Archive | July 30th, 2018

Damascus Is One Step Away From Liberating Entire Southern Syria


ISIS members retreated from the town of Shajarah and the villages of As`arah and Ma`rabah east of the Golan Heights under pressure from Syrian government forces. Thus, the terrorist group remained in control of only 3 villages in the area.

According to pro-government sources, there are less than 200 ISIS members hiding in Kuwayyah, Beit Arah and Qusayr. With the liberation of these villages, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) will be able to declare full control of the contact line with the Israeli-held area, and southern Syria in general.

The key problem of the advance in the Yarmouk valley is that an unknown number of ISIS fighters and ISIS-linked individuals are hiding among civilians in the recently liberated areas. Without additional security measures, these persons will be a source of constant threat of terrorist attacks.

The same problem is currently observed in eastern al-Suwayda where the SAA and security forces have failed to eliminate all ISIS cells thus facing repeated attacks. The most notable such incident took place on July 25 and resulted in the killing of at least 255 people and the injuring of about 180 others.

Civilians are leaving the militant-held part of Idlib province via a humanitarian corridor in the Abu al-Duhur settlement, Russia’s Center for the Reception, Allocation and Accommodation of Refugees said.

According to the head of the Center’s Aleppo Province Department Oleg Demyanenko, all the fleeing persons are checked via Syrian databases to see whether they have any problems with the law. They are also checked for weapons and explosives. Some people have reportedly tried to smuggle fire arms.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and other militant groups see the evacuation of civilians from the area under their control as a threat and a signal of the upcoming operation against them by the SAA.

The reason is that the evacuation of civilians is limiting the militants’ capabilities to use them as human shields.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have captured 3,400km2 from ISIS near the Syrian-Iraqi border in the framework of their operation against the terrorist group’s cells in eastern Deir Ezzor and southern al-Hasakah.

Currently, the SDF is in the fin al stage of its operation against ISIS in the border area, according to pro-Kurdish sources. According to the SDF’s statements, ISIS cells remain only in the area of Rawdhah and Barghuth swamps.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Damascus Is One Step Away From Liberating Entire Southern Syria

Pakistan’s Elections and the Rise of Political Consciousness by the Pakistani People


Pakistan’s own Russiagate

The fever-pitched aura around this year’s elections in Pakistan was for good reason: a palpable feeling of transition from the old to the new was in the air. Meanwhile, the Western mainstream (and alternative) media, as well as much of the native elite English media, advanced an atmosphere of hysteria and moral panic at what they called “Pakistan’s dirtiest elections” ever. 

We were told to believe that the Pakistani military, which undoubtedly has been involved in the political life throughout the country’s history, indeed directly ruling the country directly for half of its history, was the sole factor for which the corrupt and ruthless politicians of the two parties, who believe it is their birthright to play a game of musical chairs with each other, looting and plundering as much as possible before they are removed and get their next turn – were rejected in these elections. 

Pakistan-Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), or the “Movement for Justice,” the political party of the iconic cricketer-turned politician Imran Khan, has swept this year’s national elections. They are the single largest political party in the country’s National Assembly, the unquestioned victor as the party that will continue to govern the province of KPK in the Northwest of the country (PTI governed the province for the past five years), and has even made inroads in Pakistan’s major city of Karachi, where they have displaced the once all-powerful Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), which mafioso-style, with rampant intimidation, ransoms, and murders, ran the streets and political life of Kararchi since their inception in the 1980s. This of course was facilitated by a relatively popular demand that the Pakistani military come to the city and deploy rangers to ‘clean up’ the vigilantes of the MQM, and the bulging urban youth of Pakistan’s financial heartland voted en masse for PTI.

Imran Khan, who founded his PTI political party in 1996, had developed an impeccable reputation in both his leadership of Pakistan’s cricket victory in the World Cup of 1992 as well as his widely-respected social welfare activities in the country, including a cancer hospital for the poor in the name of his late mother. But Khan made a sharp turn in his life, and decided that to truly transform Pakistan, structurally and systemically so that the same rut does not keep reappearing with different (dynastic, feudal, or clan) names, political engagement was essential.

Though there are other smaller political parties, including provincial ones as well as a few national religious parties, the national civilian political life of the country has been dominated by two political parties: the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) of the Bhutto family, formed amidst the anti-military dictatorship mass popular movement in the late 1960s, on the one hand, and the Sharif family who effectively were created out of thin air by the rightwing Zia-ul-Huq military dictatorship – in order to have the Sharifs and their Pakistani Muslim League (PML) to counter and undermine the renewed anti-dictatorship opposition emerging from the PPP. 

After the death of Zia, Pakistani political life was effectively a duopoly with the PPP and the PML(N) taking turns in governing the country, with an interlude of another stint of military rule between 1999-2007 under Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The ostensible ‘governance’ of the country by the two parties was more akin to taking turns in engaging in gross corruption, plunder, and patronage to their sycophants. The health, education, and welfare of ordinary Pakistanis was not on the agenda of either of these parties. Though PPP was considered the ‘progressive/left’ party, and the PML(N) the ‘conservative/right,’ they effectively joined the international trend under this period of neoliberalism, of converging as an ‘extreme center,’ as Tariq Ali puts it – fundamentally no different in their social and economic policies, the only extremism demonstrated being that of servility to Washington, the IMF, the World Bank, and so on.

Pakistan’s transition to civilian democracy has always had major bumps here and there, and though the military shares its blame in its maneuvering and machinations in the country’s politics, the real curse has been that, since the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (who himself was by no means perfect, a megalomaniac, and in fact the first politician to begin to pander to the religious right, officially declaring the Ahmadiyya as non-Muslims and banning alcohol), Pakistani civilian ‘democrats’ have not really given Pakistanis a reason to bother whether they are ruled by the civilian plutocrats or the military. This is why there was absolute indifference to the military coup of General Pervez Musharraf in 1999, against the increasingly corrupt and authoritarian government of Nawaz Sharif.

But the past two decades, roughly paralleling the disastrous ‘Af-Pak’ theatre of the US ‘war on terror, political consciousness began to rise rapidly. This was also because, ironically, General Musharraf’s military regime actually permitted the explosion of media channels and widened ideological-theological diversity, under his semi-serious “enlightened moderation” project.

Imran Khan began really getting into the trenches of political activity in the movement against Musharraf’s dictatorship. That period, leading up till 2007, galvanized young people, lawyers, and ordinary Pakistanis in a profound way, creating a political consciousness that was neutralized and defanged during the entire neoliberal period. To bring about change, join (or even better, create your own) NGO – this was the rule of thumb for any Pakistani exhausted by her/his comprador class of incompetent and corrupt political ‘leaders.’ Before 2007, neoliberal ideology taught the world that politics is a messy business. The democratic civilian merry-go-round of the PPP/PML(N) of the 1990s achieved the goal of neoliberal ideology: de-politicization, atomization, and alienation of the population.

