Archive | C.I.A

White Helmets, James Lemesurier, and the Humanitarian Regime Change Network

Conversation with Cory Morningstar and Vanessa Beeley

By Michael WelchCory Morningstar, and Vanessa Beeley

Global Research,

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. – Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928) [1]


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
Since at least as far back as World War I, propaganda has been a major force in our lives, and a critical factor shaping public support for foreign policy.

With time, this propaganda campaign has gotten more sophisticated. Consider, for example, the 1991 Persian Gulf War, acceptance of which was ramped up following a testimony of an alleged witness of atrocities by invading Iraqi soldiers. The incident was eventually exposed as a massive deception as explained in the following video by Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker.

The current conflict in Syria would seem to reveal an unprecedented evolution of this process of mind control in service of imperial conquest.

The general public throughout the West, including many self-described progressives and anti-imperialists, see the Syrian conflict as a civil war. An uprising of democratic rebels against a tyrannical dictator. The Syrian regime, together with the Russian military are, apparently, the main cause of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the dislocation of millions. He stands accused of using chemical weapons on his own people in 2013, 2017, and 2018.

Enter the White Helmets – a team of volunteers rescuers whose exploits have impressed the sympathetic masses as heroes. A documentary about them won an Oscar Award. They have been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. They have also helped foster popular enmity toward president Assad and his government.

As revealed in past episodes of the Global Research News Hour, the Syrian conflict is not a civil war, but an insurgency, backed by the U.S., Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Articles in the independent press have debunked claims of the government’s use of chemical weapons.

As for the White Helmets, reporters like Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley have revealed them to be a propaganda construct, aligned with the terrorist factions in the country and actually putting together fake videos with the intent of demonizing President Assad and pushing for a U.S. intervention.

An elaborate apparatus has been put in place to protect the Assad-as-bad-guy narrative. Reporters putting forward an alternative narrative on Syria have faced doxxing, smears, defamation and deplatforming. Several journalists working for mainstream and even some alternative publications have put out articles portraying these challengers of the official story as ‘conspiracy theorists’, agents of Bashar al Assad or Russia, and even ‘antisemites.’

This episode of the Global Research News Hour will focus on this network of well financed interests and how they are manufacturing consent for the overthrow of governments in the Middle East with Syria as a case study.

Our guests for the hour are two of the independent journalists who have invited the scorn of the Empire as well as from advocates for social and environmental justice. Their names are Cory Morningstar and Vanessa Beeley.

Over the course of the program, they discuss the crimes of the White Helmets, the Greta Thunberg phenomenon, the suspicious death of White Helmets founder James Lemesurier, the behaviour of the media, and much more.

 Vanessa Beeley is an award-winning independent investigative journalist and photographer who has worked extensively in the Middle East – on the ground in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Palestine, while also covering the conflict in Yemen since 2015.  Vanessa contributes regularly to Mint Press News, Russia Today, UK Column, The Last American Vagabond, Sputnik radio, 21st Century Wire, Global Research and many other independent media outlets.

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.


  1. Edward Bernays (1928) Propaganda, pg 9-10

Controlling the Narrative on Syria: Turkish Aggression, Kurdish Independence, and Honouring the White Helmets

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, C.I.A, SyriaComments Off on White Helmets, James Lemesurier, and the Humanitarian Regime Change Network

‘Only Did the Right Thing When He Got Caught’: Trump Reportedly Knew of Whistleblower Complaint When He Unfroze Ukraine Aid

“It was only until he felt that he was being exposed that he actually stepped up and actually released the funds.”

by: Jake Johnson,

President Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally at the BB&T Center in Sunrise, Florida on November 26, 2019. (Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

President Donald Trump was reportedly aware of the whistleblower complaint against him when he released $390 million in frozen military aid to Ukraine in early September, prompting allegations that Trump only released the funds because his actions came under serious scrutiny.

“The timeline is clear,” said Sean Eldridge, founder of progressive advocacy group Stand Up America. “Trump only released the aid because he got caught.”

The New York Times, citing two anonymous officials familiar with the matter, reported late Tuesday that “Trump had already been briefed on a whistleblower’s complaint about his dealings with Ukraine when he unfroze military aid for the country.”

“Mr. Trump faced bipartisan pressure from Congress when he released the aid,” the Times noted. “But the new timing detail shows that he was also aware at the time that the whistleblower had accused him of wrongdoing in withholding the aid and in his broader campaign to pressure Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to conduct investigations that could benefit Mr. Trump’s re-election chances.”

Swing Left@swingleft

Trump knew about the whistleblower complaint against him, his Attorney General and his Office of Management and Budget when he decided to release the aid he ILLEGALLY withheld from Ukraine.

He only did the right thing when he got caught …12612:33 AM – Nov 27, 2019

If the Times reporting is accurate, it means Trump was also aware of the whistleblower complaint when he told U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland in September that there was no “quid pro quo” with Ukraine.

According to House Budget Committee documents, Trump officially froze the aid to Ukraine on July 25, the same day as the president’s phone call with Zelensky. Democrats have accused the president of unlawfully withholding the aid, which was appropriated by Congress.

“It was only until he felt that he was being exposed that he actually stepped up and actually released the funds,” Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) told CNN Tuesday night.

The Washington Post reported late Tuesday that two officials at the White House Office of Management and Budget resigned in part over concerns about Trump’s order to withhold the Ukraine funds.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, offered a simplified timeline of events on Twitter in response to the Times reporting, which was later confirmed by the Wall Street Journal.

“One more time for those playing along at home,” tweeted Cicilline. “1) He tried to bribe Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. 2) He got caught. 3) He confessed. 4) We will hold him accountable.”

Posted in USA, C.I.A, UkraineComments Off on ‘Only Did the Right Thing When He Got Caught’: Trump Reportedly Knew of Whistleblower Complaint When He Unfroze Ukraine Aid

Can the US Get Out of Its Endless Wars?


Photograph Source: The U.S. Army – CC BY 2.0

Donald Trump in 2016 ran in opposition to the Iraq war and more generally to massive US commitments around the world. His denunciations of “endless wars” resonated enough that many voters ignored his documented early support for the Afghan and Iraq wars. Indeed, areas where casualties in those wars were highest voted more heavily for Trump than other demographic and economic factors would have predicted. Voters, with plenty of justification from her record as Secretary of State, thus pegged Hillary Clinton as a warmonger.

Trump, at least so far, is a militarist too. He has yet to withdraw the remaining troops from Afghanistan or Iraq. In Syria, he ended up merely redeploying soldiers from the border with Turkey to further within the country, if anything deepening American involvement. In the rest of the world, Trump has yet to close a single base or return home any troops stationed abroad.

Democrats, except for a few principled anti-interventionists like Bernie Sanders, are not clearly committed to reducing, let alone eliminating, the more than 800 bases the US maintains around the world and that cost over $100 billion a year to staff and maintain. For the past year, Democrats, when they bother to mention foreign policy, have largely focused on Russia. In hopes of using Trump’s Russian ties to push impeachment or weaken his reelection prospects, Democrats have ended up painting Russia as a strategic threat to the US on par with the former Soviet Union or present-day China. This dubious electoral strategy has the effect of bolstering military spending and justifying US intervention in countries around the world to counter supposed Russian subversion.

It seems clear that unless and until the Democratic Party is fundamentally transformed we will not find our way out of endless wars through the electoral process. Just as both political parties supported the Vietnam War half a century ago, so today there is mainstream consensus behind the belief that the US is the indispensable nation, and therefore from a mix of self-interest and idealism should spend whatever is needed to maintain full spectrum dominance and command of the commons. However, just as the Vietnam War finally was ended through a combination of non-electoral mobilization in the US and defeat on battlefields in Vietnam, so too can America’s twenty-first century wars be ended through our efforts within the US and by America’s ever more obvious economic and geopolitical weakness. To understand what can make our opposition most effective we need to understand the forces that support the US’s massive presence around the world and the deepening divisions among US elites.

