost the US House, the US Senate. Republicans now control almost two-thirds of the governors’ chairs throughout the country. And over the last nine years, Democrats have lost almost 1,000 legislative seats in states all across this country. Today — today, in almost half of the states in America, Democratic Party has almost no political presence at all. Now, if that’s not a failure, if that’s not a failed model, I don’t know what a failed model is.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Bernie Sanders speaking on Saturday night at the People’s Summit in Chicago at the McCormick Place convention center. It was an event that was organized by many different groups, primarily the Nurses United, nurses around the country. About a thousand nurses were there. Naomi, we were both there. Can you talk about the significance of what Bernie Sanders said? Now, remember, he is in the Democratic leadership —

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: — right now of the Senate. He is supposedly like the outreach person. He was brought into it. But he’s got a fierce critique of the Democratic Party.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah. And I think he’s been biting his tongue a little bit. I might speculate that he was inspired by what just happened in the UK with Jeremy Corbyn — we know he just came back from a trip to the UK — because there is an interesting parallel, in the sense that Jeremy Corbyn was elected by a grassroots, insurgent, youth-led movement. He was elected as leader originally — a youth-led movement called Momentum in the UK, many, many young people who joined the Labour Party in order to support Jeremy Corbyn. And there was this — they were treated as, you know, invade — like, instead of being excited about this wave of interest in the political party, the Labour Party establishment, the so-called New Labour party establishment, because Labour was rebranded by Tony Blair in the late 1990s to be the New Labour party, which is kind of like a labor-scented party as opposed to a party of actually working people, really using the tools of marketing as opposed to having a party that knows what it stands for and who it stands for.

And so, Jeremy Corbyn was elected, and there was just this campaign of sabotage. It was just the end of the world. He’s unelectable. He was smeared. Then there was a coup to try to unseat him. He was sabotaged relentlessly by his MPs, while he was leader, who were constantly leaking damning information, trying to make him look bad in the press, sabotaging him at every front, right? But the insurgency was ultimately successful, in that this campaign was a tremendous upset. It was an — sorry, this election was a tremendous upset in the UK [Theresa] May did not need to call the election. She said she wouldn’t call the election. The only reason she called the election, because she was so convinced that she was going to get an overwhelming majority, which was supposed to give her this mandate to get the best deal possible under Brexit as they negotiated with the EU. And there’s this huge upset, and, in fact, she loses all these seats, she loses her majority. Jeremy Corbyn wins about 30 seats.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Jeremy Corbyn —

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: — in his own words.

JEREMY CORBYN: What’s happened is people have said they’ve had quite enough of austerity politics, they’ve had quite enough of cuts in public expenditure, underfunding our health service, underfunding our schools and our education service and not giving our young people the chance they deserve in our society.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Jeremy Corbyn speaking. I wanted to ask you — in No Is Not Enough, you also raise some criticisms of why Bernie Sanders was not more successful during the primary campaign. And you raise the issue that some people claim that Hillary Clinton rode identity politics, as well as the machinations of the Democratic Party, to be able to persevere against him, in that was an issue of identity politics versus class politics. But you raise some criticism on that. I’m wondering if you could expand on that.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, I mean, and I endorsed Bernie and support him. I think he’s a tremendously important voice, and I’m so grateful to him. But I don’t think we, you know, do ourselves a service on the progressive side of the political spectrum — you know, those of us who do believe it is a moment for deep change as opposed to these little sort of tinkering changes — to not engage in self-criticism in this moment. I mean, I am sort of disheartened by the extent to which some of this debate is still frozen as if we are still in the primary, and you still have people in their hard, you know, “Bernie would have won” camps, and you still have Hillary supporters refighting and blaming Bernie supporters for Hillary’s defeat. And it’s just like we have to get out of that debate.

And I think on — among the people who did support Bernie, like the many thousands of people who were at the People’s Summit, I think it’s very important to understand why Bernie wasn’t able to go all the way, right? I mean, he got 13 million votes. He took 22 states. He got closer than any candidate who described himself as a democratic socialist, his campaign as a political revolution. I mean, it was incredible. But I don’t think Bernie lost the primary because the Democratic base is too conservative for Bernie. I think he lost the primary because he was not able to connect with, to speak to enough black and Latino voters, who tend to be more progressive than the rest of the Democratic base, and also to older women, who felt that their issues were too much of an add-on or sort of tacked on.

So, you know, I think, frankly, the best quote in my book is from Michelle Alexander, the author of The New Jim Crow, just a wonderful author and theorist and activist. And, you know, she said to me that if the progressives cannot do a better job of connecting with black voters, of understanding the role of race in American history and telling that story differently, she said, “They better get Elon Musk on speed dial, because they’re going to need another planet.” And so, I think we — and one of the things that I found really inspiring about the People’s Summit was I think that critique was really embedded in the way the weekend was organized, I mean, beginning with the voices of organizers of color, the Million Hoodies Movement. We heard from the chairs of the Women’s March, including Linda Sarsour, on the opening night, speaking explicitly about the need for a deeply intersectional politic, to use Kimberlé Crenshaw’s very important framing, and saying, “No, this is not — this is not a competition between class and economics and so-called identity politics. It is deeply interconnected, and we can’t understand the story of the United States and what this economy is without understanding how race has been used systematically as a wedge to divide and enforce this brutal economic system.”

So I think that critique is making it in there, you know, and I didn’t — don’t make the critique in the book, you know, in the spirit of finger-pointing. But just because what we are seeing with Bernie’s candidacy, with Corbyn’s candidacy, with Mélenchon’s candidacy in France, who came two points shy —

AMY GOODMAN: Explain who Mélenchon was.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah. Well, Jean-Luc —

AMY GOODMAN: Not to be confused with the new prime minister.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, right. So, in the recent French elections recently, there was a — there was a surprise, where Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who is a very left-wing candidate, significantly to the left of Bernie Sanders — I think he was calling for a rate of a 100 percent taxation for the rich, right? — running on a campaign of really deep redistribution of wealth in order to pay for the social safety net — it was a much less xenophobic message. It was much more friendly to refugees than we’ve been hearing from French politicians, you know, even on the so-called left, an antiwar message, a pro-peace message, making the connections, as Jeremy Corbyn did, between the failed war-on-terror-model foreign interventions and terrorist attacks in France — in Jeremy Corbyn’s case, in the UK — really trying to get at these root causes. Jean-Luc Mélenchon picked up, I think, 10 points. I mean, he surged at the end. And he came, at the end of the campaign — and this is on the first ballot, because the way the French elections work is they have multiple candidates on the first ballot, and then they narrow it down to two candidates for the final vote.

AMY GOODMAN: For president.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah. And all of a sudden, Mélenchon is getting 70,000 people at rallies, right? I mean, his was the campaign that had the energy. And he came within two points of Marine Le Pen, so he almost made it onto the second ballot, which would have meant that it was a race between a Hillary-like neoliberal figure, which is who Macron is — Macron is a former banker; he imposed economic austerity under the government of François Hollande, despite Hollande having won the election originally promising to resist the imposition of austerity in France — so it would have been him versus Mélenchon, which would have been a very interesting race. As it turned out, it was Marine Le Pen versus Macron. And thankfully, you know, France rejected fascism.

But my concern is that after, you know, four years of the kind of privatizations, deregulation, austerity politics that I think Macron is almost certain to impose on France, I’m worried about that setting the stage for a surge for the Front National, which is — you know, people have made these direct analogies between Trump and Marine Le Pen, and sort of holding up Macron as if, well, this proves that neoliberalism can beat a candidate like Trump. But Marine Le Pen is not Trump. The more accurate equivalent would be David Duke. I mean, this is a party with ties to Nazism historically, you know, that align themselves with the Vichy regime. The fact that they got around 30 percent of the vote in France is absolutely shocking. It’s nothing to feel, you know, complacent about.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to our discussion. We’re going to talk about what Trump just recently did, pulling out of the Paris accord, as well as healthcare and where it goes in this country. Naomi Klein is from Canada. We’ll talk about single payer and what are its chances today, as the Senate, supposedly, in private, is crafting a healthcare bill. We’re talking to Naomi Klein. She has a new book out today; it’s called No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump’s Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need. Stay with us.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ

Juan González co-hosts Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman. González has been a professional journalist for more than 30 years and a staff columnist at the New York Daily News since 1987. He is a two-time recipient of the George Polk Award.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Naomi Klein on Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and Youth-Led Grassroots Progressive Insurgencies

Re-Launching the Caribbean’s New World Journal

NOVANEWS
  • Thousands converged on Port-of-Spain to protest, Trinidad and Tobago, 1970.
    Thousands converged on Port-of-Spain to protest, Trinidad and Tobago, 1970. | Photo: Embau Moheni / NJAC
The New World Quarterly and the intellectual developments that followed the journal left an indelible mark on Caribbean intellectual thought.

The Caribbean and the developing world were places of high intellectual and political excitement by the late 1950s. Political leadership in the Caribbean was occupied by the likes of Norman Manley, Eric Williams, Cheddi Jagan and others.

RELATED20 Years After His Death, Jamaica’s Former PM Manley Speaks Again

The debate of the British West Indies Federation initiated a popular conversation on “West Indian nationhood.” Intellectually, CLR James from Trinidad and Tobago emerged as a major Marxist theorist, while culturally a distinct “West Indian literature” and a sporting excellence via West Indies cricket helped bolster a “Caribbean consciousness.”

Internationally, Africa was on the rise, socialist Cuba was an inspiration and “the ghost of Marcus Garvey,” according to Norman Girvan, enriched the racial consciousness of the Black masses. While these events unfolded, the Faculty of Social Sciences was being established at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. It was against this backdrop that students at the UWI were articulating their political aspirations. By 1960-61, progressive faculty and students at the Mona Campus established the West Indian Society for the Study of Social Issues, the forerunner to the New World Group.