And since the shelf life of every military ruler of Pakistan never exceeding a decade, Musharraf was ousted in 2007, under a deal manufactured by Washington whereby the PPP’s longstanding leader, Benazir Bhutto, would be brought back to power. The tragic assassination of Benazir in Dec. 2007, of the ‘Daughter of the East’ (but to many, the ‘daughter of the West’), paved the way for her notoriously corrupt husband, Asif Ali Zardari, to take power on behalf of the PPP. The ‘progressive’ PPP has functioned as a family dynasty, with the daughter taking over and then, in her will, ‘bequeathing’ it to her husband and son.

Throughout Zardari’s reign from 2008-13, the country was again propelled in an sea of corruption combined with the most slavish servility to dictation from Washington. It was not difficult to understand why Zardari’s PPP got routed in the following national elections of 2013, bringing to power, once again, the same old face of Nawaz Sharif of the PML(N) as Prime Minister, and his brother Shehbaz Sharif as the Chief Minister of the Punjab, the largest and the most politically influential province in the country.

The Sharif brothers and their PML(N) political party have treated Punjab as their playground, where they will dominate not just the province, but the entire country. They could never fathom that any political force could arise to even remotely challenge their monopoly of political power in the province.

But as Khan did with Musharraf, and then with Zardari (as well as with the clownish head of semi-fascist MQM political party in Karachi – now decimated by the military’s intervention), he did with Nawaz Sharif. After the Panama Papers scandal that demonstrated that Nawaz Sharif had clearly been involved in massive corruption and money laundering, Khan would not leave the streets of Islamabad alone until the Supreme Court took notice of this. And when the Court did, it found Nawaz Sharif to be ‘unfit’ to be prime minister and called for the establishment of an anti-corruption court to fully investigate all charges of corruption. That court handed down its verdict weeks ago, a damning indictment of Nawaz Sharif and his daughter, Mariam Sharif, for not disclosing massive amounts of assets including prime property in London, and so on.

It is at this point, roughly around the 15th of July, that things begin to feel like the…US elections of 2016. PML(N) is the natural heir of power of the Punjab, and of Pakistan, and was a creation of the much-hated ‘establishment,’ or the ‘deep state.’ The Sharif brothers had no problem in permitting the most violent and repugnant forces on the loose during the 1990s when it served them and their business empire’s purposes to do so.

But as we all know, Washington has been in search of ‘moderate Islam’ now for a while, and you know that the world has gone upside down when Nawaz Sharif is presented as the liberal reformer advancing fairness and justice in society. It’s a bit like his friend-backer in Riyadh, MBS as he is called. The PML(N)’s rule was equally marked by corruption, unnecessary building initiatives all at the expense of investing in the education, health and well-being of ordinary Pakistanis.

But the PML(N) and Nawaz Sharif, even sitting in jail, felt entitled to once again win big time and Sharif essentially portraying himself as a martyr for ‘democracy.’

Things didn’t exactly work out that way.

Love him or hate him, Imran Khan has been a persistent bull in attacking the political class of all of the major political parties, for their utter indifference to the plight of the poor and the bulk of the population. As he said in his initial victory speech, “I believe a society should be judged not by the lifestyle of its rich, but of its poor.” The first component of Khan’s ‘manifesto’ (if we can call it that) is to make Pakistan a “welfare state” that delivers social justice to its people, and not simply be a playground for the elite. This of course is anathema to neoliberalism and international finance capital, where countries of the global south are merely supposed to prostrate themselves and their resources for Western elites and their native ‘friends’ in these formerly colonized countries.

But the problem Pakistan had begun to face even before Khan’s victory, was something eerily similar to the Pakistan’s own version of “Russiagate/Russia-phobia” fixation. Just replace Putin with the military establishment, and all the chips fall into place. Trump won because of Putin, and Khan because of either direct or indirect military support. Just like the Democrats ignore the sheer political bankruptcy of a candidate like Hillary Clinton, the PML(N) could not fathom how it being the (elite, deeply exploitative) ‘sons of the soil’ of the powerful Punjab could be trounced so badly. Just blame the establishment, or Putin, or both!

The maddeningly hysterical reaction to Khan from the liberals (who overnight ALL became PML(N) supporters) demonstrated quite clearly, for a while now, how the purse strings of the civilian ‘democrats’ has been tied to their subservience to Washington, Riyadh, and even New Dehli.

It’s not emphasized enough, but Pakistan’s decision to refuse to participate in the criminal Saudi war on Yemen in 2015 was a turning point. It was the beginning of the process of deepening decolonization, since the Saudis, Americans, etc. have always expected Pakistan to dance to their tune.

It is Imran Khan’s consistent and principled position against Af-Pak theatre of the ‘war on terror,’ his constant emphasis on a political solution rather than a military one, that had the liberals mocking him as ‘Taliban Khan.’ It was a cheap shot, since the bulk of the population agreed with Khan that American drone strikes are illegal an immoral, that the occupation of Afghanistan will definitely generate a Pashtun resistance, and that if Pakistan gets involved, militarily, in this imperial enterprise, it will face disastrous consequences. He was proven correct, with the enormous increase in militancy and terrorism throughout the country. His legitimate critique of American imperial policy – that always expected the Pakistanis to act as its satraps from early on in the Cold War – made the unthinking liberal that he is ‘anti-American’ or ‘anti-Western,’ whatever that means.

There is a deep psycho-cultural schizophrenia amongst the secular moderns of Pakistan that believe the West can do no wrong, and that we must self-orientalize ourselves as lazy, corrupt, backward, unchanging and static. The livelihoods of the country’s comprador liberal class depends on regurgitating this imbecilic narrative, so they can position themselves as the ‘enlightened few’ among an ‘herd’ of backward fundamentalists.

From the native elite who despised Khan both for his emphasis on decades elite ravaging and plundering of the country at the expense of suffering majority, as well as from arch-rival India which saw Nawaz Sharif as merely a cog in their expanding role as a sub-imperialist power, someone who would toe their line reflexively on whatever issue it may be – the shock and hysteria to Khan’s astounding victory was understandable. Throughout this period, Khan has been absurdly compared to Narendra Modi and Donald Trump, two men whose campaigns were based almost entirely on the ugliest forms of racism, bigotry, and fear of the ‘others,’ both internal and external. This fictional fantasy of the liberal elite could only hold water because they bought the cool aid that Khan was some irrational hater of the West, of India, and was a bit too much of an affinity with religion for them to swallow.