Who Benefits From US Military Power

American capitalists, like those of previous great powers such as nineteenth century Britain and France and the Netherlands of the seventeenth century, rely on their government to control foreign territories and peoples that those capitalists can exploit. Of course, how capitalists make money abroad has changed. Today formal colonies no longer exist. Instead, American capitalists look to their government to negotiate and enforce so-called free trade agreements that give American companies access to foreign markets. At the same time, the U.S. has used military and non-military means to remove governments that tried to restrict capitalists’ ability to exploit resources and workers in other countries or to create social protections for their citizens. Obviously, the U.S. is less able to intervene in other wealthy countries, like those of Western Europe, even as America’s ability to mold other nations to its will increased after the end of the Soviet Union.

U.S. goals in trade treaties have changed over time. Up to the 1960s, the government pushed to open foreign markets to American manufactured goods. But as America’s industrial edge disappeared, the U.S. instead has sought to win access above all for financial firms and also to protect American pharmaceutical, software and entertainment firms’ patents and copyrights. In essence, American trade negotiators since the 1970s have sacrificed industrial workers to protect the profits of Wall Street, Big Pharma, Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

What the Military Elite Wants and Gets

US global power is enormously expensive to build and maintain and requires a vast, permanent military establishment. Any organization, like the Pentagon, which commands millions of soldiers and other employees and controls a budget approaching $1 trillion a year, amasses great political power and autonomy as well.

The U.S. is unusual among nations in that from its beginning it relied upon private companies to develop and build weaponry. Weapons contracts generate greater profit margins than most other businesses, creating a unity of interest between military officers and capitalists, who otherwise oppose expensive government programs that ultimately must be funded through taxes.

Generals’ views of how to fight wars and what weaponry they need are shaped, indeed determined, by the ways in which their careers, and those of lesser officers, are structured. Officers spend their careers assigned to units that man and deploy specific weapons systems. They advance by commanding expensive and technically complex weapons. Success in winning appropriations for those weapons systems ensures long careers for the ever-expanding corps of generals. Budget cuts or more drastically a decision to cancel a weapons system would stymie or end the careers of officers in that division of the military. Weapons systems also reward officers in their retirement. Defense firms often hire military officers after their retirement, and the promise of high corporate salaries to supplement their pensions gives officers a powerful incentive not to question the worth of expensive weapons systems, or to dispute contractors’ bills and pricing decisions.

These career and organizational imperatives mesh perfectly with defense firms’ interests in selling advanced weapons systems, which consistently yield the largest profits. Thus, advanced weapons continue to absorb the lion’s share of the Pentagon budget even though those weapons are fundamentally ill suited for the actual wars the U.S. fights in the twenty-first century.

The U.S.’s overwhelming military power is complemented by a system of alliances spanning much of the globe. However, relations with other countries increasingly are managed by the military rather than the State Department, a process that has drastically accelerated under Trump as he and his Secretaries of State have reduced and undermined civilian diplomats. The Defense Department since World War II has cultivated direct ties with their military counterparts elsewhere in the world, as has the Central Intelligence Agency. In addition, the military and CIA sustain independent relations with civilian officials of many foreign governments. The Pentagon has created “commands” for each region of the world, headed by senior generals or admirals, who negotiate directly with both military and civilian officials in the countries of those regions about policy matters that extend far beyond military cooperation. These commands endure across presidential administrations and thus provide more continuity in US strategic policies and in relations with foreign governments than do the civilian side of the U.S. government.

Ties between the U.S. and foreign militaries are further cemented through arms sales since purchasers remain dependent on the U.S. for training and intelligence. Arms sales abroad also bolster manufacturers’ profits, providing a powerful incentive for American capitalists to support their government’s ties to even the most brutal regimes in the world, as we see now with Saudi Arabia. In addition, a third of America’s measly foreign aid budget, which comes to less than 1% of the total Federal budget, is devoted to subsidizing weapons purchases by other countries.

Elite Conflicts and Autarky

The Pentagon’s common interests with capitalists and their increasingly independent links to other governments makes it difficult for civilian officials, including presidents, to challenge the military’s war plans. The Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars continued for years after it became clear the commanding generals were delusional about the prospects for victory, and as the death toll of both U.S. soldiers and civilians in the countries the U.S. had invaded mounted. The ongoing Afghan and Iraq wars have been limited, and most US troops withdrawn, only because insurgents in those countries have inflicted US casualties that the American public finds too high.

The military and civilian elites disagree with each other, and among themselves, on how to deal with the growing intensity of insurgent resistance to American domination and invasions. Following the historical example of the British empire, US military officers and civilian officials offer support to indigenous militaries, hoping they can take on the dirty work of suppressing insurgencies and enforcing acquiesce in countries dominated by the US. However, as we have seen in Iraq, local allies make increasing demands on the US. The Status of Forces agreement, signed by the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government right after Obama’s election as president in November 2008, was in substance a document of unconditional surrender by the U.S. to Iraqi nationalist demands. It set a hard date of December 31, 2011 for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops. More significantly, it stated that the bases the U.S. had built in Iraq at a cost of many billions of dollars, and which the Bush Administration planned to use to station planes and troops at the center of the Middle East and thereby intimidate neighboring countries, could not be used to attack any other country without permission of the Iraqi parliament, permission that in light of domestic Iraqi and regional political realities would never be granted.

Elsewhere in the world, once supine governments are able to play off the US against China and Russia. As the US becomes ever less willing to risk its soldiers’ lives or to spend the money needed to sustain extended occupations, and as anti-immigrant fervor stocked by Trump blocks the lure of eventual exile in America to foreign collaborators, it will become ever harder for the US to find foreign allies to fight for it.

We see in the disagreements between Trump and the military high command backed by career diplomats lines of conflict that will continue even after Trump and his particular and extreme sort of corruption and self-dealing have left Washington. At the same time, conflicts among capitalists and with the 99% that have been harmed by neoliberal trade agreements and financialization will further paralyze the American government’s ability to pursue a coherent economic and military policy.

U.S. choices in trade treaties and decisions to overthrow or isolate governments elsewhere in the world reflect the power of American capitalists as a class, and how a shifting set of the most privileged corporations exert that power over the U.S. government. However, financial firms’ interests are increasingly at odds with those of other American corporations that actually need to sell real goods and services if they want to make profits and if their employees hope to keep their jobs. While finance capital has set policy for the last thirty years, opposition led both Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016 to denounce the Trans Pacific Partnership. Intra- capitalist conflicts, combined with mass opposition, mean that it is unlikely that the main method the US has used to dominate other countries— new trade deals—will be enacted in the future.

Some elites, through campaign contributions, lobbying, and corrupt ties to elected officials, still are able to win special protections for their foreign investments. Similarly, even if the US has to abandon intervention in the most resistant and contested parts of the globe, Pentagon generals and admirals still can establish alliances and station troops and weapons in much of the world, locking the US into commitments that could (as they have in the past) lead to war. Elite privilege and command over the resources and lives of the rest of us continues even as its scope narrows when elites challenge one another and where other nations and their elites are able to pursue their own interests against the US.

A Way Forward

What can we in the US do? Do we need to wait passively as the US weakens in relation to other countries and as elites battle one another over a shrinking pie? We need to look at past successes and be strategic in identifying the points at which opposition can be most successful. Support for trade agreements has already disappeared as more and more Americans find their incomes declining, and as their jobs disappear or become ever more precarious. Americans’ ability to see trade agreements and expanding freedoms for banks and financial firms as destructive to their interests can become a template for talking about domestic economic policies.