The New World group was formed in Georgetown, Guyana in 1962. In the same year, the first edition of the New World Quarterly was published. The group and its quarterly journal engaged in challenging imported and imposed conceptualizations of the economy, society, culture and politics and turn “epistemic dependency” on its head. The New World Group in many ways was the “gold standard of Caribbean intellectual development,” according to James Millette. The Pan-Caribbean approach of the membership and journal proposed regional solutions to regional problems. “Every Caribbean scholar should be a regionalist,” Gordon Lewis made clear in simple words. “Mental insularismo” undercuts the regional integration project and purpose. Pan-Caribbean approaches are inter-disciplinary, they cross linguistic boundaries, and grounds analyses in the context of hemisphere and not just the realities of a particular island or nation state.

The New World Quarterly and the intellectual developments that followed the journal left an indelible mark on Caribbean intellectual thought, especially in the field of economics. For example, the plantation thesis of society that examines the relationship between the mass of the population to land, the role of extractive industries and historical economic transitions fervently built on the potential of dependency thought. This interdisciplinary perspective draws on sociology, economics, history and anthropology to help explain the Caribbean economic dependence within the international capitalist system, the racial and class formations of the social structures within the region and the “Americas.” The intellectual movement also represented a challenge to the economic orthodoxy of the then ruling political class and the status quo of “foreign white academics” and European knowledge at the university.

Policy formation, the question of political activism and organizational weaknesses accelerated the decline of the New World group by the early 1970s.
New World proposals for land reform, nationalization and state-led development backfired on the group as the examples of Jamaica and Guyana in the 1970s exposed the severe limitations of these approaches when unmanaged. Caribbean paternalistic political culture and shortcomings in the technical capacity of the state at the time undermined the forecasted dividends of “radical” reform and greater state control of the economy. Girvan observed, “It is a moot point whether the policies followed by the Burnham and Manley administrations in the 1970s were those that were actually advocated, or intended, by the New World Group. What mattered is the perception that they were. The status of ideas became linked to the status of regimes that were perceived to be putting them into practice.”

Lloyd Best’s assertion that “Thought is the action for us,” has been popularly misinterpreted as an expression of disengagement with movements of the time. Rather, the statement affirms the role of ideas in the process of social change and transformation, and the labor to produce ideas relevant to the Caribbean context was both a political act and worthy of pursuing. However, this posture did not accommodate the rapid changes that the late 1960s and 1970s created, especially in Trinidad and Tobago’s Black Power Revolution.

RELATEDPetrocaribe Celebrates 12 years of solidarity with Caribbean Countries

The New World group was recognized for its stellar contribution to the intellectual development of the region. But the focus on the historical-structural formations of society did not take up issues of personal, collective and systemic empowerment as the feminist movement would have done in the decade to follow after. Empowering people through organizations are central to the sustenance of movement building.

Gita Sen and Caren Grown wrote, “Empowerment of organizations, individuals and movements has certain requisites. These include resources (finance, knowledge, technology), skills training, and leadership formation on the one side; and democratic processes, dialogue, participation in policy and decision-making, and techniques for conflict resolution on the other.”

Organizing skills, when taken up seriously, develop the long-term viability of movements and grows the potential for radical change beyond a moment, phase or historical opportunity.

Ultimately, there was a split in the group. These views helped solidify Trevor Munroe’s Marxist critique of the New World as a group of bourgeois idealists. Girvan identifies the split in the group as a conflict between the decision of members to be involved in direct political action or intellectualism. The question of political action was also tied to the question of “independent thought” in the Caribbean. Marxist responses to the New World poked at its rejection of “foreign ideologies” contending that social conditions are not exclusively unique to the region and cultural comparisons from “outside” provide frameworks of interpreting the society.

The political utility and intellectual credentials of the New World were ultimately in question. While neither the Marxists nor the New World proponents were completely right or wrong in their assertions, a major cost of this breakdown was the decline in the radical search for Caribbean solutions engineered for Caribbean problems. Dogmatism and ideological certitude on both sides were unproductive to each of their causes in the eyes of history.

The shortcomings of the New World group do not outweigh the valuable impact the movement made to Caribbean transformation. The volunteer effort of the young academics, transnational distribution of journals via suitcase and “friend-of-a-friend” marketing and the influencing of state policy and course curricula in the university for at least two decades are no small order. Many young people of my generation do not know a thing about the New World and many do not share their sense of purpose now. For these reasons, the effort of the Girvan family to launch an open-access web-based platform for the New World Journals on June 23, 2017, was promising. Lloyd Best, George Beckford, Kari Levitt, Norman Girvan, James Millette, Alister McIntyre, and the many others now have a better chance to be taken up by Caribbean youth today.

I felt disheartened that one of the most prolific intellectual movements in the Caribbean let itself go into obsolescence at the launch of the website. Apart from the external and sociological conditions that impair its abilities, personality conflicts and posturing served the final blows. The dissolution of the British West Indies Federation, the achievement of independence and the birth of a higher level of intellectual and popular consciousness should not have signaled the demise of groups such as the New World.

The failures of a generation before me are also our inheritance. We must learn, if not remember, that stepping forward in history includes looking back. The launch of the New World Journal is not a debt we are paying to those who came before, it is an investment in our future.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Re-Launching the Caribbean’s New World Journal

What does it take to move from pseudo-democracy to real participation?

NOVANEWS
Democratic illusion

By Graham Peebles

Imagine a country run along truly democratic lines. In such a mythical land, what would be the role of the politician, and the nature of his or her relationship with that amorphous group paraded under the banner of “the people”?

Will of “the people”?

We in pseudo-democratic countries hear a lot about politicians serving and honouring the “will of the people” – in Britain this nauseating slogan of appeasement has been repeated ad infinitum since the disastrous European referendum vote – but from where does the supposed conviction of the masses arise? Does it evolve from independent minds tussling with questions of justice and freedom, debating and discussing pertinent issues over tea and cake, or is it the politicians who construct this perceived will, manipulating the people they claim to serve into believing what they, the politicians, want them to believe. And while on occasions there may be some degree of uncertainty in the success of the project of persuasion – “the people” can sometimes be an annoyingly unpredictable bunch – every avenue of propaganda and control is employed to ensure that the ideological intentions of the political class are reflected in the will of the people as and when they place their sacred X on the ballot paper, and exercise their long-fought-for democratic right, which (particularly in first-past-the-post systems) carries little authority and even less autonomy.

Mass manipulation

The principle tool of inducement is of course the mainstream media: television and radio stations, newspapers and magazines are used to flood the minds of the populous with a certain view of life, particular ideas, values and carefully edited “facts”. Political and economic slogans are repeated like mantras over the airwaves, until they infect the populous and are repeated parrot-like by apathetic, ill-informed voters. Education systems are designed to support the message, enabling the most malleable minds to be conditioned into, for example, competition and conformity. Organised religion reinforces the pervasive values and imposes its own, often cripplingly repressive doctrine on the faithful. Creative independent thinking – the principle quality of enquiry, analysis and response – is for the most part lost within the fogs of dogma and stereotype that are wrapped around the minds of the unsuspecting virtually from birth. The world is presented as hostile, competitive, full of pain and difficulties. Material satisfaction and pleasure is sold as happiness, desire constantly fed – creating agitated noisy minds, discontent and anxiety, all of which deny or greatly inhibit the possibility of that most democratic quality, free thinking.

Political and economic slogans are repeated like mantras over the airwaves, until they infect the populous and are repeated parrot-like by apathetic, ill-informed voters.

Individuality has been perverted, championed and denied. Within a conformist society where the pressure to think, act, and be a certain way is all-pervasive. True individuality – the natural flowering of innate potential within an environment of cooperation, understanding and tolerance, free from fear – is restricted and only realised through strength and often brings exclusion. And so the “will” of individuals, their ability to think beyond the rhetoric, to see the false as the false and the true as the true, becomes constrained at best, easily manipulated and/or non-existent.

Popular awakening

Many are awake to this; young and old see the injustices, the pretence and invasion for what they are. They are angry, and long for an alternative way of living. Huge numbers have been marching in cities throughout the world, demanding change and to be listened to. The response of the ruling elite has been fierce resistance, often violent. Ever more repressive policies, austerity and the like have been imposed, wages effectively lowered, costs increased, life made even more difficult, physically exhausting and emotionally draining, insecurity intensified, hope denied. Despite this assault, there is a global movement of solidarity evolving, and with the energy of the time flowing with increasing strength, the citadel of resistance cannot be sustained indefinitely. True democracy, a social construct that we have idealised but not lived, will win the day, greatly changing the role of the politician and the type of people who become public representatives.

… without a well educated, engaged population, democracy remains a fantastical construct of the elite, its principles periodically displayed for public appeasement and sustained self-deceit.

Democracy is participation, as are social responsibility, freedom of expression and social justice, tolerance and mutual understanding. All these are inherent in the democratic ideal and constitute its primary colours. Where these are absent, so too is democracy. Likewise,without a well educated, engaged population, democracy remains a fantastical construct of the elite, its principles periodically displayed for public appeasement and sustained self-deceit. In the absence of democracy, politicians, living in a suited bubble of complacency and privilege – two interwoven vices of self-deception – become ideological enforcers and persuaders. Divorced from the public at large, aligned with corporate interests and consistently duplicitous, trust in governments and politicians is at an all-time low. These men, and women, of power are rightly seen as cynical and ambitious, prepared to say anything to achieve positions of power and to hold on to them.

The truly democratic politician

If complacency is the poison of the political class, then apathy and ignorance are the Achilles heel of the people. Social responsibility and participation sit at the very heart of the matter – participation by well-informed people who recognise that we are all individually responsible for society, for the well-being of our neighbours at home and abroad, and the integrity of the natural environment, participation in how the place in which we live and work functions, participation founded on a sense of responsibility leading to and demanding, by dint of commitment and creative participation, influence.

Within such an environment the role of the politician changes dramatically. It becomes one of listening, facilitating, informing and enacting, of representing – making known – the “will of the people” to the business community and parliament – which is of course what they should do now but on the whole, don’t. In this democratic paradigm, self-interest and corporate power begin to weaken and the will of the people to evolve. Democratic decisions about policies and methods, the clarifying of aims, the nature of systems and structures in such a world would be reached through overwhelming consensus – not the paltry 51 per cent of perhaps a mere 45 per cent of the population, as is the case now.

When the nature of… the will of the people is based on the recognition of humankind’s essential unity, together with the acknowledgment that we are responsible for the world and all life within it, then all becomes possible.