All of their commentary in elite English media demonstrated was that their contempt for Khan was really a contempt for ordinary Pakistanis, whom they thought were sufficiently ignorant and ‘backward’ that they not could see that his agenda, what he stood for, was completely being distorted by a Westoxificated Pakistani elite that takes more pride in their American/British accents than whether the nation is tackling issues such as widespread malnutrition and fatally unsafe drinking water that is affecting tens of millions of Pakistanis, especially children.

The first dastardly attack, as mentioned above, was to ridicule the cricketer-turned-politician as ‘Taliban Khan’ merely because he took an anti-war position. Islamophobia runs so deep in the ‘enlightened’ liberals and progressives of Pakistan that they are more than willing to endorse indiscriminate bombardment (by the US or Pakistani military, doesn’t matter) against peoples and areas that just seem ‘too Muslim.’ Long beards and the rest of it, not exactly fitting the profile of the secular modern that they want to showcase to the world as the ‘other Pakistan.’ The Pakistani Westoxificated native elite’s profiling of their countrywomen and men seems to be taken straight from a Western government’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ (CVE) playbook – with its ridiculously racist presumptions around Muslims and ‘radicalization.’

In the same light, he’s constantly accused of pandering to the religious right and not doing enough to distance himself from some of these groups and parties. First, it must be emphasized how hypocritical this is to come especially from the PML(N), the Sharif brothers the protégés of the most reactionary Islamist military dictator in the country’s history, and who continued to patronize these assortment of fanatical, sectarian fundamentalists, especially in the Punjab. But indeed, both the PML(N) and the ‘progressive’ PPP have courted religious parties as coalition partners in virtually every term of theirs in office.

But Khan is now being singled out for not speaking loudly enough on one issue that was given prominence last year, i.e. the Blasphemy Law and the status of the finality of the Prophet Muhammad – a clear reference to the problematic claim of the Ahmadiyya Muslims that one other prophet, Ghulam Ahmad, was the final one.

None of these are the issues that Khan ever raised. He was concerned with holding the high and mighty accountable, trying to reduce the cancerous corruption in the country, offer some form of a ‘welfare’ state, and resist being a quisling state that is expected to follow orders from Wshington, or Riyadh. But they were thrust upon him. The liberal critics who say that he has not spoken strongly enough on these very sensitive religious issues in the country suffer from criminal historical amnesia that forgets that the most progressive national leader in the country’s history, Zufiqar Ali Bhutto, initiated this intertwining of (reactionary) religion and politics, with things getting far worse in the following decades. This is what has been bequeathed to Imran Khan (not by his own choice) by the PML(N) and the PPP, who were complicit even when there were military regimes in power, in facilitating the free reign given to these violent and sectarian outfits.

From the word go, Khan has emphasized Islam as a religion that demands social justice, and offers what the liberation theologians call ‘a preferential option for the poor.’ Time and time again he emphasizes how Islam can only be made relevant if it is able to empower and uplift the marginalized and downtrodden, and to speak truth to power.

But of course, the liberal mantra’s cunning implication that ‘Taliban Khan’s’ pandering to the religious right is because he wants a restoration of draconian forms of Islamic punishments like stoning and all sorts of medieval impositions – pandering precisely to the hegemonic, Islamophobic discourse in the West.

As of now, as Khan is trying to form a coalition to get a majority in Parliament, he is seeking out independent candidates and other smaller parties, and not the religious parties. And also, just by the way, neither the PPP nor the PML(N) ever formed a government without some religious party as its coalition partner. But were are supposed to conveniently forget all of this because, well, Imran Khan opposes the disastrous ‘war on terror’ and wants to advance a more reformist and redistributive platform in the country – all anathema to Pakistan’s Westoxicated elites.

But perhaps the most compelling reason why it’s not just the ‘usual suspects’ of Khan-haters in Pakistan and in India (it’s media reaction has been as if Pakistan has launched a nuclear bomb to hit Dehli), but also, and more importantly, the entire barrage of animus from Western media and the political establishment they echo. Part of it is that Khan has been so deeply critical of US-NATO policies with regard to the ‘Af-Pak’ theatre of the ‘war on terror.’ Despite the fact that he is been at pains to give interview after interview to all of the major Western news channels in explaining a rational position on the topic, the obsequiously imperial Washington Post had the temerity to call him a ‘Taliban sympathizer’ in their headline, and the ‘newspaper of record,’ the New York Times, had a similarly obnoxious, racist headline stating that a, “Nuclear-armed Islamic Republic Gets Unpredictable New Leader.”

The depth of the hypocrisy and outright lies (you would think the NYT would’ve learned it’s lesson by now) that these headlines reveal are staggering. Khan is automatically unpredictable and to be feared merely because of the fact he is Muslim and has offered a rational, principled critique of some of the policies of the United States, including drone attacks – and has explained his position clearly, generously in interview after interview, in more coherent English than Trump could do in a million years.

None of it mattered. The recycled script from post 9/11 doesn’t seem to go away: you’re either with us (and we mean COMPLETELY with us) or you’re against us. In that regard, Khan’s independence and assertion of Pakistani sovereignty becomes intolerable for the Western political and financial elite.

But there is also a larger story here that is perhaps the most important point to capture. Western hegemony is in severe crisis. Even more bluntly, ‘whiteness’ is in severe crisis. We see this in wars, refugee crises, and elections of sem-fascists within the West itself. The old liberal international order defined and shaped by the West is collapsing.

Khan’s victory is yet another clear symptom of this crisis, of a world re-orienting in myriad ways and a de-centering of the West. And though Pakistan’s native elite may deem their population as backward and stupid, the consciousness of the ordinary Pakistani has shifted dramatically over the past two decades.

They have obtained a political consciousness that recognized that justice, fairness, accountability, and transparency were not on the agenda of the civilian ‘democratic’ politicians for which they were required to fight and die against the ‘rogue,’ ‘evil’ military establishment. It is in that transformation the subjectivity of the ordinary Pakistani that Imran Khan and PTI could miraculously do so well in these elections, and break through a deeply entrenched, retrograde political system with its dynasties, clans, kinship networks and all.

But there is a second point that is often missed in these developments in Pakistan. From the 1970s, large numbers of Pakistani migrant workers went to the Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to get their meager wages to send home as remittances. Exploited and treated like animals, they worked out of necessity. It was this period and the ensuing decades with Saudi oil money was hell-bent on convincing all of the world’s Muslims, including the migrant workers within the Gulf countries (who often comprised the majority of the populations), that Saudi Wahhabi Islam is the only ‘correct’ Islam. After, all the Saudi royal family considers itself as the ‘Guardian of the Two Holy Mosques’ – a position that normally would obtain a great deal of respect from the world’s Muslims.