While the Afghan and Iraq wars have been going on for eighteen and sixteen years respectively, opposition in those countries and within the US made them less bloody than the Vietnam War. A majority in the US turned against the Vietnam War only after 20,000 Americans died. In Iraq the turning point came after 2000 deaths. Unfortunately, in none of those wars have civilian casualties in the countries the US invaded been decisive in building American antiwar sentiment.

While drawing attention to American deaths is chauvinistic and morally compromised, it remains the best way to undermine support for continuing and new wars, and ultimately will save the lives of non-Americans the US would otherwise bomb or invade. Military and economic defeats, and the ever more brazen self-dealing by increasingly small elites, is undermining support for endless and new wars, and for the economic war capitalists are waging against workers in the US and the rest of the world. We need to combine repeated efforts to show the 99% how these elite projects cost them, and also to be alert to divisions among elites so that we can target the most brazen and vulnerable elites for denunciations, boycotts, demonstrations, and strikes.

Posted in USA, Europe, C.I.A, NATOComments Off on Can the US Get Out of Its Endless Wars?

Feltman’s paper confirms US sponsorship of the movement with its three ribs (by George Obaid)

Jeffrey Feltman’

By George Obaid

Whoever reads Jeffrey Feltman’s speech to the US Congress, has just realized the meaning behind the lines. This is a man who has lived closely with Lebanon and the Lebanese, and has made friends with a number of politicians such as Walid Jumblatt, Saad Hariri, Fares Said, Ghattas Khoury, Fouad Siniora and others. In Lebanon, not only did Syria leave the country and implemented Resolution 1559, which dipped and baptized Rafik Hariri, it was, along with Condoleezza Rice and John Bolton, intent on striking Lebanon’s stability and attracting it to the concept of creative chaos, embodied in the sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis in order to strike Hezbollah. Then, no Amos strongly Israel to launch its war on Lebanon in the Fourth of July of 2006.

In form and content, Feltman’s invitation to the US Congress to testify in order to describe the situation in Lebanon and shed light on the movement of demonstrations in terms of influence and influence, is not limited to his knowledge of the Lebanese interior and his experience of the situation and details, but because the man lived the most accurate stages and radical and historical transformations In Lebanon, he had a long history of evaluating and addressing them and then gathering new elements trying to link the events of Lebanon to the events of Iraq, which exploded as the United States entered its yard in 2003.Feltman, Bolton, and Rice gathered at this point in the ideas and visions that became valid columns to build a Lebanese building that did not lead the Syrians to get rid of the earthquakes surrounding it, as evidence that it was damaged in 2006 during the war in Israel, and in 2007 Lebanon turned to direct targeting of the Takfiris The caricature of Islam and Muslims, and then the events of May of 2008 to confirm the permanence of the damage gaps also consumed by others, until the entry of the Arab world Atton fall and winter stormy in 2011 was one of its violent theaters, all with American support and encouragement.

Aziz Jeff lived at a delicate stage in the history of Lebanon and the Levant as a rapporteur and collector of political forces in new regimes later called the March 14 Forces. Lebanon does not concern him in essence and privacy, Jeff completes his bad predecessors who dealt with the Lebanese issue, and used him as a tool or paper or arena for deals, and thus to secure the vital American interests as announced during his testimony before the US Congress. Calling him at this very moment is not innocent of the administration’s role in fostering the movement in its advanced stages. Feltman, as he has emerged, is a strategic theorist and a positivist reader of American interests in their roles, dimensions, and meanings. The data shows that David Schenker, who was ambassador to the United States in Turkey and who is currently in the Lebanese file, is in contact with “Aziz Jeff”, which in turn flows to Mike Dandria, the killer of Imad Mughniyeh, a senior leader in Hezbollah, and incited to demonstrate In both Iraq and Iran. This means that the deep American administration, based on these extremist symbols, and wanted to take the Lebanese-Iraqi-Iranian triangle to a real creative chaos, which Feltman in his Lebanese speech as follows:

1- Sponsoring the street protests, according to his literature, contributes to the promotion of American interests in Lebanon through the continuous, escalating and continuous pressure mechanisms to encircle the Covenant, and the price of this head of resistance personally, that is, the Secretary General of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah.

2-Playing on the tension of the Lebanese economy and the exchange rate of the dollar is certain that the Lebanese will resort to the American administration for help, and then the US administration can set its clear conditions to secure it, without losing Lebanon, and thus, because of its loss, Lebanon will turn to China. Russia and Iran, especially that the Chinese origin 5g, which is the best in the world of communications will tempt the Lebanese to go towards it.

3 – Work to find a formula of separation and dissolution between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah, and has focused on this more than once. Feltman did not mention that coordination between the Lebanese army, the resistance, and the Syrian army led to the liberation of the northern Bekaa from the Takfiri forces, Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS, because his administration rejected such coordination, but rejected Operation Dawn of the Gruff of its origin, which he inevitably remembers. Fajr shone with such great coordination between the army and the resistance, and “Jeff Jeff” is trying to convince Congress to tickle the army, which recalled the strike of Fatah al-Islam in the Nahr al-Bared camp with a clear force and forgotten the battle of Dawn of the outskirts of the fact that the Takfiri forces and their organizations, one of the cards, as the Syrian displaced Of the pressure cards they use from Lebanon to Syria.

4 – Standing against the Russian ambition in his concept to include Lebanon in their care and activities as claimed. “Lebanon is an arena for global strategic competition, and others will fill the vacuum happily if we give up the land,” Lebanon for Feltman, ie the Americans American land. “Lebanon’s three ports and offshore hydrocarbon stocks, if exploited by Russia, will increase the sense that Russia is the winner in the eastern and southern Mediterranean at our expense,” he says.

5 – to stand against the containment of Syria and Lebanon with a Russian cover. President Bashar al-Assad, known for years as a strong dictator, and always allegedly relying on Russia, Iran and Hezbollah to redeploy his control over most of Syria, will no doubt like to assert himself as a powerful regional mediator, reversing his humiliation in 2005 when he was suddenly forced After the Lebanese protests and international pressure under the leadership of George. And. Bush to end Syria’s repressive military occupation in Lebanon. Feltman or Aziz Jeff believes that Russia will be pleased with the renewed Syrian hegemony over Lebanon.

All this suggests that Feltman’s reading was too scandalous for the movement in its advanced stages. The man, although he said that his reading represents him and not his research center, shows the American interest with its partial and total addresses accumulated in the Levant range, and used for Lebanon as the content of spillage and extension. This reading conceals that the Americans are agitating the earth with this movement in kind through the three known ribs, namely the Lebanese Forces, the Progressive Socialist Party, the Amal Movement, and a number of figures who express that vision. Mobility is no longer required in its content, so that its people scattered free of horizons, visions and strategists, there are no visions without prospects and thought. In this sense, if the movement in its content is purely Lebanese, why did not one of the organizers go out to face Feltman and disown him and his goals that he showed before the US Congress? Why did not one of them rise to face David Schenker and ask him not to interfere in the content of the Lebanese movement and in Lebanese politics, because the movement is an internal matter?

And yet, this year’s Independence Day has gone through a very bleak, but not hopeless. The speech of President Michel Aoun, whose emotional dimensions and strategic content, remains an integral part of the speech he delivered at the end of the first part of his term. We will have lighting on their wonderful content. The president’s speech is the actual document against the three American hawks: Jeffrey Feltman, David Schenker, and Mike Daredo.

Whatever the case, the word mountain high shattered on the rocks empty hollows. The next independence is the sweetest, highest and most beautiful moment the corrupt and criminals leave before us and our rice shines with faces from dawn and light.

From whatsapp revolution to dabkeh and dance to the bandits and livelihoods, everything that happened during the 36 days of protests does not amount to a revolution and even mobility. The audience of the outgoing President, Saad Hariri, finally joined her in an attempt to press the street to return from the position of force.