Under the existing democratic paradigm the talk is of power and control, duplicitous politicians and leaders and disenfranchised citizens. The rhetoric of political debate is combative and dishonest, ideologies and ideals clash, the economy dominates and business largely dictates government policy. Socio-economic systems have been designed and developed to deny the manifestation of real democracy and to facilitate the perpetuation of the status quo: a state of affairs in which piece by piece the natural environment is being destroyed, half the world’s population is living on less than $5 a day, economic inequality is at unprecedented levels and 65 million people are displaced. That is to name but the most pressing issues facing humanity.

True democracy is an expression of human solidarity. For this to develop and reflect the proclaimed ideal, systemic change and a fundamental shift in attitudes is required, both by politicians and the people who they are supposed to represent. This will not come from the political class – they are quite happy with things the way they are and will fight to the last. It will, and must, come from the people. The worldwide protest movement contains within it the evolutionary seeds of lasting change, but as the reactionary forces resist with increasing force, the need for sustained engagement and collective participation grows stronger. As Maitreya has made clear, “nothing happens by itself, man must act and implement his will”. When the nature of that will the will of the people – is based on the recognition of humankind’s essential unity, together with the acknowledgment that we are responsible for the world and all life within it, then all becomes possible.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on What does it take to move from pseudo-democracy to real participation?

A 21st-Century Marxism: The Revolutionary Possibilities of the “New Economy”

NOVANEWS

Photo by Ann Wuyts | CC BY 2.0

It should hardly be controversial anymore to say we’re embarking on the “end times” of…something. Maybe it’s corporate capitalism, maybe it’s civilization, maybe it’s humanity. Whatever it is, the unsustainability of the contemporary ancien régime, on the global level, has become obvious. Economically, socially, politically, and environmentally, the next fifty years will see major upheavals, which may end up dwarfing those even of the 1930s and 1940s—the Great Depression and World War II.

In this moment of crisis and uncertainty, as we wonder what might come next and if in the long run there is any hope for a positive resolution of the predicaments society finds itself in, we would do well to consider whether that old revolutionist Karl Marx has anything to say about our future. His intellectual fortunes, after all, have lately been on the upswing. As the greatest theorist ever of capitalism and revolution, it would be odd if his ideas couldn’t illuminate the prospects for social transformation in a time of acute crisis.

Marx was mainly an analyst of capitalism, not a prophet or planner of socialism or communism. He did, however, predict socialist revolution, even arguing that it was inevitable and would inevitably take the form of a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” This dictatorship, supposedly, would implement total economic and social reconstruction even in the face of massive opposition from the capitalist class, in effect drawing up blueprints to plan out a “new society” that would, somehow, on the basis of sheer political will, overcome the authoritarian and exploitative legacies of capitalism. Through necessarily coercive means, the government would somehow plan and establish economic democracy, in the long run creating the conditions for a “withering away of the state.” How such a withering away would actually happen was left a mystery; and none of Marx’s followers ever succeeded in clearing the matter up.

In my book Worker Cooperatives and Revolution: History and Possibilities in the United States, I have explained how this whole Marxian schema of revolution was always fundamentally flawed, and even, in some respects, blatantly anti-Marxist (i.e., contradictory with the basic premises of Marxism). No such revolutionary rupture—a sudden radical break with capitalism in the form of a politically planned, coercively administered flowering of workers’ democracy—could ever happen, and ever has happened. Marx misunderstood his own system when he predicted it.

Even the greatest thinkers make mistakes. What is unfortunate is that their followers persist in these mistakes, to the point that even today it seems virtually no one has grasped the contradictions between basic Marxian conceptions of social dynamics and classic revolutionary prognostications that Marx and Engels made in the Communist Manifesto and other writings. Further discussion of these matters can be found here.

If we drop the ideological baggage of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” however, we will find that at a more fundamental level of Marxist theory there is a clue to how a transition out of corporate capitalism may occur—how, in fact, it will have to occur, if it is to happen at all. From a broad perspective, there is only one path to a post-capitalist society (leaving out the possibility of nuclear holocaust and total systemic collapse).

Transforming the “economic base”

The key to imagining a positive outcome of the decline of the contemporary order lies in the Marxian idea that production relations are the foundation of every society. That is, political, cultural, and ideological structures are grounded in class structures. The obvious corollary is that a post-capitalist society can evolve only on the basis of the evolution of new production relations, i.e., class (or rather, ‘no-class’) relations. Just as new economic relations emerged over centuries during Europe’s transition from feudalism to industrial capitalism—and it was on the ground of these structures that a new society developed—so new ways of organizing production will have to evolve in the coming generations in order for humanity to live to see a less crisis-ridden era than the present.

More precisely, inasmuch as the predatory regime of corporate capitalism is founded on the privatization of resources (of production, profit, the natural environment, etc.) and on authoritarian and antagonistic relations of production, a more just and stable society will have to be grounded in the public production and distribution of resources, and in relatively democratic and cooperative economic structures.

As such structures progressively emerge over the next fifty and a hundred years, a new kind of politics will, necessarily, evolve on their basis. The gradual, global “social revolution” will not, and cannot, be politically willed and imposed after a seizure of state power, as Lenin attempted and Friedrich Engels predicted. (“The proletariat seizes state power, and then transforms the means of production into state property.” What you have in this case is just state capitalism.) Rather, the long-drawn-out political revolutions will occur step-by-step as society, in particular the economy, gradually and organically evolves new, more democratic institutions, precisely to the degree that the old economy descends into crisis.

What will the new institutions look like? Marx was wisely reluctant to speculate in detail about the future. But we’re in a more fortunate position than him, because we can already see the seeds of a new economy being planted. They have yet to sprout in a very visible way, but on the grassroots level there are, nonetheless, glimmers of hope.

The new economy

Activism around the “solidarity economy” has in the last decade been garnering more and more attention. Worker cooperatives and public banking, for example, are two concepts that are gaining traction even in the United States, as their growing coverage by journalists and scholars testifies. A recent In These Times feature article on public banks describes the remarkable potential of these institutions, as well as challenges the movement faces. But Shelley Brown, an activist from Santa Rosa, is far-sighted in her optimism: “All it’ll take is the first domino to fall,” she says. “Towns and cities will turn in this direction [toward public banking] because there’s no other way to turn.” She might have added that sooner or later, if economic stagnation and crisis persists (which it’s bound to), states will do so as well, compelled by popular movements and widespread unrest to adopt institutional innovations like public banking.

Worker cooperatives have been more prominently featured in the media than public banking, in part because of their striking successes in both Europe and North America. In my above mentioned book I tell the story of how the cooperative New Era Windows was formed several years ago in Chicago, a few years after its worker-owners had, as employees of Republic Windows and Doors, made international headlines by occupying their factory. That was in the wake of the 2008 crash, when the factory was about to close and the workers were being denied severance pay and other benefits to which they were entitled. Five years later, with the help of their union (the United Electrical Workers) and a nonprofit called The Working World, they had turned the business into a co-op.

More such successes may emerge following the next economic collapse. Similarly, to bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S., more unions may follow the lead of the United Steelworkers in building industrial cooperatives across the country. The cooperative movement is still in its early stages, so one cannot predict what its potential may be. What one can say with a fair amount of certainty is that public pressure will continue to build for measures like these to protect jobs and in so doing transform the economy.

It might seem that such “interstitial” institutions as public banks and worker cooperatives—or even the aggregate of all types of cooperatives, including in the housing, retail, agricultural, insurance, health, and credit sectors of the economy—have little or no revolutionary potential, being too marginal for that. And certainly, for now, this criticism has force. Whether it will still have force twenty or thirty years from now, after economic and environmental crises have savaged the dominant political economy and popular movements have had time to build substantial bases of power, is an open question. Given the unpredictability of history, it is myopic to arbitrarily declare that all “localized,” decentralized, municipal or regional attempts to build oppositional institutions will forever be condemned to marginality and cannot serve as nodes of national and international anti-capitalist movements.

The inevitable reaction against neoliberalism

In any case, the necessity of creating public forms of economic interaction to save society, in the long run, from the total destruction that will ensue if the privatization and marketization of everything continues unchecked implies that some form(s) of public banking and producer cooperativism will, sooner or later, have to become hegemonic. The hegemony of such institutions is precisely what the revolutionary goal has always been. “Cooperativism” is just another name for workers’ democracy, which is the ideal that has always guided Marxists and other radicals.

It may be that (as Marxists have traditionally argued) the nationalization of key industries will eventually prove necessary and possible; but the idea of national industries democratically run is, in effect, just the idea of worker cooperativism writ large and transposed to the political sphere. The more the idea of democratic administration and ownership—as in municipal enterprise, community land trusts, cooperatives, participatory budgeting, etc.—permeates the public consciousness, the more likely it is that assaults on the commanding heights of corporate capitalism will become feasible.

If dire prophecies of another economic collapse, one even more serious than that of 2008–2009, are borne out, the chaos that follows will surely, in the end, empower “radical reformers” agitating for a more democratic and cooperative political economy—in addition to more conventional progressives demanding a reversal of the international austerity regime. For it is hard to see how in such a scenario popular movements can continue to be suppressed indefinitely, everywhere. And insofar as activists press for a transformation of production relations (at the local, regional, national, and international levels)—in the direction of abolishing the private appropriation of profits and the authoritarian, exploitative structures of business—they will be laying the groundwork for truly revolutionary changes. The sorts of changes that will someday, perhaps, make possible a move away from the capitalist “growth economy” that cannot but devour nature, people, democracy, and society itself.

In short, while it’s necessary to abandon the old Marxian conception of proletarian revolution, the central insights of Marxism give us clues into how a gradualist revolution might proceed. We have to embrace the project of slowly building a new economy from the ground up, while continually agitating for changes in national policy that will facilitate such a project. This is what a twenty-first century Marxism looks like.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on A 21st-Century Marxism: The Revolutionary Possibilities of the “New Economy”

SCO Summit: Fighting Terrorism is at Top of Agenda

NOVANEWS

Fighting Terrorism is at the Top of the Agenda at the SCO Summit

by Sophie Mangal

In the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, a meeting of the defense ministers of the member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was held on June 7. At the meeting, the members of the delegations made a number of statements concerning both the situation in Syria and the fight international terrorism in general.