This has shifted dramatically. The naked collaboration of the House of Saud with Zionism and Western hegemony in the region to annihilate any form of resistance in the region is now visible for all to see. The Saudis thought for the longest time that they could simply rely on the religious/sectarian ‘sunni vs. shia’ card to persuade the bulk of Muslims to give Saudi Arabia a free pass, since they housed the two holy mosques and claimed the purity of the original faith, its original followers, its regional language, customs, and so on. All else was ‘bidah’, or innovation to be condemned and disowned from the faith.

According to such theology, the substantial number of Shias (as well as Sufis, etc.) were to be targeted as heretics. But the theological impetus to wage war against others with different beliefs only went so far. It was the Iranian revolution of 1979 that sent shockwaves throughout the conservative Arab monarchies, led by Saudi Arabia. Since that time, the Saudis have attempted to camouflage political issues (their own retrograde version of Islam, treatment of foreign workers, and subservience to and collaboration with Zionism and Western hegemony) by false asserting that it’s a ‘sunni vs. shia’ problem, and the Iranians and Shias just want to gobble up the entire region. The House of Saud believes that only monarchs, dictators, and autocrats are permitted to rule the region, which is why they’ve even now declared mass Sunni political movements, ones they at once supported to undermine Arab nationalist sentiments, as ‘terrorist organizations’ – since individual totalitarian autocrats and regimes are much easier for Riyadh, Tel Aviv, and Washington to control.

One has to be living under a rock not to notice geopolitical catastrophes and transformations – certainly accelerated during this period of the ‘global war on terror.’ The US is undergoing, as Noam Chomsky puts it, a ‘wounded tiger’ syndrome – which can potentially be far more dangerous than healthy, ‘rational’ tiger. The American empire specifically, and Western hegemony generally, is coming to an end.

In light of the anxieties generated within a declining empire, there are factions of imperial elites that still believe the decline can be reversed by the gargantuan military muscle the US maintains, on which it outspends the next 9 countries combined. That has not seemed to have worked either, which is also why the House of Saud, under the reckless and criminal leadership of the new crown prince (Thomas Friedman’s buddy), Mohammad bin Salman, as well as Israel, have effectively also become ‘wounded tigers’ that cannot digest the setbacks they have suffered since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and the patently clear limits to American and Western military power when another ‘regime change’ operation has been under way in Syria.

Westoxificated Pakistani liberals, like their counterparts in the West who think Putin is responsible for everything from climate change to racist police brutality on the streets of America, also insist that simply the ‘establishment’ is the problem and source of all evil in the country. This is the peak of what Prof. Robert Jensen would call the period of the ‘delusional revolution,’ and liberals become just as myopic, and frankly politically illiterate, when they mimic the simplistic scapegoating explanations that are more often coming from the rightwing.

What has united the Westernized elites of Pakistan with their counterparts in the West is the absolute refusal, the vehement, childish denial, of a world order that is rapidly changing.

Whatever criticisms are made internally within Pakistan of Imran Khan and PTI, from its critical supporters and opponents alike, it is difficult to keep the population so utterly ignorant as to not see how their nation’s rulers have plundered the country and been quislings for whatever Western whim they were supposed to please, whether ‘jihadi Islam’ before, to ‘moderate Islam,; one that pacifies, polices and discipine Pakisttanis and Muslims as obedient subjects of Empie. Indeed, this policing of Muslim-ness is often outsourced to the local native elites themselves, who enthusiastically comply.

So Khan and the PTI may have a long way to go on vital issues of gender justice, socio-economic and redistributive justice, pluralism and inclusivity, as well as de-linking from Western-Zionist-Gulf policies that do the country no good, but incredible harm. And that is why, when Khan mentioned both China and Iran as countries to deepen and improve relations with, whatever vitriol from Western media existed before, just got a shot of steroids afterwards.

Pakistani liberals have failed to notice that not only are Pakistanis, especially the youth, more politically active and aware now about domestic issues, but also about regional and global geopolitics. They are not blind to the series of Western invasions, occupations, ‘regime change’ operations, drones, and threats if ‘Pakistan does not do more’ in basically assisting the US to conquer Afghanistan. And Pakistanis are also not blind to the fact that the US can no longer call the shots in Pakistan, and in many parts of the world (with obvious exceptions like Micronesia, Guam, etc.) the way that it could since World War II.

The negative Western reaction to where Pakistan has been ‘heading’ has of course been there for the past several years. The country is not helping quell the anti-occupation resistance in Afghanistan, and much more importantly (though not said too openly), its growing and deepening relationship with China – which one analyst has described as possibly the strongest bilateral relationship in the world.

And whatever happened with America’s obsession with terrorism and fighting a ‘war on terror.’ Well, the US position was made very clear where terrorism was not even mentioned in this year’s US National Defense Stategy document. All emphasis is on the emergence of potential and rising rivals, such as China and Russia. Perhaps this helps to explain why the US had no problem with jihadi fanatics fighting as its proxy forces in both Libya and most conspicuously in Syria – since apparently fighting some ‘war on terror’ is now considered antiquated and pales into the challenges posed by powers and movements which are most certainly re-orienting the world order.

All of this background information is important to understand the context of the phenomenal political rise of a character like Imran Khan in Pakistan. What Khan’s victory effectively represents is the breakdown of the myths that Pakistanis have been fed for decades: the US-Pakistan relationship is a mutually beneficial one, and equally importantly, that Saudi Arabia is the epitome of ‘true Islam’ and a genuine protector of Muslim interests. It is quite a delight now to see Pakistani migrant workers of the 1970s and 1980s, who initially were just indoctrinated into Wahhabi theology as the only religious orientation one can have, now saying quite openly how hypocritical, fraudulent, and politically reactionary the Saudi monarchy is, and that its claim to represent Islam is bogus and preposterous. This is relatively new, since the previous decades imposed a frightening silence on these Pakistanis who went to the Gulf to build their big buildings and shopping malls, meanwhile living in conditions described by human rights groups as ‘slave camps,’ even ‘concentration camps.’

And even though Pakistan’s native elite relentlessly try to bury an affinity with causes of the oppressed elsewhere, the population has never submitted to such chicanery. Pakistan may be the most pro-Palestinian country on the planet, and Imran Khan has forcefully articulated his anti-Zionist position on the issue since his political career began two decades ago. He has openly described in interviews, to the West or the East, that Palestinians suffer under an Israeli occupation that routinely engages in state terrorism, as he declared on the most recent Israeli butchery against the people of Gaza.

So when the NYT says that Khan is ‘unpredictable,’ with all of the negative connotations that evokes, perhaps we should try to understand where this unease is coming from. It is, on the surface, preposterous since there are few politicians on the planet who have articulated their political positions so lucidly and consistently.