At the same time, we must mention the real movement that has not lost the compass, which is carried out by the national left parties, although the paid media is unfair to the right of this movement, which aimed at its movements towards the real places of corruption, namely, the Bank of Lebanon and the maritime property without cutting roads and disturbing the citizens.

It is true that the direct reason to take to the street was the cursory decision of the Minister of Alwatsab and it is true that most of those who landed in the early days due to the difficult and deteriorating economic conditions, was almost an uprising against hunger and corruption, but two days later began riding the movement of the donation and bear from external and internal forces The majority of the street withdrew to keep the bandits run by well-known authorities, without forgetting some patriots, who were overwhelmed by the media in covering their sincere movement.

This is a quick overview of what happened during this difficult period, and some superficial reasons, but if we are to dive into the hidden and hidden causes what is happening in Lebanon is not separate from what is happening in Iraq, Iran, Bolivia, Venezuela and even Syria. US arrogance and the most important reason is the huge reserves of oil resources expected to be discovered in these countries.

Returning to Lebanon, the natural gas reserves expected to be discovered in Lebanon and Syria will reach 9% of global reserves. This figure explains the US ambitions in Lebanon and Syria.

The first step was the signing of the oil discovery decrees in 2013, the resignation of the government of Najib Mikati at the time was due to the apparent dispute over the extension of General Ashraf Rifi, but the deepening of what happened then and before, especially as the resignation coincided with the visit of Barack Obama to Jerusalem and the West Bank and the corresponding data, We can say that the Ministry of Energy is one of the main reasons Mikati wanted the government to overstate, but to reshape it under his presidency, and to talk about British requests and an unprecedented American interest in the promising wealth, and both, do not want what they call the government of Hezbollah and do not want Gibran Bassil To the head of this promising ministry, anyone who wants to invest in Lebanon’s onshore oil and offshore gas, wants this ministry to be very far from the March 8 team, but a minister close to President Mikati is talking about creating investment conditions for the next government, and that the country needs circumstances Helping to promote the economy ..

The second step was the commissioning of oil exploration and extraction. Here, Lebanon faced almost two years of pressure of another kind represented in the detention of the famous Saad Hariri in Saudi Arabia. What turns to another question: Was all Hariri asked for was Saudi money, and was Bin Salman unable to collect it? So why was he sent to Bin Zayed? What did the latter ask him? And what did he pledge? Since states do not function as charities, and since it is known that President Macron is the representative of the financial lobby and companies, what made Macron mediate for Hariri and what pledges did he take from him? Are they linked to the support he is now receiving? Is Macron and Bin Zayed between the distribution of US-French assignments? The answer to these questions is Lebanon’s oil

The third step is to start oil exploration, which was supposed to start on December 15… Is it coincidence also the movement synchronized and continued with this historic step, which was postponed to the beginning of the new year because of the current situation

Here we must pay tribute to the work done by the Minister of Energy Nada Al-Bustanani and her persistence and hard work to overcome attempts to obstruct the implementation began in Block No. 4 and then No. 9 on the southern border

Therefore, everything that happened from Mikati’s resignation in 2013 to the current revolution is his main objective is to obstruct the exploration and extraction of Lebanese oil, especially since the Russian company Novatek is one of the companies that required oil exploration and this is what the United States did not want. After Syria stepped on the feet of the Russian bear shores of the Mediterranean from the gate of Lebanon, and this is what Feltman said yesterday that America’s failure to support Lebanon will make China and Russia enter Lebanon from its wide gate !!

Posted in Middle East, USA, C.I.A, LebanonComments Off on Feltman’s paper confirms US sponsorship of the movement with its three ribs (by George Obaid)

Assange, Zuckerberg and Free Speech


Photograph Source: Anthony Quintano – CC BY 2.0

“That philosophy died yesterday, since Hegel or Marx, Nietzsche, or Heidegger—and philosophy should still wander toward the meaning of its death—or that it has always lived knowing itself to be dying… that philosophy died one day, within history, or that it has always fed on its own agony, on the violent way it opens history by opposing itself to nonphilosophy, which is its past and its concern, its death and wellspring; that beyond the death, or dying nature, of philosophy, perhaps even because of it, thought still has a future, or even, as is said today, is still entirely to come because of what philosophy has held in store; or, more strangely still, that the future itself has a future—all these are unanswerable questions. By right of birth, and for one time at least, these are problems put to philosophy as problems philosophy cannot resolve.”

—Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference 

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love. In a modern economy it is impossible to seal oneself off from injustice.

If we have brains or courage, then we are blessed and called on not to frit these qualities away, standing agape at the ideas of others, winning pissing contests, improving the efficiencies of the neo-corporate state, or immersing ourselves in obscuranta, but rather to prove the vigor of our talents against the strongest opponents of love we can find.

If we can only live once, then let it be a daring adventure that draws on all our powers. Let it be with similar types whose hearts and heads we may be proud of. Let our grandchildren delight to find the start of our stories in their ears but the endings all around in their wandering eyes.

The whole universe or the structure that perceives it is a worthy opponent, but try as I may I can not escape the sound of suffering.

Perhaps as an old man I will take great comfort in pottering around in a lab and gently talking to students in the summer evening and will accept suffering with insouciance. But not now; men in their prime, if they have convictions are tasked to act on them.”

—Julian Assange

Congresswoman, I — I’m not sure I’m in a position right now to evaluate any given post against all of the different standards that we have.

—Mark Zuckerberg, speaking to Rashida Talib

This time, more than any other, is a time for free speech absolutism. It is a time where the influence of one’s speech can be bought. Corporations are considered people. Truth is not defined by people, it is defined by corporate interests—namely profit. Sectarianism has at least culturally collapsed, creating the potential, although not a guarantee, of a united global revolution against the prevailing ideology of capital. Now is not the time for censorship. Now is the time to leave the truth behind all together and accept something greater. We must transcend truth and begin to live in material reality that is not conscious of anything except for the mission at hand and the urgency of life itself as the material clock of both ourselves and civilization as we know it nears midnight.

Along the same timeline, we became aware of the torture of Julian Assange, who along with Chelsea Manning, revealed the truth about the United States war against the Middle East. Daring to speak freely meant torture. A simple formula. It was with irony that Mark Zuckerberg, the head of the media platform Facebook, defended free speech without noting Assange. It was not ironic though that the doctrine of liberal aligned corporate authoritarianism came down against both Assange and Zuckerberg. One a hero, one a phony, but both appearing quite plainly to defend free speech, even, if not especially, the so-called dangerous variety.

Julian Assange exposed the ugliness and cruelness of American Empire and hence has become a monster fo American society. He must be extinguished. We are numb to his torture. We do not hear his truth. For Assange to speak truth, we would be false. For Assange to be false, we would be speaking truth. The easier path has been taken, but Assange still brought progress. He muddied the arch of Empire. Such is the political prisoner that Mark Zuckerberg should have defended in the defense of his social media platform, Facebook.

Facebook wants to cut costs by not hiring anyone to review the advertisements on its page. Zuckerberg will never admit his thirst for money so he must defend himself philosophically. He makes the claim that unless speech is threatening or dangerous, there is no way to be able to decide if it is true. Or at least for his company to do so, I guess. Because they are unbiased, or something. They only believe in money. Along the way Zuckerberg gives us a history lesson of those who spoke truth and brought society forward. He points to these people having their speech suppressed. He rightly said these people were considered to be false in their day.

Mark Zuckerberg, while citing free speech warriors throughout history, claimed to be persecuted. Pan to the tortured Mr. Assange for some insight on your condition Mr. Zuckerberg, and you may feel better about your life as a billionaire without the accountability of any kind. Mr. Zuckerberg was asked if he would take down fake advertisements. He stammered and couldn’t admit his own boldness, which collapsed in the face of any questioning. Mr. Zuckerberg, while like all billionaires, is not a genius, stumbled upon something genius. There is no difference between what is true and what is false! That assertion is absolutely correct if that’s possible.