First of all, all the representatives agreed that Indian and Pakistani membership that will become true tomorrow will enhance SCO’s security capabilities.

Referring to international problems, the SCO participants concurred that the terrorism in a short time turned into the biggest threat to the global security. At the same time, all the members of the delegations noticed that the situation is aggravating with every passing day by numerous local conflicts in the world and by inability of the Western countries to overcome differences, to form a common and united front against this evil and to work together to build a bastion against terrorism.

In this regard, the Syrian issue has become a key topic of the agenda during the meeting. The SCO-countries gave the highest priority to the question. A detailed briefing session was held for new

Member States (India and Pakistan) on the common attitude of the participating countries to the key crisis in the Middle East. As it was noted at the meeting, it is in the Syrian Arab Republic the main forces of the Islamic State are concentrated. It was also stated that the Syrian Arab army coordinating its activities in order to ensure the success operations undermined in the end the potential of the IS fighters and Syria has been “at the forefront of fighting international terrorism” for a long time.

Special attention was paid to the creation of de-escalation areas in Syria, which could contribute to ending the civil war and thus intensifying efforts to combat ISIS and Al-Nusra.

The representatives of SCO-Member countries also noticed that practical steps are being taken to implement the agreements reached at the moment. The priority tasks, namely ensuring the monitoring of all the commitments undertaken, as well as creating conditions for the restoration of the destroyed infrastructure were also highlighted.

The countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization agreed to provide support to each other in Syria and to exchange military experience in conducting counter-terrorism operations.

Interaction within the SCO in the future was decided to focus on identifying and anticipating any terrorist activities.

Inside Syria Media Center‘ experts reasonably assume that the Member states will need to create joint effective managing tools to stop penetration of terrorism and radicalism into the SCO’s area of responsibility. A fair guess would be that the special attention would be paid to an operative exchange of the information available on the activities of terrorist groups.

Such a summit is clearly useful for Syria from the point of view of practicality. People in Syria hope the talks will equip the SCO-members better to meet the challenges of terrorism. Syria needs support to be able to tackle the difficulties and to take the steps necessary for a just and lasting peace.

Summary

To be noted is that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), or Shanghai Pact, is a Eurasian political, economic, and military organization which was founded in 1996 in Shanghai by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. These countries, except Uzbekistan, had been members of the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996; after the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, the members renamed the organization. On 10 July 2015, the SCO decided to admit India and Pakistan as full members. India and Pakistan signed the memorandum of obligations on 24 June 2016 at Tashkent, thereby starting the formal process of joining the SCO as the full members. Now in Astana the countries are going to become full members.

The meeting of the SCO-defense ministers takes place once a year and the heads of the military departments have the opportunity both to share their views on the events taking place in the world and to work out a common strategy. In addition it is possible to hold bilateral meetings to discuss in detail the plans of military cooperation on the margins of the meeting.

Follow the latest developments by reading Inside Syria Media Center.

Posted in Health, PoliticsComments Off on SCO Summit: Fighting Terrorism is at Top of Agenda

War, Martial Law, and the Economic Crisis

NOVANEWS
Excerpt from “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century”

The following text is an excerpt of a chapter by Peter Dale Scott from the book, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“ Global Research Publishers, 2010. 

The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Bailout

The bailout measures of late 2008 may have consequences at least as grave for an open society as the response to 9/11 in 2001. Many members of Congress felt coerced at the time into voting against their inclinations, and the normal procedures for orderly consideration of a bill were dispensed with.

The excuse for bypassing normal legislative procedures was the existence of an emergency. But one of the most reprehensible features of the legislation, that allowed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to permit bailed-out institutions to use public money for exorbitant salaries and bonuses, was inserted by Paulson after the immediate crisis had passed.

According to Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vermont) the bailout bill originally called for a cap on executive salaries, but Paulson changed the requirement at the last minute. Welch and other members of Congress were enraged by “news that banks getting taxpayer-funded bailouts are still paying exorbitant salaries, bonuses, and other benefits.”[1] In addition, as the Associated Press reported in October 2008, “Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. questioned allowing banks that accept bailout bucks to continue paying dividends on their common stock. ‘There are far better uses of taxpayer dollars than continuing dividend payments to shareholders,’ he said.”[2]

Even more reprehensible is the fact that after the bailouts, Paulson and the Treasury Department refused to provide details of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) spending of hundreds of billions of dollars, while the New York Federal Reserve refused to provide information about its own bailout (using government-backed loans) that amounted to trillions. This lack of transparency was challenged by Fox TV in a FOIA suit against the Treasury Department, and a suit by Bloomberg News against the Fed.[3]

The financial bailout legislation of September 2008 was only passed after members of both Congressional houses were warned that failure to act would threaten civil unrest and the imposition of martial law.

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., both said U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson brought up a worst-case scenario as he pushed for the Wall Street bailout in September. Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, said that might even require a declaration of martial law, the two noted.[4]

Here are the original remarks by Senator Inhofe:

Speaking on Tulsa Oklahoma’s 1170 KFAQ, when asked who was behind threats of martial law and civil unrest if the bailout bill failed, Senator James Inhofe named Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as the source. “Somebody in D.C. was feeding you guys quite a story prior to the bailout, a story that if we didn’t do this we were going to see something on the scale of the depression, there were people talking about martial law being instituted, civil unrest… who was feeding you guys this stuff?,” asked host Pat Campbell. “That’s Henry Paulson,” responded Inhofe. “We had a conference call early on, it was on a Friday I think – a week and half before the vote on Oct. 1. So it would have been the middle… what was it – the 19th of September, we had a conference call. In this conference call – and I guess there’s no reason for me not to repeat what he said, but he said – he painted this picture you just described. He said, ‘This is serious. This is the most serious thing that we faced.’”[5]

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA 27th District) reported the same threat on the Congressional floor:

The only way they can pass this bill is by creating a panic atmosphere… Many of us were told that the sky would fall… A few of us were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no. That’s what I call fear-mongering, unjustified, proven wrong.[6]

So it is clear that threats of martial law were used to get this reprehensible bailout legislation passed. It also seems clear that Congress was told of a threat of martial law, not itself threatened. It is still entirely appropriate to link such talk to the Army’s rapid moves at the time to redefine its role as one of controlling the American people, not just protecting them. In a constitutional polity based on balance of powers, we have seen the emergence of a radical new military power that is as yet completely unbalanced.


The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century

Author Name: Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, EditorsISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9
Year: 2010Pages: 416 pages with complete indexList Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 To order the book click here.


Continuity of Operations (COOP)

The Army’s New Role in 2001: Not Protecting American Society, but Controlling It. This new role for the Army is not wholly unprecedented. The U.S. military had been training troops and police in “civil disturbance planning” for the last three decades. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, or “Operation Garden Plot,” was developed in 1968 in response to the major protests and disturbances of the 1960s.

But on January 19, 2001, on the last day of the Clinton administration, the U.S. Army promulgated a new and permanent Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program. It encapsulated its difference from the preceding, externally oriented Army Survival, Recovery, and Reconstitution System (ASRRS) as follows:

a. In 1985, the Chief of Staff of the Army established the Army Survival, Recovery, and Reconstitution System (ASRRS) to ensure the continuity of essential Army missions and functions.

ASRRS doctrine was focused primarily on a response to the worst case 1980’s threat of a massive nuclear laydown on CONUS as a result of a confrontation with the Soviet Union.

b. The end of the Cold War and the breakup of the former Soviet Union significantly reduced the probability of a major nuclear attack on CONUS but the probability of other threats has increased. Army organizations must be prepared for any contingency with a potential for interruption of normal operations.

To emphasize that Army continuity of operations planning is now focused on the full all-hazards threat spectrum, the name “ASRRS” has been replaced by the more generic title “Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program.[7]

This document embodied the secret Continuity of Government (COG) planning conducted secretly by Rumsfeld, Cheney and others through the 1980s and 1990s.[8] This planning was initially for continuity measures in the event of a nuclear attack, but soon called for suspension of the Constitution, not just “after a nuclear war” but for any “national security emergency”. This was defined in Reagan’s Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, as “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” The effect was to impose on domestic civil society the extreme measures once planned for a response to a nuclear attack from abroad.[9] In like fashion, ARR 500-3 Regulation clarified that it was a plan for “the execution of mission-essential functions without unacceptable interruption during a national security or domestic emergency.”

Donald Rumsfeld, who as a private citizen had helped author the COG planning, promptly signed and implemented the revised ARR 500-3. Eight months later, on 9/11, Cheney and Rumsfeld implemented COG, a significant event of which we still know next to nothing.[10] What we do know is that plans began almost immediately – as foreseen by COG planning the 1980s – to implement warrantless surveillance and detention of large numbers of civilians, and that in January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets.[11]

Then in April 2002, Defense officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-USNORTHCOM) for the continental United States.[12] In short, what were being implemented were the most prominent features of the COG planning which Oliver North had worked on in the 1980s.

“Deep Events” and Changes of Party in the White House

Like so many other significant steps since World War Two towards a military-industrial state, the Army’s Regulation 500-3 surfaced in the last days of a departing administration (in this case the very last day). It is worth noticing that, ever since the 1950s, dubious events – of the unpublic variety I have called deep events – have marked the last months before a change of party in the White House. These deep events have tended to a) constrain the incoming president, if he is a Democrat or, alternatively, b) to pave the way for the incomer, if he is a Republican.

Consider, in the first category, the following (when a Republican was succeeded by a Democrat):

– In December 1960 the CIA secured approval for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, and escalated events in Laos into a crisis for which the Joint Chiefs proposed sending 60 000 troops. These events profoundly affected President Kennedy’s posture towards Cuba and Indochina.