The unease comes from what processes that the West has no control over, its provincialization and de-centering, and the coming end of Western hegemony and unipolarity. China is obviously the big, ‘threatening’ elephant in the room right now for planners in Washington, and Pakistan just happens to be its most strategic and formidable ally. Any future American military plans to use its encirclement of China to blockade the bulk of global trade, gas, and oil that runs through the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea more generally, can eventually be circumvented, Beijing believes, by its China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that gives its stupendous access to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea via the Pakistan port city of Gwadar. In addition, it is precisely the fact of these ubiquitous American ‘fleets’ that China has opted to invest so heavily in its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to increase trade and interconnectivity across the Eurasian landmass all the way to Berlin – as a lucrative backup plan in case its maritime activity is disrupted.

The most perplexing part of the story of the rise of Imran Khan is that most of these developments are staring ordinary Pakistanis in the face, but a Westernized native lite remain oblivious to them. And this is why they didn’t know what hit them when Khan’s PTI won the largest number of seats in Parliament, since they are both cocooned from reality and so invested in a hegemonic Western project on which they and their goodies depend.

Hence, the victory of Imran Khan is a victory of the political AND, relatedly astute geopolitical consciousness of the Pakistani people. The frenzied reaction by Khan’s haters in Pakistan and India was expected, but virtually all of Western media’s virulence emanates from what Freud may have called the ‘unconscious’ – the inability to decolonize oneself sufficiently so that you understand how the peoples of the global South, of the non-Western world, have been trampled upon. It is an ‘unconscious’ that cannot fathom an Oxford English-speaking graduate that affirms his people,, their culture and desires improvements therein – and rather ‘ungrateful’ to the British who ‘educated’ him. “Education,” as Chomsky points out, “is a form of imposed obedience.” Khan must have missed class the day this truism was underscored.

Thanks to Edward Said, we know the entire enterprise of classical orientalism and its representations of the ‘East’ served more the function of a fictitious glorified version of itself and its past, of its Plato-NATO superior, rational historical sequence that produced good universals and the period of enlightenment. Similarly, I would argue that we are witnessing with the victory of this single individual and his party, with their warts and all, is both a conscious and unconscious recognition that things are shaking up in the world order the West was used to, and all of the bitterness and acrimony at Khan, just as the old Orientalists displayed toward their ‘backward’ subjects, is both the projection of their (unstated) increasing impotence in world affairs, as well the concomitant displacement of blame unto the unworthy native who cannot understand what should be axiomatic: The West can do no wrong, so just be grateful, and don’t be stupid enough to work with other non-Western ‘backward’ or ‘rogue’ states like China, Iran, Turkey, or Russia. And don’t forget neoliberalism, ‘our way,’ that tolerates none of this nonsense of welfarism that may actually help the impoverished and lower classes of your country. Learn from ‘us’: Do a Trump tax cut to make more millionaires into billionaires, and show utter disdain towards poor families and children.

Khan is not following that script. In a nutshell, from whatever angle you wan to look at it, his victory represents the intensification of imperial decline, since Pakistan was always expected to be a loyal client state of the US. So was Turkey. The problems with these countries now, like Iran,is not that human rights abuses are often inflicted by the state. This the pretext used to discipline countries who fall out of the orbit of US control. The non-Arab pillars of the Cold War American-Zionist architecture of control of the Arabs are seemingly slipping away. Iran did so in 1979, and has suffered the consequences for its disobedience – though ironically it is probably now as formidable a regional actor as it has ever been, largely due to the arrogance, incompetence, and butchery of American-Zionist-Saudi maneuvering in the region since 2003.

There was no logical or rational reason for the New York Times to label Imran Khan as “unpredictable,” as if he’s some Kim Jong-un, or going one notch higher on the level of unpredictably, Trump the con-man himself. But in fact that headline aptly captured the fundamental anxieties of an empire in decline, that knows precisely how predictable leaders, movements, and countries are – but despise it.

Liberals and others in the US have been obsessed with the Russiagate fixation at the expense of far more serous issues, the cascading crises afflicting humanity, as Prof. Robert Jensen puts it. They will be happy to know their Westoxificated counterparts in places like Pakistan also do their best to deflect attention away fro the fact that the country may be formally independent, but still needs to undergo an ongoing process of deepening decolonizing, of the minds, and of the hearts.

Muslims are not supposed to really have place in this Plato-NATO historical sequence other than perhaps just being postmen handing over what the philosophical manuscripts to the more learned Europeans who could carry that task forward. This is the Eurocentric world history that is taught in virtually every part of the world, including in Pakistan.

Whatever else Khan and PTI deliver, and it will require massive support and activism to actually live up to any broad notion of social justice and sovereignty, their victory represents a continuation of a process that was negated by colonialism: the writing of Muslims into a history, into a present, and into a future. Vulgar orientalism denied that, and decried Muslims’ stagnation – so that Muslims become a people without a history, and hence, irrelevant.

Prof. Salman Sayyid put it aptly when he stated that, “Muslims are too many to be ignored, but too weak to be ignored.” Things may change quickly on that front, not just in the world of Islamdom, but in the non-Western world more generally. 

American exceptionalism and Eurocentrism more broadly is the prism by which all of these developments in the global South are analyzed, and particularly so in the Muslim world because they are so many of them and they are totally globalized and transnational. To understand, but not to forgive, the pathetically malicious treatment Imran Khan is receiving before he has even formed a government, is the fact that one of our ‘Oxford boys’ is actually Asian and is putting a mirror to our faces that make us look quite ugly in our policies toward the non-white world.

The Western mainstream media’s bitterness at Khan’s victory, hence, should not be taken personally, It should in fact give us a clue to how panicky Western elites have become at developments all across Eurasia, from China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and now…Pakistan.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Pakistan’s Elections and the Rise of Political Consciousness by the Pakistani People

Pakistan and China’s Belt and Road

China Pakistan Economic Cooperation (CPEC)  and related projects are at the core of Pakistan’s future development, but it would be prudent for the country to sometimes be able to flexibly decouple itself from this initiative in order to appeal to other partners such as Russia who are reluctant to participate in CPEC for political reasons.

The Indian Challenge

CPEC is the lynchpin of China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of Silk Road connectivity, and it’s accordingly the jugular vein of the emerging Multipolar World Order, to say nothing of Pakistan’s future development. This megaproject has the potential to span across the entire Eastern Hemisphere through various branch corridors, all of which are in one way or another connected to the South Asian state through which the original initiative passes. It can’t be overstated just how crucial of a component CPEC is to global geopolitics, and it’s with good reason that Islamabad decided to team up with Beijing to construct this game-changing series of roads, power plants, and other tangible investments. Pakistan’s future is intertwined with that of CPEC, which is why the latter has become the basis for the country’s international rebranding in the 21stcentury.