Facebook is not a neutral platform. It is one of the world’s largest corporations and it is not on our side. But Mark Zuckerberg’s arguments for free speech, while both opportunistic and disingenuous, are absolutely correct. If Zuckerberg had anything worthwhile to say, he would have defended Julian Assange as he did with Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass. No hero is a hero of their time—but history, if it exists after climate change, will reward Mr. Assange and Ms. Manning for their efforts. In this life, even in, no especially in, the capital of the free world, free speech is a crime worthy of torture.

What Mr. Zuckerberg fails to bring up in his seemingly apolitical defense of human rights is that advertisements, both true and false, are not free speech. Just as paying for a sexual act is not consent, paying someone to say something is not the truth. Of course, finding neutral ground on such a subject is an impossibility, even if we were to somehow completely separate speech from capital. There will always be a benefit to staying silent. Rather than being paid for lies, one can simply not get punished for abstaining from the truths most crucial to not just our democracy, but the potential utility of life on earth.

This is the passive vacuum that Zuckerberg wants us to enter in to. I have no problem with Zuckerberg claiming no difference between what is true and what is false. In fact, if billionaires were geniuses, such a statement would prove it. In the previous paragraph, I noted the corruption inherent in paid speech of any kind. But let’s take money out of it, for a moment. After all, most of the content one gets on a Facebook or other social media account comes from unpaid actors who pay nothing for the site. Unlike even the most rigorous spaces of free speech application (academia), social media can and has acted as a sort of communes.

Problematizing the communes is important: the convenience of mass surveillance for the ruling class, the alienating nature of screen to screen relations, the algorithm that confirms bias, the addictive design, the culture of image that leads to depression and anxiety, the pollution of creating technology, the slave labor used to make each device, and the interruption by advertisements make this unlike your grandma’s communes. But, yes, it is a form of the social, as by design. Just as it is a form for profit, but also, with varying effects on various people and outright dismissal of not only the platform but the users is a mistake.

Even if Zuckerberg’s lofty claims about the platform were correct, could we prove his detractor’s claims that there are such things as truth and falsehood? President Trump makes this question testy. But people have swung the wrong way during Trump’s Presidency. When Trump zigs, one should always zag. Instead, pundits tend to mirror the attitude of the President but contradict him on policies.

Trump calls his detractors fake news. Trump’s detractors claim that Trump has no regard for what is true and false because he always lies (fair enough). But what backward logic they use to defy him. Trump clearly believes in the false conception of truth. He is always claiming that one thing is true, while the other is false. The media, in response, also embraces truth, often claiming the exact opposite of Mr. Trump, and by all empirical evidence, are far closer to the truth. But by engaging in even such a concept, both sides open up the door for doubt of the other because truth can be defined in the first place. For Mr. Trump, this is a positive dynamic. His job is to create doubt. This works against the liberals. Their job is, in the age of Trump, to create certainty.

What would happen if we simply acknowledged that there was no truth, as Mr. Zuckerberg did.  Mr. Zuckerberg did this not in a philosophical way, but in a capitalist profit-seeking—he wanted no company to be restricted from giving him money, no matter their values. That doesn’t mean we should dismiss the premise. Let’s say that whenever Mr. Trump called “fake news” the media simply said there was no such thing as truth, because every action in the world, and as a result every assumed truth, is not independent of the rest of the material world or its history and therefore is structurally interdependent on power relations (with or without money) that dictate whether or not we believe it as truth.

Furthermore, no actor, not Mr. Trump, nor anyone he calls “fake news” can know anything. All actors are biased and corrupted. Trump succeeds because he tears everyone else down and then claims he is the lone savior. The natural response would be not to attack Mr. Trump’s credibility (thereby reaffirming this dynamic of Trump as underdog vs. powerful establishment). Rather, one should bring Mr. Trump’s reasonable doubt so far that everyone begins questioning everything, including, perhaps, especially, those who claim to know truth. By accurately admitting that they have no knowledge of truth (at least no more than the average working-class viewer), the media would be establishing themselves as one with the people, rather than a source that knows—implicating a lack in the people. Such an arrogant strategy leaves the expectations high, too high even for a democratic outlet, let alone a corporate one. Exposing such an outlet in child’s play for Mr. Trump.

It is high time that we admit, once and for all, that our very perception of reality, if we just go by what is sensory, is false. Take the example of color perception. Color, like everything else simply relies on relativity, not absolute truth. Scientists have found that we see colors differently. Yet almost all of us call the same color red, or the same color blue. But who is to say when we see red, it is what the other person is seeing? Rather we only agree the color is red because of its relation to other colors. As long as the blue and red compare and contrast in the same way, why should it matter what each one does individually when we identify colors? After all, our language for identifying said colors are limited to these descriptive relative terms precisely because we remain, for better or worse, perceivers of only our reality.

That above problem is not the one focused on by scientists though when it comes to colors. They find that the problem goes beyond even relativity. We also see color perceptions vary on memory and emotion. How does trauma change the way we see certain colors? That is before one even gets to the physical differences in photoreceptors which would change perception. There also remains the question of biological translation. Does a short wavelength translate to blue? Not always, and not for everyone. It is entirely possible that most every color we see is false because of this translation of wavelength dealing with physical dimensions of light, rather than color itself. The physical shape of things we have to believe is more accurate because we would be running into walls if it wasn’t. To a certain extend, politics are like a wall—it is necessary to observe it accurately. But politics also occur far away and its devastating effects (such as Trump’s stripping of public health and safety measures) can often be hard to see. This is just to say that similar biological differences in perception of all things occur, even politics.

Language alone is not a perfect translation. Reading a classic Russian novel must be better in Russian, if that’s possible! How could anyone claim that a translation from one language to another maintains truth? How could even a story from the same language contain truth? Immediately all information becomes a memory. At the time of conception, truth is assumed. But soon enough it becomes obscured, and then, when recalled, misremembered.

Storytelling used to be the way information was passed down. It was a quilt weaved with many different threads. This age of certainty and of absolute truth is naturally the age of fascism. When a story is told nowadays it is not through recall or interpretation but through passive acceptance of said truth. The shift from books to the screen is what leads this. I remember my father telling me that reading a book leaves one room for sensory interpretation. The screen, on the contrary, tells us what to think. Directors play with this, the good ones do. But on a mass level, one gets the point here.

This quest for perfection has invaded our personal lives too. I am thinking especially of the precious young people who are continually beaten down. The screen life and the obsession with physical appearance lead many even progressive folks to become fascists about their own image. Endlessly modified to the point of outright dishonesty, the screen image demands perfection, not authenticity or vulnerability.

The age of the selfie is not one of narcissism. That’s a boomer take. Young people are progressive, open-minded and compassionate. What lacks is the self-confidence. The goal of boomers was to create hardness and glory. In response General X had another more sympathetic goal which was broadly speaking, to create a generation of dependent people who did not question the absurd contradictions of the American Empire of Excess. The preposterous militarism, consumerism and fascism of the aesthetic have not been questioned.

We have to draw the links between Trump’s conception of the nation-state and screen culture. Trump rose to power via the screen. First via television, then via twitter. These mass platforms encourage passivism. Trump at worst was a joke on the screen, not to be taken seriously. At best he was a God, not to be held accountable and always to be believed.

Trump has reasserted the image as the prevailing ideology in American culture. He is a serial sexual abuser, with dozens of women coming forward. He claims some women are too ugly to rape. He throws people, even children, in concentration camps because of the color of their skin. He openly mocks the disabled. He relies upon a facade of buildings he does not own, money he does not have, and insight he does not possess.