– In 1976 CIA Director George H.W. Bush installed an outside Team B intelligence unit to enlarge drastically estimates of the Soviet threat to the United States, eventually frustrating and reversing presidential candidate Jimmy Carter’s campaign pledge to cut the U.S. defense budget.[13]

Equally important were events in the second category (when a Democrat was succeeded by a Republican):

– In late 1968 Kissinger, while advising the Johnson administration, gave secret information to the Nixon campaign that helped Nixon to obstruct the peace agreement in Vietnam that was about to be negotiated at the peace talks then taking place in Paris. (According to Seymour Hersh, “The Nixon campaign, alerted by Kissinger to the impending success of the peace talks, was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government” in Saigon, making it clear that a Nixon presidency would offer a better deal. This was a major factor in securing the defeat of Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey.[14] Kissinger was not the kind of person to have betrayed his president on his own personal initiative. At the time Nixon’s campaign manager, John Mitchell (one of the very few in on the secret), told Hersh, “I thought Henry [Kissinger] was doing it because Nelson [Rockefeller] wanted him to. Nelson asked Henry to help and he did.”[15]

– In 1980 the so-called October Surprise, with the help of people inside the CIA, helped ensure that the Americans held hostage in Iran would not be returned before the inauguration of Reagan. This was a major factor in securing the defeat of incumbent Jimmy Carter.[16] Once again, the influence of the Rockefellers can be discerned. A CIA officer later reported hearing Joseph V. Reed, an aide to David Rockefeller, comment in 1981 to William Casey, the newly installed CIA Director, about their joint success in disrupting Carter’s plans to bring home the hostages.[17]

Both the financial bailout, extorted from Congress and the escalated preparations for martial law can be seen as transitional events of the first category. Whatever the explanations for their timing, they constrained Obama’s freedom to make his own policies. Moreover they have the consequence of easing this country into unforeseen escalations of the Afghan war.


SPECIAL: Global Economic Crisis + Globalization of Poverty

Author Name: Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, Editors | Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 9780973714739 | 9780973714708

Year: 2010 | 2003

Pages: 416 | 376 both with complete indexes

List Price: $53.90

Special Price: $30.00

Click to order


The Intensive Quiet Preparations for Martial Law

Let us deal first with the preparations for martial law. In late September 2008, at the height of the financial meltdown, The Army Times announced the redeployment of an active Brigade Army Team from Iraq to America, in a new mission that “may become a permanent part of the active Army”:

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission – with a twist – at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks… After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one… They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.[18]

This announcement followed by two weeks the talk of civil unrest and martial law that was used to panic the Congress into passing Paulson’s bailout legislation. Not only that, the two unprecedented events mirror each other: the bailout debate anticipated civil unrest and martial law, while the announced positioning of an active Brigade Combat Team on U.S. soil anticipated civil unrest (such as might result from the bailout legislation).

Then on December 17, 2008, U.S. Northern Command chief General Renuart announced that “the US military plans to mobilize thousands of troops to protect Washington against potential terrorist attack during the inauguration of president-elect Barack Obama.”[19]

The U.S. Army War College also raised the possibility of the U.S. Army being used to control civil unrest, according to the Phoenix Business Journal:

A new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks.

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” said the War College report.

The study says economic collapse, terrorism and loss of legal order are among possible domestic shocks that might require military action within the U.S.[20]

It is clear that there has been a sustained move in the direction of martial law preparations, a trend that has been as continuous as it has been unheralded. Senator Leahy was thus right to draw our attention to it on September 29, 2006, in his objections to the final form of the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president increased power to call up the National Guard for law enforcement:

It… should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding Posse Comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations.[21]

This quiet agglomeration of military power has not “just growed”, like Topsy, through inadvertence. It shows sustained intention, even if no one has made a public case for it.


*1 BOX = 30 BOOKS – SPECIAL OFFER: The Global Economic Crisis

Author Name: Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, EditorsISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9Year: 2010

Pages: 416 Pages

List Price: $778.50

Special Price: $297.00

Bulk Order: Click here to order multiple copies at a discounted price


The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century (PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, EditorsISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9Year: 2010

Pages: 416 pages with complete index

Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

For PDF format, click here 


NOTES

1. WCAX, Burlington, Vermont, http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S= 9567271, 22 December 2008; Cf. CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/27423117, 30 October 2008: ” ‘You can get paid $30 million under this program’, says Michael Kesner, who heads Deloitte Consulting executive compensation practice, ‘There’s no limit on what you can get paid.’ “
2. John Dunbar, AP, http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081025/meltdown_evolving_bailout.html, 25 October 2007.
3. David Hirst, “Fox Joins Battle cry for Details of US Bail-out”, BusinessDay, http://www.businessday.com.au/business/fox-joins-battle-cry-for-details-of-us-bailout-20081223-74eh.html?page=-1, 24 December 2008.
4. Mike Sunnucks, “Ariz. Police say they are Prepared as War College warns Military must prep for Unrest; IMF warns of Economic Riots”, Phoenix Business Journal, http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/15/daily34.html, 17 December 2008.
5. 1170 KFAQ, “Paulson Was Behind Bailout Martial Law Threat”, Blacklisted News, http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-2367-0-13-13–.html, 23 November 2008.
6. Rep. Brad Sherman, in the House, 8:07 EST PM, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8&NR=1, 2 October 2008; Rep. Sherman later issued the following clarification: “I have no reason to think that any of the leaders in Congress who were involved in negotiating with the Bush Administration regarding the bailout bill ever mentioned the possibility of martial law – again, that was just an example of extreme and deliberately hyperbolic comments being passed around by members not directly involved in the negotiations.” See Rep. Sherman, Alex Jones Show, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bH1mO8qhCs.
7. Army Regulation 500-3, “Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources”, Army Continuity Of Operations (COOP) Program, http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/us-army-reg-500-3-continuity-2001.pdf, emphasis added; Tom Burghardt, “Militarizing the ‘Homeland’ in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis: NORTHCOM’s Joint Task Force-Civil Support”, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10534, 11 October 2008.
8. Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2007, p. 183-87; James Mann, The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet, New York, Viking, 2004, p. 138-45.
9. Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 183-87.
10. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 9/11 Commission Report, p. 38, 326; 555, footnote 9; Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 228-30.
11. Ritt Goldstein, “Foundations are in Place for Martial Law in the US”, Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/ 2002/07/27/10274974183 39.html, 27 July 2002.
12. Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 240-41.
13. Ibid., p. 60-61.
14. Robert Parry, “Henry Kissinger, Eminence Noire”, ConsortiumNews, http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/122808.html, 28 December 2008: “Kissinger… – while serving as a peace-talk adviser to the Johnson administration – made obstruction of the peace talks possible by secretly contacting people working for Nixon, according to Seymour Hersh’s 1983 book, The Price of Power”, p. 21.
15. Seymour Hersh, The Price of Power, 1983, p. 18; Jim Hougan, Spooks: The Haunting of America, New York, William Morrow, 1978, p. 435: “Kissinger, married to a former Rockefeller aide, owner of a Georgetown mansion whose purchase was enabled only by Rockefeller gifts and loans, was always the protégé of his patron, Nelson R[ockefeller], even when he wasn’t directly employed by him.”
16. Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 93-118.
17. Ibid. p. 82-87, 91, 104-05.
18. Gina Cavallaro, “Brigade Homeland Tours Start Oct. 1”, Army Times, http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland _090708w/, 30 September 2008; Michel Chossudovsky, “Pre-election Militarization of the North American Homeland, US Combat Troops in Iraq Repatriated to ‘Help with Civil Unrest’”, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? context= va&aid=10341, 26 September 2008.
19. AFP, Agence France-Presse, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTBOy3JF8pVAthIthq8C1NrMf4Cg, 17 De- cember 2008.
20. Mike Sunnucks, “Ariz. Police say they are Prepared as War College warns Military must prep for Unrest; IMF warns of Economic Riots”, Phoenix Business Journal, http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/ 15/daily34.html, 17 December 2008.
21. Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy, “National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007 Conference Report”, Congressional Record, http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html, 29 September 2006.

Posted in USA, PoliticsComments Off on War, Martial Law, and the Economic Crisis

“A Liberated Area in the Middle East”?: Western Imperialism in Rojava

NOVANEWS

Part 1 of a 2 part series

Image result for Middle East MAP

By Leftist Critic | Dissident Voice 

Over 17.1 million live in a socially democratic, secular state, the Syrian Arab Republic, ravaged by overt and covert imperialist machinations supported by Turkey, the Gulf autocracies, and the Western capitalist states. Their government is led by the National Progressive Front (NPF), with its most foremost party the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party which is joined by numerous radical and socially progressive parties. The NPF’s majority in the Syrian’s People’s Council, the Syrian parliament, was reaffirmed in the April 2016 elections by the Syrian people, elections which were predictably boycotted by the Western-backed opposition and predictably declared “unfree” by Western capitalists. President Donald Trump dealt the rationally-minded Syrians a blow that goes beyond his ill-fated show of strength manifested in the cruise missile attacks last month: direct US support of the Syrian Kurds who consist and are related to Rojava, officially called the “Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria” (NSR), “Syrian Kurdistan” or “Western Kurdistan,” to give a few names.

It is part and parcel of those in the Western and even international “left” to declare that the Rojava Kurds are “revolutionary” or somehow “liberated.” Here is a sampling from their arguments in favor of such a group when challenged on a radical left-leaning subreddit: (1) the Kurds are “very prudent” to get support from the West, (2) they aren’t against the Syrian government, they have “liberated people under ISIS control,” (3) the national borders were drawn by imperialists so “Kurdistan should have been a country in the first place,” and (4) Rojava have stated that they believe “a federal system is ideal form of governance for Syria.”1 This article aims to prove that such pro-Rojava perspectives are an unfounded and dangerous form of international solidarity.

US imperialist support for the Kurdish cause

Only a few days ago, Trump approved a Pentagon plan which would “directly arm Kurdish forces fighting in Syria,” specifically the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) comprised of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and Syrian Arab Coalition (SAC), all of which are elements of Rojava.2 The US plans to use these groups to “mount an assault on Raqqa,” the de facto capital of Daesh, called ISIS in the West, which sits in the heart of Syria. The arming of such forces is a reversal of Obama-era policy but only to an extent. The armed support, according to one account, would consist of “small arms, machine guns, ammunition, armored vehicles, trucks and engineering equipment.” Another account added that these fighters would receive “U.S.-manufactured night-vision goggles, rifles and advanced optics,” all of which are used by US special operations forces. As a result, YPG fighters would begin to “bear strong similarities to other American-trained foreign special forces.”This support may relate to possibly imminent “massive invasion of Syria” by US and Jordanian forces in an effort to support their Free Syrian Army (FSA) proxies and enter areas adjacent to those controlled by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA).