The issue, however, is that CPEC’s soft power has almost been too successful for its own good because the project is inextricably connected with the idea of Pakistan functioning as a non-Malacca shortcut for other countries to trade with China. While the obvious implication is that Pakistan would naturally benefit from this transit relationship to what could become many billions of dollars of prospective trade and would eventually begin building its own value-added investments along this lucrative corridor, CPEC nevertheless by its very nature is about connecting other countries to China via Pakistan, which subconsciously frames the South Asian state’s importance to the casual entrepreneur as being primarily passive. In addition, the direct connection to China, while undoubtedly attractive for many countries, is also a political liability for those who want to retain their existing high-level relations with India.

America’s envisioned 100-year-long military-strategic partner and new “Lead From Behind” proxy is fiercely opposed to CPEC for many reasons, though its most loudly and publicly discussed one is that it passes through areas of Pakistan that India claims as its own per its maximalist approach to the Kashmir Conflict. India made it unequivocally clear that no government endeavoring to retain its privileged relations with what will soon become the world’s most populous country should dare to recognize CPEC or trade along its so-called “disputed” route in the Pakistani region of Gilgit-Baltistan. This dramatic de-facto “blackmailing” of certain countries actually isn’t all that applicable to the “Global South” states that already have much closer ties with China than India, but it’s understandably an issue for New Delhi’s Russian, Japanese, and American Great Power partners.

Russian, Japanese, And American Sensitivities

Russia’s Soviet-era relationship with India has fundamentally changed since the end of the Old Cold War and is now mostly transactional in nature, with Moscow unofficially depending more on New Delhi than the reverse because of the need that the Eurasian state has for the South Asian one’s multibillion-dollar arms and nuclear energy contracts that have become especially important in the era of the West’s anti-Russian sanctions. For this practical reason of self-interest, Russia is extremely reluctant to do anything that would signal its official approval of CPEC or interest in this project, though it should be noted that President Putin came as close as realistically possible to doing so during last year’s SCO Summitwhen he spoke about the need to combine the potential of this organization with OBOR. Even so, no Russian company has yet to join CPEC.

Japan has altogether different interests because it’s cooperating with India in the joint “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” that it foresees as filling the “soft infrastructure” niche left by OBOR’s hyper-focus on “hard infrastructure” that seemingly neglects skills training, education, healthcare, and other such needs of China’s “Global South” partners. It has nothing in principle against investing in Pakistan, but it understandably doesn’t want to contribute to its Chinese rival’s project, hence why Japan hasn’t seriously considered the country as a viable investment destination. As for America, its government is quietly opposed to CPEC and is waging a Hybrid Waron it together with India in order to “contain China” and cut off its direct access to the Afro-Bengal Ocean, though US companies are still free to invest their much-needed capital and international management expertise in Pakistan if they were so inclined.

Pakistan’s priority is to attract as many stakeholders to its success as possible, to which end it’s wise to creatively craft non-CPEC marketing solutions that appeal to these three Great Powers’ political sensitivities in a bid to encourage their investments in the country. Russian, Japanese, and American economic involvement in this apolitical project might even serve to influence the policies of their respective governments and make the last-mentioned one more reluctant to destabilize it if its own companies and nationals could adversely be affected by this covert campaign. Pakistan has everything to gain by practicing a “two-track” marketing strategy whereby the main thrust of this initiative links the country’s future to CPEC while the supplementary one decouples it  from China and concentrates solely on bilateral investments that most immediately remain within the country.

The “Two-Track” Approach 

To explain, it’ll be practically impossible for any of Pakistan’s partners to avoid utilizing CPEC-connected infrastructure once this series of megaprojects is complete because of the roads that they’ll traverse and electricity they’ll consume while operating their businesses within the country, but the point to emphasize is that no country has a monopoly on infrastructure and that using it isn’t a political statement at all. For example, Pakistan could very easily rely on Indian-built “North-South Transport Corridor” infrastructure in Iran to one day trade with that country, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and even as far afield as Russia, so the same depoliticized logic can be applied to any of its partners that want to do the same in trading with or investing in Pakistan through CPEC’s facilitative infrastructure. This accordingly raises the question of what is and isn’t a CPEC investment.

The criteria will ultimately be up to the Pakistani authorities themselves to decide, but a general guideline could be that any economic activity inside the country that doesn’t produce something that eventually goes to China could be decoupled from the CPEC portfolio as a stand-alone bilateral project. This would even include the special economic zone (SEZ) in Gwadar, which could then be reconceived of as valuable real estate for countries such as Japan to use for building transshipment, production, and/or (re)assembly plants in the middle of Western European and East Asian maritime trade routes, or even for entrepreneurs in each Eurasian extremity to set up base in for facilitating trade with their “Global South” partners along the Afro-Bengal Rimland. When courting such partners, it’s actually advantageous to downplay the China factor so to assuage their political concerns vis-à-vis India.

Nevertheless, it’s very probable that the given company will eventually use its base of operations in Pakistan to trade with China seeing as how the People’s Republic is the Eastern Hemisphere’s economic center of gravity and too irresistible of a partner for anyone to refuse to deal with no matter the political sensitivities involved if they’ve already set up shop along CPEC. They’d then de-facto end up participating in CPEC even if their original investment wasn’t marketed as being part of this initiative, cleverly providing them with a plausible explanation that they could then rely on in response to Indian objections after they silently join this project with time. After all, India is so hungry for international investment that it probably won’t turn away any foreign company that’s active in Pakistan so long as they’re not openly (key word) involved in CPEC.

Concluding Thoughts

CPEC is the spinal cord of pan-hemispheric trade in the Eastern Hemisphere and especially the Afro-Bengal Region’s commerce with China, yet India is pressuring its main international partners to avoid participating in this project because of its exaggerated Kashmir-connected concerns. This won’t deter the many small- and medium-sized “Global South” states that already count China as their largest trading partner, but it’s unfortunately causing Russian, Japanese, and American companies to think twice about getting involved, though it’s precisely these countries that need to become stakeholders in CPEC’s success in order to diversify the project and ensure its long-term win-win viability. The more that Great Powers take an interest in profiting from Pakistan’s geo-economic potential, the more that this country and its eponymous connectivity corridor with China will fulfill their destinies as the 21st century’s multipolar centerpieces.

The solution that Pakistan must seek is to tailor its marketing strategy towards these Indian-influenced countries and companies in such a way as to downplay the China factor and emphasize their state’s own stand-alone economic attractiveness, buffeted as it is by the facilitative support provided by Chinese road and energy investments through CPEC. There’s no such thing as a “Chinese highway” or “Chinese power plant” in Pakistan even though the country is constructing such infrastructure using Chinese loans, meaning that the services that foreign companies would be utilizing are officially Pakistani and not Chinese anyhow. By employing a “two-track” marketing strategy that promotes Pakistan’s more than 200 million people, upgraded infrastructure, and geostrategic location along the Afro-Bengal Rimland as separate from its attractiveness as a transit state to China, Islamabad might finally succeed in wooing Russian, Japanese, and possibly even American investors.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Pakistan and China’s Belt and Road

Palestinian Poet Dareen Tatour Gets Five-month Sentence for Incitement on Social Media


Tatour, 36, was convicted of ‘incitement to violence’ and supporting terrorist organizations in May

Palestinian poet Dareen Tatour was sentenced to five months in prison Tuesday by the Nazi District court. Tatour, was convicted in May of incitement to violence and supporting terrorist organizations, based on her social media posts.