Trump, like the screen, despises any blemish. Every imperfect person—whether they be dark, poor, weak, what have you, must be brushed over with makeup. He is the filter that alters the mole or blemish. He concludes that America is itself like a body. It must have protection (inane military spending), it must have the agency to act in its own interests without a consideration for the collective world, and it must be represented by only the richest and cleanest. If these people don’t approve, then America is, as Trump, would say, a shithole country.

Trump sees America as himself. Rich, ruthless, tough. He despises the homeless on our streets because it exposes his own contradiction and the contradiction of his country. Trump relies upon racist nostalgia for his mass appeal—which allows others to bask in his glory. What America is to Trump, Trump is to the “forgotten American” (old, white and crabby). Just as Trump sees himself in America, Americans see themselves in Trump. Trump is the ultimate ‘Ok Boomer’.

We must begin to make the links between Trump’s corporate fascism and the everyday erasure of imperfection and authenticity by corporate screen culture. Now is a time where opportunism is commended and perception is skewed. Corporate nihilism degrades human’s capacity for vulnerability and intimate connection. Criticism of the mass surveillance state is necessary but we must also recognize there is a more totalizing goal going on here. The goal to infect all private relationships between people and turn them into relationships that function for profit. This includes self-hatred that must be filled with materialism. On the other side of production, it includes self-lacking that must be filled with meaningless work. It also demands hatred of others—especially at their most vulnerable moments. Association with anyone becomes either a gain or a loss and real human love is thrown out the window. So too is agency. We no longer dictate the terms of happiness. Corporations set goals and standards and we are supposed to follow.

On an aside, thinking about social media makes me want to say something: we must stand with our so-called ugly sisters and brothers the same way we do with other marginalized groups. Just as corporatism sets norms for race and gender, it also sets beauty standards. Too often compassionate liberalism hides behind the cloak of cultural opportunism where people of color, women and LGBT folks are seen as “cool” as a form of fetish largely based in sexuality. This fetish is especially problematic in white distribution of black culture. Failing to arouse the sexual imagination of the “free” liberal subject, so-called ugly people are left to believe that they are treated equally even when they know they aren’t. People engage in dishonesty when they say everyone is beautiful but do not acknowledge that some people are seen as ugly. In the age of political correctness, ugly people never get an ally because everyone is too afraid to admit that they consider some people more beautiful than others. Naturally, such a suppression leaves no outlet for ugly people to organize against said supremacy. This is intentional.

Now all of this is not to say some don’t do truth better than others. I certainly have my biases, I tend to believe Assange and Manning, not so much Trump and Zuckerberg. But who is to decide, what is true, and what is false? Assange’s torture tells us very well who decides. The rich and powerful, at the expense of the people, for the purpose of profit. Therefore any defense of free speech is welcome, just as any act of free speech should be questioned. Such is the courage of speech. Everything we say could be a lie, what courage it takes to try anyways.

The only hint we can get about truth is in a purely scientific way. What are the material benefits to saying X? What are the material downsides of saying Y? The greater the material reward for a statement, the less likely it is true. The greater the cost of a statement, the more likely it is true. For example, in Shakespeare, orgasm is death. This likely proves that either orgasm is life’s greatest pleasure, or that Shakespeare, whether because he is tricky or erudite, is life’s greatest writer, and likely, such an analogy proves both. As Mr. Assange is tortured for his exposure of war crimes, one can calculate that he has a high likelihood of truth. But what to make then of Mr. Trump’s fabrications about immigrants and the media? His power, still remarkably high despite a truly tragic Presidency for 99% of the world, gives us a hint that he, more than anyone, is fake news.

The larger problem for us seems to be the algorithm. Not just of Facebook, but of everything. The design of speech and thought these days is for profit. That means that when one says truth, they are only selling it. Now this is not just for salesmen. It is also for the consumer, which if anything, is more totalizing because it captures you off the clock., so to speak. Let’s pick on Facebook though, for this example.

Facebook aims to make one’s experience the most enjoyable and comfortable so it creepily filters advertisements and people to fit one’s desired interests and biases. This creates an environment where no one is ever challenged on anything they believe. Worse still, no one has any opportunity to confront the material production of truth, let alone their own perception of it. Rather, by constantly being reaffirmed of their own most base beliefs, everyone comes to think that they must be correct. But that isn’t so much the problem in and of itself. If everyone was correct, we would surely rather them believe it! No, the problem is that no one can even come close to the truth unless their own highly biased truth dies many times in the face of the world’s democracy of thought and experience.

Like anything else, truth can only be gained through learning and disruption, not through confirmation and progression. Neoliberalism wants us to convince us that history has progressed through innovation by the individual where said individual becomes themselves. But this is only progress of capital, where workers are seen to become themselves through the separation of their soul from their goals. If the individual shuts up and makes some money, they are seen as a success, and because they have money, they can now speak truth, even though they only came to make money through failing to question what was right in front of them. Oh dear! Bad formula.

Hegelian progress is made through conflict. It is only through conflict that any truth will come about. What Hegel saw broadly and Marx revised specifically was that as conflict is intensified, contradictions are exposed and progress is made. Corporate neoliberalism is bringing us backward, but doing so in a tricky way.

It can actually be best explained through the revisionist misreading of Hegel. Todd McGowan explains that the popular reading of thesis-antithesis-synthesis of Hegel is not only the wrong way to read Hegel, but the worst way. What this misreading assumes is that one side presents an argument, then the other side presents an argument, and then we make progress because we choose the middle ground. Hegel and Marx saw the opposite. They believed as contradictions intensified revolution occurred and then progress was made.

Let’s return to relativity for a moment. We first must problematize any conflict, especially these staged ruling class conflicts coming to head in the age of Mr. Trump. Who decides what the thesis and antithesis is? For the triangulating Bill Clinton, the thesis was corporate liberalism and the antithesis was corporate conservatism. Therefore the synthesis was corporate centralism. But where was this progress? Furthermore, if a synthesis can be made then the conflict was likely manufactured, or at least superficial.

Take another example, one that can’t be triangulated. Class warfare. The interests of the working class and the interests of the ruling class are in conflict. Compromises to this conflict can be made through synthesis, and no one is arguing that this would be of some benefit to both sides in some way. But because the conflict between the classes is material rather than manufactured ideology, neither side is interested in such a compromise. The ruling class will continue to steal, and the working class will continue to be alienated from the political. It is only through intensification of knowledge of this conflict that revolution occurs.

Now this is different from accelerating towards the bottom in a materialist sense. In this way Mr. Trump is a false prophet. Trump, like all neoliberals, does not want to accelerate class conflict, he only wants to accelerate class inequality. This, in theory, creates conditions for the conflict to be exposed but that is only because the conflict is actually deepening, which only guarantees suffering and may even set back the possibility for revolution as sectarianism, namely bigotry, is given new life as a subplot.

It is then that the abuser comes in for the compromise, once the most vulnerable have been compromised. This is merely another form of abuse, not a form of mercy. The Democratic Party only exists to stop the revolution of the working class from happening.

The goal of the global neoliberal project is against the tradition of Hegel and Marx. Rather than further conflict they simply want to consolidate wealth and ideology in one big tent. Through dulling all authentic feelings through compromise and democracy they erase the necessary language of authenticity and rebellion. To defeat neoliberalism we must not only consider all opinions, we must also evaluate all structures.

Consider the neoliberal project in relation to time. The goal of the neoliberal project is create a subject that can never reflect (through Marx or other materialist grounding) and can never dream (through King or other idealist envisioning). This is done through erasing both the past and the future through an omnipresent preoccupation with the present. Consider again the explicit misreading of Hegel. Our thesis is our future—it’s what we want to be and it’s how we imagine life going. Julia Louis-Dryfus defined happiness as having something to look forward to. Without this, we have no reason to go on. The past is the antithesis. It is what plagues our future. We battle it. To change our future we must understand our past and confront it without fear.