The US claimed it had been in “constant contact” with the Turks to assure them the Kurdish troops would not have “any role in stabilizing or ruling Raqqa after the operation,” with “local Arabs” (undoubtedly those chosen by the US and the West) governing the city afterwards. The Turks, who want the Western-backed FSA to lead the offensive, have been engaging in military strikes on PKK (Kurdish Worker’s Party) and YPG fighters within Iraq and Syria, which affects US special ops forces directly helping theses groups. The Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, which has a complicated but still imperial inter-relationship with the US, Nurettin Canikli, showed his anger on May 10 when he said that “the supply of arms to the YPG is unacceptable. Such a policy will benefit nobody.” This position isn’t a surprise since the Turks see the YPG as a branch of the PKK and are undoubtedly strongly anti-Kurd. Predictably the announcement of direct armament was received well by the Rojava forces. A SDF spokesman said that “the US decision to arm the YPG… is important and will hasten the defeat of terrorism” and Saleh Muslim, co-chair of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), another Rojava element, declared that “the Raqqah campaign is running in parallel with the international coalition against terrorism. It’s natural that they would provide weapons” to such Kurdish forces. Keep in mind this is the same person who called for the US to expand its military strikes on the Syrian government to other groups with purported chemical weapons, saying that Trump’s cruise missile attack will “yield positive results.”

Anyone with sense knows he is wrong. Arming of these Kurds will be cheered by the editorial boards of the bourgeois Chicago Tribune and Bloomberg News, former imperial diplomat Antony “Tony” John Blinken, and the president of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria (KNAS), Sherkoh Abbas, among many others.3

The same day that the organs of US imperialism announced that these Kurds would get arms directly from the war machine, Trump declared a “national emergency” in regard to Syria.4 He called the country’s government an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States” saying that it supported terrorism, undermined US and international efforts to “stabilize” Iraq, brutalized the Syrian people, generated “instability throughout the region,” and called for regime change, saying that there should be a “political transition in Syria” that will benefit the US capitalist class. This declaration in particular, released the same day as similar reauthorizations of other Obama era “national emergency” orders for the Central African Republic and Yemen, buttressed a 2012 executive order which delineated sanctions on the state of Syria! All in all, the Western imperialists know that Syria does not constitute this “threat” but they choose to portray it that way in order to justify continued massive war spending, which comprises at least half of the US federal budget.

Beyond these declarations, the US support for the “good” Kurds (“Good” by Western standards) is nothing new, mainly since 2014. The bourgeois media has reported, especially since January, about the “U.S.-Kurdish alliance” consisting of the US support of the SDF and YPG as effective front forces to “fight ISIS,” angering the Turks who consider such forces to be utterly hostile since they see it as an extension of the PKK, but the US imperialists care little about this gripe.5 The US is supporting these forces with 500 US special ops forces (half of the 1000 US troops stationed in the country), armored vehicles, and warplanes as “air support” for their offensives, along with some arms, even prior to the recent announcement. Some call these forces, which have been attacked by Turkey in the past and “accidentally” by US bombs, as “the vanguard of U.S. proxy forces on the ground” in Syria, undoubtedly dismaying two deluded Marxists who thought they were fighting for an “egalitarian utopia.”6

Such individuals should not be surprised. After all, a top US commander has defended YPG actions, claiming that they did not attack into Turkey, almost serving as a de facto spokesperson of the group. Lest us forget a press conference just last month where US Colonel John Dorrian, spokesperson for the US-led coalition bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan, slyly admits that the YPG, Peshmerga, PKK, and SDF/SAC are partners in their “anti-Daesh” bombing efforts. Additionally, such Kurdish forces have gained other avenues of support from settler-colonist Canada (also see here) and from the Russian Federation, which has given them, according to reports, money, equipment, and a seat at the negotiating table. Russian support is interesting since they are also supporting the Syrian government in its fight against terrorism, making one possibly wonder if their support for these Kurds is for some unspoken reason.

It gets worse. “Good” Kurdish leaders have said behind the scenes that they are willing to cooperate with Israel, the apartheid and murderous Zionist state which has given limited military support to Iraqi Kurds and bought millions of barrels of their oil, in line with Mr. Netanyahu’s declaration that “we should … support the Kurdish aspiration for independence…[the Kurds are] a nation of fighters [who] have proved political commitment and are worthy of independence” and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked who also called for an independent Kurdistan. These feelings add to their cooperation with the NATO criminals. It is evident that with the “help of US airpower” the YPG, along with SDF, has been able to take “control of an estimated 26,000 sq km (10,000 sq miles) of Syria,” including a 250 mile “stretch of territory along the Turkish border,” all of which constitutes Rojava.7 It is even more suspicious that US soldiers are advising and assisting SDF and YPG soldiers. They are, according to one report, assisting them in “targeting ISIS positions with mortars and laser guided air strikes,” with the YPG’s media office even telling local journalists, initially, to “not take video footage of the U.S. Special Forces” so people won’t know they are backed by ruthless imperialist foot soldiers.8

Even so, local fighters of the YPG are reportedly “pleased with the American presence.” In 2016, the State Department openly admitted such cooperation. Mark Toner declared that “coordination continues” with the YPG and SDF against the “common enemy” of Daesh. Spokesperson John Kirby said that the US had “provided a measure of support, mostly through the air” for such groups, “and that support will continue,” adding that “we have said that these Kurdish fighters are successful against Daesh…and we’re going to continue to provide that support” and spoke of a “partnership with Kurdish fighters.” More than these blanket statements, Talal Silo, a former SAA colonel and official spokesperson of the SDF, said the following, which shows that they are deeply tied to US imperial objectives:

It’s forbidden to negotiate with the Russians because we seek for an alliance with the United States. It’s impossible to communicate with any other party and to not lose the credibility of the international coalition. Of course, we are free, but we can not attack if there is not signal from the Americans. We will not unite with the Syrian army against ISIS because our forces operate only with the forces of the international coalition led by the United States. We are partners of the United States and the coalition. They make decisions. There can’t be a coordination between the Russians and us. Because first of all we have a strategic partnership with the international coalition led by the United States.

That’s not all. The US has also provided support to the Peshmerga, militia of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, part of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and escorted a PKK senior leader, Ferhad Şahin or Şahin Cilo, with over a 1 million bounty on his head by the Turkish government, through a crowd.9 The support for the Peshmerga also increased dramatically in recent days. The US State Department approved the Pentagon sending $295.6 million “worth of weapons, vehicles and other equipment” which includes but is not limited to “4,400 rifles, 113 Humvees and 36 howitzers.”10 These armaments, which only need simple congressional approval, assured in this political climate, would be used to arm two brigades of Peshmerga light infantry and two artillery battalions to assist such units. While few governments are on the record as publicly supporting independent or autonomous states in Syria or Iraq, apart from hawkish John McCain, the Peshmerga have been armed by Western European countries such as France and Germany, along with the Turks, while British special forces reportedly lurk within Syria in an effort to achieve imperial objectives.11

Earlier this month, there was another development in this realm: a plan to link Rojava with the Mediterranean Sea. This action, for which they will ask the US to support them politically (and implied militarily), the SDF forces would “push west to liberate the city of Idlib” which Hediya Yousef, a high-ranking official in Rojava said is part of their “legal right” to have access to the Mediterranean, from which he claimed “everyone will benefit.”12 Such an action would possibly empower such “good” Kurds even more, even as it would outrage Turkey, and would require agreement with the Syrian government along with the Russian Federation, which is unlikely. If Rojava achieved access to the sea, they would be an even more “effective” imperial proxy group since Western capitalist states could bring their military supplies to the coastline, rolling in heavy machinery, tanks, and maybe even set up a base of some type. It would be chaos and disaster for Syria of the highest proportions, helping in the disintegration of the region into a divided mess that could be easily manipulated by Western imperialists.

Is Rojava revolutionary?

Many have claimed that Rojava is “revolutionary.” One article by Wes Enzinna, an editor at the White hipster/”dudebro”/trash website, Vice Media, is an example of this. He writes that neither the UN, NATO, or the Syrian government recognize the “autonomous status” of the area, but says that this area, with over 4.6 million people by his count, enacts “radical direct democracy” on the streets, in his perception.13  He goes on to say that the territory is a “utopia” that is governed by an affiliate of the PKK, which includes, but is not limited to, six political parties, including the PYD and Kurdistan Democratic Party of Syria (KDPS). Additionally, apart from the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), the Self-Defense Forces (HXP), YPG and all-female protection units, YPJ, protect the region from threats, with the latter two organizations, along with the PYD, major allies for the US in the region. Most interesting is the presence of Abdullah Öcalan, one of the PKK’s founding leaders, with his philosophy used throughout Rojava where he, as Mr. Enzinna claims, “looms as a Wizard-of-Oz-like presence.” It is worth pointing out that Mr. Öcalan, who has been hounded by the Turkish government since 1998, “repudiated the armed struggle and… the independence of Kurdistan,” with the PKK dropping its demand for an independent Kurdistan when he went into jail. He also asked Kurds to lay down their arms and went even further by declaring that there should be a “democratic union between Turks and Kurds.”14 According to reports, he clearly favors anarchist and anti-Marxist Murray Bookchin, Michel Foucault, French historian Fernand Braudel, and US sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein (the only one of the four with credibility), among a litany of other authors he read in prison, which is troublesome. Hence, he called for “democratic confederalism” in 2005, a model used in Rojava.