Following the sentencing, Tatour said she was not surprised. “I expected prison and that’s what happened. I didn’t expect justice. The prosecution was political to begin with because I’m Palestinian, because it’s about free speech and I’m imprisoned because I’m Palestinian.”

Tatour, 36, a resident of the illegally occupied Galilee village of Reineh, near Nazareth, was arrested in October 2015 after posting, among others, a poem titled “Resist, my people, resist them.”

The indictment included a translation of the poem, with the lines: “I will not succumb to the ‘peaceful solution’ / Never lower my flags / Until I evict them from my land.”

“My trial ripped off the masks,” Tatour stated in May. “The whole world will hear my story. The whole world will hear what Israel’s democracy is. A democracy for Jews only. Only Arabs go to jail The court said I am convicted of terrorism. If that’s my terrorism, I give the world a terrorism of love.”

A video clip that Tatour uploaded. 

She is charged with publishing on “various publications that call for violent acts or terrorism” on Facebook and YouTube, and “for praising and identifying with acts of violence or terrorism.”

A video clip that Tatour uploaded shows her reading the poem against the backdrop of masked people throwing rocks and firebombs at Nazi security forces. The indictment contains a translation of the poem into Hebrew and says that as of the charges being filed, it had accrued more than 200,000 views and several adulatory comments.

“The content, its exposure and the circumstances of its publication created a real possibility that acts of violence or terrorism will be committed,” the indictment claimed.

After the indictment, the video gained even more exposure when Culture Minister Nazi Miri Regev posted it herself within an edited clip on her Facebook page. The edited clip was watched more than 70,000 times and received more than a thousand “likes.” Beside it, Regev wrote, “Where do you think this video was screened? At a Hamas event in Gaza? ISIS in Syria? Hezbollah in Beirut? Watch and share.”

The indictment included two other poems by Tatour.

One said, “Allah Akbar and Baruch Hashem, Islamic Jihad declared Intifada throughout the whole West Bank and expansion to all Palestine. We should begin inside the Green Line,” a post that got 35 likes. The second showed the wedding of Asra’a Abed, a Nazareth resident who was shot and wounded after drawing a knife at the central bus station of Afula, with the post, “I’m the next martyr.”

After three months in detention, Tatour had been released to house arrest, with an electronic cuff. Four months later she was allowed to leave the house for two hours on weekends, if accompanied. She was not allowed to use a mobile phone or internet, restrictions which had no precedent, her lawyer, Gaby Lasky said.

Initially Tatour had denied any connection with the posts. After changing lawyers in November 2016, she admitted to publishing the poem, but claimed it had been mistranslated.

The police officer who translated it knows spoken and literary Arabic, and speaks Arabic as his mother tongue, the state claimed.

The prosecution highlighted her change in story and wrote in its conclusions that a person “confident of the justice of his path and purity of his intentions consistently admits to publishing the things attributed to him, and explains the underlying intentions. This is not how the defendant behaved.”  Later the prosecution said that once she admitted to the publications, Tatour cast blame on others for not understanding her properly, or causing her to act in a certain way, ostensibly innocuously, which is unacceptable.”

At the time, Lasky told Haaretz that it is pathetic to put a poet on trial for a poem she wrote, based on an erroneous literal and cultural translation. “In the unfortunate case of Dareen, her poem speaks among other things about the Dawabshe family and others who were hurt by Jews. The police officer who translated the poem unprofessionally took things out of context.”

Defense witnesses included Prof. Nissim Calderon, who wrote an opinion on the special status of poets, noting Hebrew poets in tsarist Russia and during the British Mandate in Palestine, such as Nathan Alterman. The prosecution argued that Calderon hadn’t seen the full text, or seen it in the context of pictures of the intifada in the background.

“The trial was designed entirely to intimidate and silence Palestinians in Israel, to make them censor themselves for fear of being put on trial and criminalization of poetry,” Lasky said. “When the state tries people for poetry, that derogates from the cultural richness of all society.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Palestinian Poet Dareen Tatour Gets Five-month Sentence for Incitement on Social Media

The Globalization of War, Failures of the Antiwar Movement, “The Global War on Terrorism is Fake”

June 2018 Lecture by Michel Chossudovsky in Regina, Sask. Global Research News Hour Summer Series Part 4

“Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future. … Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

– PNAC planning document, September 2000 [1]

“We’re dealing with a diabolical agenda where the United States is intervening under the banner of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ or ‘Global War on Terrorism.’ In other words it is providing a legitimacy to a war of aggression, or a sequence of wars of aggression. And the public is led to believe somehow that these are humanitarian undertakings.”

– Professor Michel Chossudovsky, from his June 2018 speech in Regina.


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
Established in 1997, the Project for a New American Century is a Washington D.C. based organization dedicated to preserving the role of the United States as the pre-eminent power on Earth, and promoting America’s role of ‘global leadership’ and its ‘vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.’ [2]

Described as a neoconservative think tank, the PNAC highlighted four essential missions in a September 2000 planning document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. These include:

  • defend the American homeland;
  • fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
  • perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
  • transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;” [3]

U.S. Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have clearly aligned their foreign policy trajectories according to the formula spelled out in the 2000 PNAC document. Author Nicolas Davies in a 2015 article reveals how, in spite of the end of the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R, overall U.S. military spending exploded in the years following the September 11, 2001 attacks. In fact, Democratic President Barrack Obama was responsible for the largest U.S. military budget since the Second World War. [4]

Professor Michel Chossudovsky has been tracking and analyzing the trajectory of U.S. military planning for the last two decades and has been at the forefront of dissecting the propaganda describing these projects as ‘self defense’ or a ‘humanitarian intervention.’ In June of 2018 he delivered a speech to the Regina Peace Council outlining his research and appealing for the re-invigoration of an anti-war movement that would confront what he considers to be a hegemonic project of world conquest, orchestrated by the U.S. and its Western allies.

The complete video of his talk is available here.

Video footage courtesy of Paul Graham.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He has served as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has acted as a consultant for several international organizations. He has authored numerous articles and eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011), and The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015). In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia.

Please consider purchasing a copy of the book on which the lecture is based. The Globalization of War is available now at a discount price! To purchase your copy, please visit our store.  