But this is not possible because neoliberalism slams the present in your face with an obsessive nature of temporary gains (through profit) and pleasure-seeking defined as happiness for the individual. It is in this way neoliberalism demands we form a synthesis of the present that erases both past and future. The thing about synthesis is that it must erase both the thesis and the antithesis for it to construct a structure that does not fall apart. Rather than seeking a happy medium, it degrades both sides to achieve its dishonest goal.

Now we must also consider neoliberalism more broadly. What it aims to do is destroy all authenticity because it is inconvenient for the agreeable business of usual. Any sectarianism of any kind is seen as a threat to the unity of the corporate top-down power structure. Yes, this creates the possibility of a unified underclass. But it is only when we stop making compromises with said structure which only pretends to compromise as a front for its real goal of strengthening contradiction for the purpose of more power. Compromise would be a wiser goal, and indeed that’s why they say it. They know contradiction will be fatal for the much weaker side (the ruling class) who are not only tiny in number, but far less capable of unity and community. But despite neoliberalism’s doctrine of free choices, we must admit the ruling class, like the working class, has no choice but to pursue its own interests. They simply can’t help themselves.

Choice is as false as truth is. Sectarianism, rather than fulfillment of authenticity, is now seen as bigotry (it often is, more on that another day). Yet as long as the ruling class runs the show we merely have a displacement of blame. Rather than honest hatred of a group, the ruling class blames the group they hate. Honest hatred reveals self-loathing and at the very least, takes away any form of superiority. Those who choose to hate have to no surprise never been honest about it. Although neoliberalism’s free choice doesn’t change much. The homeless are now hated because of their  “addictive” or “unstable” or “lazy” tendencies rather than openly hated as a stain on the morality of the rich. Women, under neoliberal relation, are said to enjoy violence, and that any woman who experiences violence gains pleasure from it. People of color, under neoliberal relation, are not slaves locked in cages, but criminals who “made their choices”.

But why blame the ruling class? There’s no point in that either. Blame implies at the very least an alternative reality where something could have gone differently. Forget about it. The ruling class would have done this no matter what and they will keep doing this no matter what. Their thesis (past) is criminal, their antithesis (future) is more criminal, and their synthesis, based on this furthering of contradiction, is demise. The working class then as a thesis of dignity (past), and antithesis of further dignity (future) and, as a result will have a synthesis of self-actualization which will only come through realization of material theft, the fulfillment of reparations and snacking upon the metaphorical bones of the rich.

There is a reason the free speech argument remains apolitical. When free speech is defended and upheld, it is for the right-wing. When free speech is censored, it is for the left-wing. This is because the left, not by ideology, but by material function, challenges power, and therefore has speech that is problematic, even criminal. Meanwhile, the right upholds power, so its speech is seen as free, and even positive. But speech is anything but free. It is, like everything else, bought and sold.

The question of free speech seems less important still than the question of free people. It is in this regard that just as property shouldn’t be more important than people, speech should not be more important than people. Therefore dangerous speech, unless said by a robot, must be defended! But most free speech today is not of importance, it is merely robotic and analytical.  It is the speech that is not free, the language of necessity and human dignity that demands defense because it exposes the contradiction of compromise itself. If both sides are free and independent,  if both actors are conflicting in material interests, compromise will not be wanted. Therefore, collaboration itself is false because it can only join two similar sides. And conflict is true because it can only war two conflicting sides.

This of course is the grand narrative, there are exceptions within the structure. But the fate of the ruling class, in the material sense, is doom because it is fighting the most powerful group in the world: the poor people of the world. Foolish, but inevitable, is their downfall.

Posted in USA, C.I.A, UKComments Off on Assange, Zuckerberg and Free Speech

NSA Gave ‘Israel’ Access to All US Citizens’ Communications Data, Leaked Documents Show

US also cooperated with helping Israelis conduct targeted assassinations against Hezbollah, no surprise there(RT)

Frustrated by a legal ban on sharing intelligence with Israeli operatives conducting targeted assassinations against Hezbollah, the NSA crafted a loophole giving them total access even to US citizens’ data, leaked documents show.

The Israeli SIGINT National Unit (ISNU), the NSA’s counterpart in Tel Aviv, convinced the Americans to circumvent the legal prohibition on providing surveillance data for targeted assassinations during Israel’s 2006 war with Lebanon, according to the newest revelation from the archives obtained by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Using the familiar rationale of “terrorism” to excuse cooperation they knew was illegal, the NSA and ISNU found a workaround using the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that provided the Israelis with all the intel they needed, according to an October 2006 article in the NSA’s internal publication.

To ISNU, this prohibition [on sharing data for targeted killings] was contrary not only to supporting Israel in its fight against Hizballah but overall, to support the US Global War on Terrorism,” said an article in SIDToday. 

Its author, whose name is redacted, details the “late-night, sometimes tense discussions” he had with ISNU officials who believed they deserved an exemption from the US prohibition on abetting targeted killings.

The documents don’t include details of what “arrangement” was eventually worked out with the ODNI, but the Israeli military used American data to lay waste to Lebanon’s civilian population, much like the tech-enhanced US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose kill-counts swelled with civilian victims after they received access to NSA targeting data.

Israel repeatedly, and in some cases egregiously, violated the laws of war,” Human Rights Watch reporter Nadim Houry told the Intercept, adding that the Israelis “engaged in indiscriminate aerial attacks” and cluster bombing against “civilian infrastructure that was not tied in any way to the armed conflict.”

This ‘strategy‘ had a name – the “Dahiyeh doctrine” – and Israeli officials admitted it was deliberate, but despite this brutality, they were unable to win the war. A leaked presentation about the NSA-ISNU relationship notes that “public confidence in IDF erodes” and “IDF image damaged” after the seemingly-outmatched Hezbollah fighters were able to keep the Israelis at bay. Nevertheless, the IDF was, according to the presentation, “Gearing up for Round II.

Apparently unsatisfied with the legal loophole the Americans had created for them, the Israelis sought and received full access to the NSA’s massive surveillance data troves after the war. A 2009 memorandum of understanding officially gave ISNU unrestricted access to the NSA’s raw intelligence data – including the phone and internet records of American citizens and citizens of third-party countries. Only American officials’ data was excluded, on an honor-system basis (with ISNU instructed to “destroy upon recognition” any records originating with a government official). Almost no strings were attached to this bonanza – the Israelis could even release the identities of Americans whose information had been scooped up in the dragnet, as long as they asked the NSA for permission first, and could pass the data on to anyone at all if the names were redacted.

While a leaked presentation calls ISNU “NSA’s most valued third party partner,” it also suggests there was “high anxiety” among the Israelis “heavily reliant” on NSA data for support. One slide reads “What Did ISNU Want? Everything!!!” and complaints about the Israelis’ “robust” spying on Americans crop up frequently in the Snowden archives. The NSA did not seem to mind, because the Israelis were very, very grateful for all the information.

Throughout all of my discussions – no matter what the tone or subject – ISNU stressed their deep gratitude for the cooperation and support they received from the NSA,” the SIDToday article reads.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, C.I.AComments Off on NSA Gave ‘Israel’ Access to All US Citizens’ Communications Data, Leaked Documents Show

Another War for ‘Israel’ Featuring America’s Newest Allies: al Qaeda ‘Video’

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

The Essential Saker II

The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA

Order Now

The Essential Saker II

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Posted in Middle East, USA, Europe, C.I.A, SyriaComments Off on Another War for ‘Israel’ Featuring America’s Newest Allies: al Qaeda ‘Video’

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Image result for JIMMY CARTER CARTOON"


Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

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

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.