Mr. Enzinna isn’t the only one who makes such claims. Reuters‘s Benedetta Argentieri declared that the region values “gender equality,” especially in its military forces and has its “ideological foundations…laid by Abdullah Öcalan,” while others have declared there was an “ecological society” in place.15 Many examples of such perspectives, showing that the perception of  Rojava is “radical” and “liberatory” is widespread. Articles favoring this approach are in publications such as the Financial Times, the New York Times, The GuardianOpen Democracy, Slate, Dissent, Roar MagazineDeutsche WelleAFP, CeaseFire magazine, Telesur English, and Quartz.16 Writers have gone on to dub the region “a thriving experiment in direct democracy,” “a precious experiment in direct democracy,” “a remarkable democratic experiment,” “a revolution in consciousness,” and “a Kurdish region… ruled by militant feminist anarchists.” Others echo the same sentiment, calling it “a liberated area in the Middle East” (which is used in the title of this article), “political and cultural revolution,” “a social and political revolution,” “a participatory alternative to the tyrannical states of the region,” “the safest place in Syria,” and “a new radical society.”

Beyond this, AK Press’s A Small Key Can Open A Large Door: The Rojava Revolution, if it is to be believed at all, argues that the PYD launched a plan for the economy of the region which levies no taxes on the populace and abolished “traditional” private property such as “buildings, land, and infrastructure” but this did not extend to commodities such as automobiles, machines, electronics, and furniture. Even this book admits that only about a third of the worker councils have been set up in the region and that there is vagueness on how this region will relate to “other economies inside and outside of Syria.” After all,  much of the economic activity in the region comes from, as the book argues, “black market oil… sold outside the region” and as a result there are looming questions about the mechanics “trading relationships between other governments” if the embargo levied on them by the Turks is lifted.

By saying all of this about Rojava, some supporters may be cheering, saying that they were right all along. In fact, they can’t be more wrong. For one, European Parliamentarians are chummy with the PYD, who says that Turkey still supports Daesh, even as they claim that their meeting with legislators of Western capitalist states is not a form of propaganda. This political party, the PYD, was even left out of Syrian peace talks originally, but later was allowed in, with the Russians, in their illegal and unconscionable draft for the Syrian constitution, decentralized powers, which could be seen as “a potential concession aimed to gain the favor of the de-facto autonomous Kurdish cantons of northern Syria.”17

This is only the tip of the iceberg. The co-chair of the PYD, Mr. Saleh Muslim, has spoken at the British Parliament and has met with the Catalan parliament, where he declared that they are mainly at “war” with Daesh, not dismissing hostile actions toward the Syrian government. He further declared that they do not want to continue “under the old model of nation-state,” which he claims exists in Iraq and Syria, and said “we want to be part of Syria, but part of a democratic Syria.” If this doesn’t sound in line with imperialist goals, then I don’t know what is. It is also worth pointing out that the PYD attended a conference in Western Europe, in Belgium, eight Rojava legislators had a six-day visit to Japan, high-ranking YPJ and PYD officials talked to the Italian parliament and met senior Italian officials. Additionally, Rojava representatives attended a “conference in Athens… to mark the 17th anniversary of the capture of Abdullah Ocalan” and met with French representatives (along with the YPJ). The latter is important to note since the French have supported these “good” Kurds on the battlefield, just like Albania, and even want to open a cultural center in Rihava.

Then there’s the undeniable fact that Rojava has representative offices in numerous Western capitalist countries: Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, and France. Other news notes that the PYD has an office in Russia and has received support from Finland, which has begun “financing projects with development funds allocated to non-governmental organizations to strengthen Syrian Kurdish Region governance.” The only country that has rescinded diplomatic ties with Rojava is the Czech Republic, where a representative office opened in April but was shut down by December even as a story the previous month said that other than Albania, “the Czech Republic is one of the main sources of weapons flowing to the YPG via the US-led coalition against IS.” The representative office, as a story reported, was shut down because “it failed to win the recognition of Czech politicians” and the office seems to have faced problems related to security threats and diplomacy. Also, the “Turkish embassy in Prague [tried]… to undermine the activities of the office” even as Czech politicians see support of Rojava as a way to support an independent, autonomous Kurdistan, undermining the status of this office within the country.

The relationship between the “good” Kurds and Turkey is complicated. In 2013 and 2014, Turkey favorably received the PYD. However, as it currently stands, Turkey has an economic blockade on Rojava, as they attempt to diplomatically isolate them, opposes US support of the YPG, and supports anti-Rojava terrorists including Daesh.18 Turkey has gone even farther than just these measures. They’ve reportedly shelled Rojava, such as the settlements of Zur Maghar and Afrin, which has led to numerous civilians being killed, as Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) expand their military operations within Syria.19 In response, their actions were condemned not only by Germany but by Russia and neocon McCain. If Turkey engaged in such actions, they likely have public support. While Selahattin Demirtas, an imprisoned Kurdish leader of the “Kurdish-dominated People’s Democratic Party” or HDP, who has met with the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, and the Russian and US governments, has argued for countries to recognize Rojava, the Turkish public may think differently.20 Conspiracy theories purportedly dominate the Turkish political discourse and the Kurds, more often than not, are seen as part of a plot against the Turkish nation, leading to support for never-ending war against the PKK and seeming stagnation of political discourse.

Notes

  1. Other arguments ranged from claims that (1) Rojava wants some “degree of autonomy” while not fighting the Syrian government, (2) an independent Kurdistan could be anti-imperialist, (3) Rojava aren’t “disintegrating the region” but are rather “liberating people” from Daesh and will “unify with the Syrian government in the future,” that (4) such people are fighting “a battle for a better life way of living” while using available resources at their disposal, that (5) they have no choice but to ally with the West, (6) claims that Russia is imperialist, (7) that accepting weapons from the West forms “a positive relationship, in the hope for protection from Turkey,” and (8) that “Syria is by no means anti-imperialist.” The claims of Russia being imperialist is clearly incorrect by any reasonable measure, while saying that Syria is not anti-imperialist is a sentiment that hurts international solidarity. The one argument that accepting weapons from the West forms a “positive relationship” says it all.
  2. Missy Ryan, Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Karen DeYoung, “In blow to U.S.-Turkey ties, Trump administration approves plan to arm Syrian Kurds against Islamic State,” Washington Post, May 9, 2017.
  3. Editorial Board, “Fixing Syria, Step 1: Arm the Kurds,” Chicago Tribune, September 23, 2016; The Editors, “Arm the Kurds,” Bloomberg View, August 5, 2014; Antony J. Blinken, “To Defeat ISIS, Arm the Syrian Kurds,” New York Times op-ed, January 31, 2017; Ariel Ben Solomon, “Are Syrian Kurds the missing ingredient in the West’s recipe to defeat Islamic State?,” Jewish News Service (JNS), March 23, 2017. Also, the New Republic (“One Group Has Proven It Can Beat ISIS. So Why Isn’t the U.S. Doing More to Help Them?”), Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ed Royce, The Telegraph (“Water is not enough, we must arm the Kurds”), New York Post (“It’s time to really arm the Kurds”), The Guardian (“Arming the Kurds may help break up Iraq – but the alternatives are worse”), National Review (“Recognize Kurdistan and Arm It, against ISIS in Northern Iraq”), among others, support arming the Kurds, specifically those who support US objectives, of course.
  4. Declaring a national emergency gives the President power to deal with “any unusual and extraordinary threat… to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” Furthermore, such a declaration gives the President the power to “…investigate, regulate, or prohibit… any transactions… transfers of credit or payments… the importing or exporting of currency,” invalidate acquisitions by certain foreigners and even “confiscate any property” of foreigners coming from a country the US is at war with and are accused of planning, aiding, engaging, or authorizing hostilities against the United States.
  5. Louisa Loveluck and Karen DeYoung, “A Russian-backed deal on ‘safe zones’ for Syria leaves U.S. wary,” Washington Post, May 4, 2017; Associated Press, “Tensions rise after Turkish attack on Syrian Kurds,” Washington Post, April 26, 2017; Philip Issa, “Turkey threatens further strikes on US-allied Syrian Kurds,” Associated Press, April 30, 2017; Matthew Lee, “US criticizes Turkey for striking Kurds in Iraq, Syria,” Associated Press, April 25, 2017; Karen DeYoung and Dan Lamothe, “U.S.: Kurds will participate in some form in attack on Raqqa,” Washington Post, March 1, 2017; Matthew Lee, “US criticizes Turkey for striking Kurds in Iraq, Syria,” Associated Press, April 25, 2017; Karen DeYoung and Dan Lamothe, “U.S.: Kurds will participate in some form in attack on Raqqa,” Washington Post, March 1, 2017; Kareem Fahim and Adam Entous, “No decision yet on arming Kurds to fight Islamic State, Trump tells Turkish leader,” Washington Post, February 8, 2017.; Ishaan Tharoor, “The Russia-Turkey-U.S. tussle to save Syria will still get very messy,” Washington Post, May 4, 2017; Ishaan Tharoor, “What you need to know about Turkey and the Trump administration,” Washington Post, March 30, 2017;  Liz Sly, “Turkey’s Erdogan wants to establish a safe zone in the ISIS capital Raqqa,” Washington Post, February 13, 2017; Sarah El Deeb, “Turkey, Kurds, Russia, U.S. forces make up a confusing, violent pageant in Syria,” Chicago Tribune, March 11, 2017; Agence France-Presse, “Pentagon chief praises Kurdish fighters in Syria,” March 18, 2016.
  6. Liz Sly, “How two U.S. Marxists wound up on the front lines against ISIS,” Washington Post, April 1, 2017; Karen DeYoung and Kareem Fahim, “Turkey deports foreigners working with Syrian refugees,” Washington Post, April 26, 2017; Loveday Morris and Kareem Fahim, “Turkey expands strikes against Kurdish militants in Syria and Iraq,” Washington Post, April 25, 2017; Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Missy Ryan, “U.S.-led coalition accidentally bombs Syrian allies, killing 18,” Washington Post, April 13, 2017; Liz Sly, “With a show of Stars and Stripes, U.S. forces in Syria try to keep warring allies apart,” Washington Post, March 8, 2017; Karen DeYoung and Kareem Fahim, “As a new relationship is tested, Turkey keeps high hopes for Trump,” Washington Post, March 9, 2017; Orhan Coskun, Tulay Karadeniz and Tom Perry, “Turkey’s Syria plans face setbacks as Kurds see more U.S. support,” Reuters, March 9, 2017.
  7. BBC News, “Syria conflict: Kurds declare federal system,” March 17, 2016; Liz Sly and Karen DeYoung, “Ignoring Turkey, U.S. backs Kurds in drive against ISIS in Syria,” Washington Post, June 1, 2016.
  8. Nancy A. Youssef and Wladimir van Wilgenburg, “U.S. Troops 18 Miles From ISIS Capital,” The Daily Beast, May 26, 2016; Jiyar Gol, “Syria conflict: On the frontline in battle for IS-held Manbij,” BBC News, June 15, 2016.
  9. Suzan Fraser, “Turkey strikes Kurds in Iraq, Syria, drawing condemnation,” Associated Press, April 25, 2017; Martin Chulov and Fazel Hawramy, “Ever-closer ties between US and Kurds stoke Turkish border tensions,” The Guardian, May 1, 2017; Mahmoud Mourad and Ulf Laessing, “Iraq’s Shi’ite ruling coalition opposes Kurds’ independence referendum,” Reuters, April 20, 2017; Loveday Morris and Kareem Fahim, “Turkey expands strikes against Kurdish militants in Syria and Iraq,” Washington Post, April 25, 2017.
  10. Eric Walsh, “U.S. approves $295.6 million military equipment sale to Iraq: Pentagon,” Reuters, April 19, 2017; UPI, “US State Department approves arms sale for Peshmerga forces,” April 20, 2017; Tom O’Connor, “U.S. Military Set to Make $300 Million Deal to Arm Kurds Fighting ISIS in Iraq,” Newsweek, April 20, 2017.
  11. Karen Leigh, Noam Raydan, Asa Fitch, Margaret Coker, “Who Are The Kurds?,” Wall Street Journal, August 31, 2016; BBC News, “Germany to supply arms to Kurds fighting IS in Iraq,” September 1, 2014; Agence France-Presse, “Pentagon chief praises Kurdish fighters in Syria,” March 18, 2016.
  12. Mark Townsend, “Syria’s Kurds march on to Raqqa and the sea,” The Guardian, May 6, 2017.
  13. Wes Enzinna, “A Dream of Secular Utopia in ISIS’ Backyard,” New York Times Magazine, November 24, 2015.
  14. BBC News, “Kurdish rebel boss in truce plea,” September 28, 2006.
  15. Anna Lau, Erdelan Baran, and Melanie Sirinathsingh, “A Kurdish response to climate change,” OpenDemocracy, November 18, 2016; Benedetta Argentieri, “One group battling Islamic State has a secret weapon – female fighters,” Reuters blogs, February 3, 2015.
  16. Carrie Ross, “Power to the people: a Syrian experiment in democracy,” Financial Times, October 23, 2015; Carne Ross, “The Kurds’ Democratic Experiment,” The New York Times opinion, September 30, 2015. Ross is “a former British diplomat and the author of “The Leaderless Revolution: How Ordinary People Will Take Power and Change Politics in the 21st Century,” is working on a forthcoming documentary film, “The Accidental Anarchist.””; David Graeber, “Why is the world ignoring the revolutionary Kurds in Syria?,” The Guardian, October 8, 2014; Jo Magpie, “Regaining hope in Rojava,” Open Democracy, June 6, 2016; Michelle Goldberg, “American Leftists Need to Pay More Attention to Rojava,” Slate, November 25, 2015; Meredith Tax, “The Revolution in Rojava,” Dissent magazine, April 22, 2015; Evangelos Aretaios, “The Rojava revolution,” Open Democracy, March 15, 2015; New Compass, “Statement from the Academic Delegation to Rojava,” January 15, 2015; Jeff Miley and Johanna Riha, “Rojava: only chance for a just peace in the Middle East?,” Roar Magazine, March 3, 2015; Felix Gaedtke, “A Kurdish Spring in Syria,” Deutsche Welle, May 22, 2013; AFP, “Syrian Kurds give women equal rights, snubbing jihadists,” November 9, 2014; Margaret Owen, “Gender and justice in an emerging nation: My impressions of Rojava, Syrian Kurdistan,” CeaseFire magazine, February 11, 2014; Benedetta Argentieri, “These female Kurdish soldiers wear their femininity with pride,” Quartz, July 30, 2015; Marcel Cartier, “‘The Kurds’: Internationalists or Narrow Nationalists?,” Telesur English, April 20, 2017.
  17. John Irish, “Syrian Kurds point finger at Western-backed opposition,” Reuters, May 23, 2016.
  18. Meredith Tax, “The Rojava Model,” Foreign Affairs, Oct. 14, 2016; Graham A. Fuller, “How Can Turkey Overcome Its Foreign Policy Mess?,” LobeLog, February 19, 2016; David L. Phillips, “Research Paper: ISIS-Turkey Links,” Huffington Post, September 8, 2016; Natasha Bertrand, “Senior Western official: Links between Turkey and ISIS are now ‘undeniable’,” Business Insider, July 28, 2015.
  19. AFP, “Turkey accused of shelling Kurdish-held village in Syria,” The Guardian, July 27, 2015; Christopher Phillips, “Turkey’s Syria Intervention: A Sign of Weakness Not Strength,” Newsweek, September 22, 2016.
  20. Ishaan Tharoor, “The U.S. should accept a Syrian Kurdish region, says Turkish opposition leader,” Washington Post, May 2, 2016.