The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” Portions of the books can be read at: <>

Posted in USA, Afghanistan, C.I.A, India, Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

How Islamic Jihadism was Conceived as Antidote to Communism

By VT Editors 

By Nauman Sadiq

During the Soviet-Afghan conflict from 1979 to 1988 between the capitalist and communist blocs, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States took the side of the former because the Soviet Union and the Central Asian states produced more energy and consumed less. Thus, the Soviet bloc was the net exporter of energy, whereas the capitalist bloc led by Washington was the net importer of energy.

It suited the economic interests of the oil-rich Gulf countries to maintain and strengthen a supplier-consumer relationship with the capitalist bloc. Now the BRICS countries are equally hungry for the Middle East’s energy, but it’s a recent development. During the Cold War, an alliance with the industrialized world was predicated upon the economic interests of the Gulf states, which was given a religious color of purportedly “anticommunist” Islamist ideology by the Salafist preachers of Saudi Arabia.

All the celebrity terrorists, whose names are now heard in the mainstream media every day, were the spawns of the Soviet-Afghan War: including Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, the Haqqanis, the Taliban, the Hekmatyars etc. But that war wasn’t limited only to Afghanistan. The alliance between the Western powers and their regional client states during the Cold War funded, trained, armed and internationally legitimized the Islamic jihadists all over the Islamic World. We hear the names of jihadist groups operating in regions as far afield as the Central Asian States, the North Caucasus and even in Bosnia and Kosovo in the Balkans.

Regarding the objectives of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, then American envoy to Kabul, Adolph “Spike” Dubs, was assassinated on the Valentine’s Day, on 14 Feb 1979, the same day that Iranian revolutionaries stormed the American embassy in Tehran.

The former Soviet Union was wary that its forty-million Muslims were susceptible to radicalism, because Islamic radicalism was infiltrating across the border into the Central Asian States from Afghanistan. Therefore, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 in support of the Afghan communists to forestall the likelihood of Islamist insurgencies spreading to the Central Asian States bordering Afghanistan.

According to documents declassified by the White House, CIA and State Department in January, as reported [1] by Tim Weiner for The Washington Post, the CIA was aiding Afghan jihadists before the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. President Jimmy Carter signed the CIA directive to arm the Afghan jihadists in July 1979, whereas the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December the same year.

The revelation doesn’t come as a surprise, though, because more than two decades before the declassification of the State Department documents, in the 1998 interview [2] to The Counter Punch Magazine, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, confessed that the president signed the directive to provide secret aid to the Afghan jihadists in July 1979, whereas the Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan six months later in December 1979.

Here is a poignant excerpt from the interview. The interviewer puts the question: “And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic jihadists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?” Brzezinski replies: “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

Despite the crass insensitivity, one must give credit to Zbigniew Brzezinski that at least he had the courage to speak the unembellished truth. It’s worth noting, however, that the aforementioned interview was recorded in 1998. After the 9/11 terror attack, no Western policymaker can now dare to be as blunt and forthright as Brzezinski.

Regardless, that the CIA was arming the Afghan jihadists six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan has been proven by the State Department’s declassified documents; fact of the matter, however, is that the nexus between the CIA, Pakistan’s security agencies and the Gulf states to train and arm the Afghan jihadists against the former Soviet Union was forged years before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Pakistan joined the American-led, anticommunist SEATO and CENTO regional alliances in the 1950s and played the role of Washington’s client state since its inception in 1947 as a former colony of the British Empire. So much so that when a United States U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Soviet Air Defense Forces while performing photographic aerial reconnaissance deep into Soviet territory, Pakistan’s then President Ayub Khan openly acknowledged the reconnaissance aircraft flew from an American airbase in Peshawar, a city in northwest Pakistan.

Historically, Pakistan’s military first used the Islamists of Jamaat-e-Islami as proxies during the Bangladesh war of liberation in the late 1960s against the Bangladeshi nationalist Mukti Bahini liberation movement of Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman – the father of current prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, and the founder of Bangladesh, which was then a province of Pakistan and known as East Pakistan before the independence of Bangladesh in 1971.

Jamaat-e-Islami is a far-right Islamist movement in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh – analogous to the Muslim Brotherhood political party in Egypt and Turkey – several of whose leaders have recently been imprisoned and executed by the Bangladeshi nationalist government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed for committing massacres of Bangladeshi civilians on the orders of Pakistan’s military during the Bangladesh war of liberation.

Then during the 1970s, Pakistan’s then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto began aiding the Afghan Islamists against Sardar Daud’s government, who had toppled his first cousin King Zahir Shah in a palace coup in 1973 and had proclaimed himself the president of Afghanistan.

Sardar Daud was a Pashtun nationalist and laid claim to Pakistan’s northwestern Pashtun-majority province. Pakistan’s security establishment was wary of his irredentist claims and used Islamists to weaken his rule in Afghanistan. He was eventually assassinated in 1978 as a consequence of the Saur Revolution led by the Afghan communists.

Pakistan’s support to the Islamists with the Saudi petro-dollars and Washington’s blessings, however, kindled the fires of Islamist insurgencies in the entire region comprising Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Soviet Central Asian States, and even in the Indian-administered Kashmir.

Regarding the Kashmir dispute, there can be no two views that the right of self-determination of Kashmiris must be respected in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions on the right of plebiscite to the Kashmiri people, and the international community must lend its moral, political and diplomatic support to the Kashmiri people. But at the same time, the militarization of any dispute, including Kashmir, must be avoided due to human suffering that militancy and wars anywhere in the world inevitably entail.

The insurgency in Kashmir erupted in the fateful year 1984 of the Orwellian-fame when the Indian armed forces surreptitiously occupied the whole of Siachen glacier, including the un-demarcated Pakistani portion, on the Pakistan-India border in Kashmir.

Now, we must keep the backdrop in mind: those were the heydays of the Cold War and Pakistan army’s proxies, the Afghan jihadists, were triumphantly waging a guerrilla warfare during the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s, and the morale of Pakistan’s military’s top brass was touching the sky.

In addition, Pakistan’s security establishment wanted to inflict damage to the Indian armed forces to exact revenge for the dismemberment of Pakistan at the hands of India during the Bangladesh War of 1971, when India provided support to Bangladeshi nationalists and took 90,000 Pakistani soldiers as prisoners of war after Pakistan’s defeat in the Bangladesh war of liberation.

All the military’s top brass had to do was to divert a fraction of its Afghan jihadist proxies toward the Indian-administered Kashmir to kindle the fires of insurgency. Pakistan’s security agencies began sending jihadists experienced in the Afghan asymmetric warfare across the border to the Indian-administered Kashmir in the late 1980s; and by the early 1990s, the Islamist insurgency had engulfed the whole of Jammu and Kashmir region.


[1] CIA was aiding Afghan rebels before the Soviets invaded in 1979:

[2] Brzezinski Interview: How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen:

Posted in USA, Afghanistan, C.I.A, Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on How Islamic Jihadism was Conceived as Antidote to Communism


By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Russian media reports quoted Chinese media Sina saying that the missile was taken by Russia for “reverse engineering.” 

David's Sling

Nazi David’s Sling

An advanced Nazi surface-to-air missile that was fired from the David’s Sling missile system was given to Russia by Syria, when it was found intact after the rocket did not explode on contact, according to Russian media sources.

The rocket was reportedly by the Nazi regime fired on July 23, 2018, and Syrian forces that were dispatched to the scene found the missile intact after it sustained minor damage from impact. The missile was then taken to a Syrian-Russian base where it was transferred to Moscow for further research.

Nazi David’s Sling was developed by Nazi Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and American defense contractor Raytheon. The system is designed to intercept enemy planes, drones, medium- to long-range rockets and cruise missiles and the newest generation of tactical ballistic missiles at low altitude.

The system forms the middle layer of air defense systems between the Iron Dome and the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 missile defense systems.

Russian media reports quoted Chinese news agency Sina saying that the missile was taken by Russia for reverse engineering.


Shoah’s pages


January 2020
« Dec