Leftist Critic is an independent radical, writer, and angry citizen and can be reached at leftistcritic@linuxmail.org or on twitter, @leftistcritic.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on “A Liberated Area in the Middle East”?: Western Imperialism in Rojava

Message of Greetings from CPGB-ML to JVP May 1st Rally

NOVANEWS

CPGB-ML address May 1st demonstrations held by the JVP in Sri Lanka

At the invitation of the Peoples Liberation Front – Sri Lanka (JVP), the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) sent comrade Sammi Ibrahem to give a message of solidarity to the May 1st demonstrations in Jaffna and Colombo.

The CPGB-ML has a good working relationship with the JVP in Britain. It is the opinion of the CPGB-ML that all workers who reside in Britain constitute a part of the British working class, regardless of how long they have been in the country or how long they intend to remain. Whilst working in Britain it is incumbent upon revolutionaries and those who call themselves communist to be active in the revolutionary movement of the country they are resident in. For that reason, members of the JVP fulfil their internationalist duty as supporters and members of the CPGB-ML. They set an example to many others who for sectarian reasons continue to back the revisionists and their support for the imperialist Labour Party.

As the rot sets in ever deeper for the revisionists, it will come to pass that all sincere communists who reside in Britain, regardless of the affiliations which their organisations back home may have with aging revisionist groups here, will be faced with the choice of either undertaking no communist work, or working with the CPGB-ML. As the Trotskyites liquidate their organisations to infiltrate Labour, and the revisionists quietly fulfil the logic of their own discredited programmes of self-annihilation, only the CPGB-ML has an independent programme for the growth and development of a truly Marxist-Leninist organisation in Britain.

In Sri Lanka comrade Sammi addressed JVP rallies in both Jaffna and Colombo, along with international communist guests from PAME & the Communist Parties of Greece and Cuba. We reproduce below Sammi’s greeting to the May 1st rally in Colombo along with a few photographs of the inspiring work of the JVP this May Day 2017.

“Dear comrades,

I bring greetings from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) – Happy 1st May!

Our Party is extremely proud to have good relations with the JVP – Peoples Liberation Front, and we can see from the banners today that the struggle against imperialism and for socialism is being waged by the comrades of the Peoples Liberation Front. Comrades, workers in Britain have a lot to learn from your example.  Red Salute to the JVP!

Comrades, the billionaires who control the world keep the masses in abject poverty. In the oppressed and economically backward countries the conditions for the working classes are especially hard. Value is created by human labour, but that which is produced through the blood and sweat of Sri Lankan workers is stolen by Sri Lankan capitalists and their friends, the imperialists, who channel billions back into their own pockets. Workers can only improve their lot through class struggle. There is nothing so hypocritical than the bourgeois class who assert the equality of rich and poor, the well fed and the hungry. Capitalism drives the workers to sell their labour power to the capitalist, workers have no other choice but wage slavery under capitalist conditions. The workers in Sri Lanka struggle bravely for a dignified life and set a great example to the working class of Britain, but struggle must be for socialism, for a revolutionary change. Leninism teaches that we cannot do this without leadership by genuine socialists, the Sri Lankan workers are fortunate to have the JVP leading them in their struggle.

Any proletarian Party which hopes to take state power and build socialism must understand how to adapt, how to change their method of struggle whilst continuing to advance on the road to Socialism. Sometimes it is necessary to fight with your fists and the Sri Lankan workers have heroic chapters written into their history when they were led in fearless armed struggle. As Marxists we understand that state power means more than capturing the parliamentary power, but when legal methods of struggle are open to revolutionaries, they must exploit them as best they can. The six members of the JVP inside the Sri Lankan parliament have won this opportunity to demonstrate to the masses the corruption of the ruling parties and can make use of the platform of parliament to inspire the people to make socialism their goal. Rather than claim that the JVP has “sold-out” because it stands in the election we sincerely hope that the JVP can build on the success of the 2015 Parliamentary elections whilst building up the struggle of the masses in the cause of socialism!

In Britain our struggle for socialism has been greatly retarded by the influence of Trotskyites and revisionists who work in the service of our ruling class. They are always quick to cry that revolutionaries have “sold out”. In Sri Lanka you are also cursed by the presence of Trotskyists who speak in revolutionary language to hide from the workers their counter-revolutionary aims. Trotskyists are everywhere the same, counter-revolution is in their blood. We must combat all attempts by Trotskyists to split the ranks of the revolutionary workers in Sri Lanka just as we must fight them at home in Britain. We must fight all attempts by enemies to split and damage the JVP whose historic mission it is to bring about the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Today 100 years after the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, the example of the Bolsheviks is as valid as ever, the best weapon we have is the science of Marxism-Leninism, the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. This is the best defence against Trotskyists and splitters, and it is the blue print for making socialist revolution.

Long live the 1st of May!

Long live Marxism-Leninism!

Long live proletarian internationalism!”

Posted in Politics, UKComments Off on Message of Greetings from CPGB-ML to JVP May 1st Rally

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

September 2017
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930