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Text of Michel Chossudovsky’s address to the Regina Peace Council Panel, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 8, 2018. 

We are at the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.

An unfolding New World Order is destroying sovereign countries through acts of war and “regime change”. In turn, large sectors of the World population are impoverished through the concurrent imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms. This New World Order feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women.  

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, in the largest display of military might since the Second World War, the US has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

War is presented as a peace-making undertaking. The justification for these US-led wars is the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with a view to instilling (Trump style) Western “democracy” Worldwide.

Global warfare sustains the neoliberal agenda. War and globalization are intricately related.

What we are dealing with is an imperial project broadly serving global economic and financial interests including Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, the Biotech conglomerates, Big Pharma, The Global Narcotics Economy, the Media Conglomerates and the Information and Communication Technology Giants.

Also, September 11, 2001 followed by the invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, also marks the official launch of the so-called “global war on terrorism” which has served as a justification for US-NATO led wars and interventions in the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia.

The Global War on Terrorism is Fake

Amply documented, Al Qaeda and its various affiliates including ISIS-Daesh are creations of US intelligence.

Pre-emptive Nuclear Doctrine

Meanwhile, a major shift in US nuclear doctrine has occurred with the adoption of the doctrine of preemptive warfare, namely war as an instrument of  “self defense”. The ideology of preemptive warfare also applies to the use of nuclear weapons on a pre-emptive basis. In 2002, the US administration put forth the concept of preemptive nuclear war, namely the use of nuclear weapons against enemies of America as a means of self defense.

The Trump administration is openly threatening the World with nuclear war. How to confront the diabolical and absurd proposition put forth by the US administration that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran or North Korea will  “make the World a safer place”?

Where is the Antiwar Movement?  

Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the antiwar movement is dead.  Piece-meal activism often funded by Wall Street prevails, focussing narrowly on environmental concerns, climate change, racism, civil rights. Invariably war and the extensive war crimes committed by US-NATO as part of an alleged counterterrorism agenda are not the object of organized public dissent. The motto is a non sequitur: “we are against war, but we support the war on terrorism.”

War propaganda prevails, thereby providing a human face to US-NATO atrocities and human rights violations. In turn, the governments of the countries which are the object of US aggression, are casually accused of killing their own people.

Media disinformation turns realties upside down. North Korea is not a threat to global security. Belgium with 20 B61 tactical nukes deployed under national command has a larger arsenal than the DPRK (allegedly 4 nuclear bombs).

These B61 nuclear bombs in five undeclared European nuclear weapons states (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Turkey) are targeted at both Russia and the Middle East.



The mainstream media has failed to warn public opinion that a US led nuclear attack against North Korea or Iran could evolve towards World War III, which in the words of Albert Einstein would be “terminal”, leading to the destruction of humanity.

“Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbor the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.

In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity. Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”  (Fidel Castro Ruz, Conversations with Michel Chossudovsky, October 12-15, 2010)

I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, butWorld War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”.(Albert Einstein)

The anti-war movement is dead, nuclear war is not front page news.

The justification of America’s long war is to “make the world safer”.

War is presented as a humanitarian endeavor. Global Security requires going after al Qaeda as part of an alleged counter-terrorism campaign.

The world is led to believe that  the Islamic State and Al Qaeda are threatening the World. The truth is that Al Qaeda and its  numerous affiliates  as well as the Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh) are without exception creations of US intelligence. They are intelligence assets.

When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an “instrument of peace”, condoned and accepted by the World’s institutions and the highest authority including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction. 

From Colonialism to Post-Colonialism

Post-colonial history is a continuation of colonial history which established America’s contemporary imperial agenda, largely as a result of the displacement and defeat by the US of the former colonial powers (e.g. Spain, France, Japan, Netherlands). This US hegemonic project largely consists in transforming sovereign countries into open territories, controlled by dominant economic and financial interests. Military, intelligence as well economic instruments are used to carry out this hegemonic project.

Militarization marked by more than 700 US military bases and facilities worldwide under the unified combatant command structure indelibly supports a global economic agenda.

Moreover, this military deployment is supported by US macro-economic policy which imposes austerity on all categories of civil expenditure with a view to releasing the funds required to finance America’s military arsenal and war economy.

Military intervention and regime change initiatives including CIA sponsored military coups and “color revolutions” are broadly supportive of the neoliberal policy agenda which has been imposed on indebted developing countries Worldwide.

The Globalization of Poverty 

The “globalization of poverty” in the post-colonial era is the direct result of the imposition of deadly macroeconomic reforms under IMF-World Bank jurisdiction. The Bretton Woods institutions are instruments of Wall Street and the corporate establishment.

The time path of these reforms –which has led to a process of global economic restructuring– is of crucial significance. The early 1980s marks the onslaught of the so-called structural adjustment program (SAP)under the helm of the IMF and the World Bank. “Policy conditionalities” largely directed against indebted Third World countries are used as a means of intervention, whereby the Washington based International Financial Institutions (IFI) impose a set menu of deadly economic policy reforms including austerity, privatization, the phasing out of social programs, trade reforms, compression of real wages, etc.

It is worth noting that a parallel process of neoliberal economic reform –which largely consisted in privatizing as well gradually dismantling the welfare state– was instigated in the 1980s in the US and Britain under what was described as the Reagan-Thatcher era.

Post-Cold War Era Reforms

A second phase of economic restructuring commences at the end of the Cold War with drastic economic reform packages imposed on Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, the Balkans as well as on the constituent republics of the former Soviet Union (e.g. Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan).

Concurrently in Western Europe the Maastricht Treaty –which came into force in 1993– was imposed on the member states of the European Union. What was referred to as the The Maastricht criteria (or  convergence criteria) which eventually led to the formation of the eurozone largely consisted in imposed the neoliberal policy agenda on the EU member states. These Maastricht criteria also served to derogate the sovereignty of individual member states.

Maastricht is a structural adjustment program (SAP) in disguise. Essentially Maastricht and the subsequent instatement of the eurozone contributed to paralyzing national monetary policy, foreclosing the use of internal public debt operations as an instrument of national economic development. The requirements of budgetary austerity imposed under the “Maastricht criteria” limited EU member states ability to finance their social programs leading to the gradual demise of the post World War II welfare state. The public debt is taken over by the European Central Bank (ECB) as well as private creditors.  The longer term impacts are mounting external debts as well as debt conditionalities and the repayment of debt from the proceeds of an extensive privatization program.

It should be mentioned that this phase of restructuring also coincides with the inauguration of the World Trade Organization (1995) and theNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has been conducive to a dramatic  transformation of the North American economic landscape, leading to the demise of regional and local level economies throughout North America.

In turn, the 1990s coincides with an extension and expansion of NATO, including massive “defense” expenditures which are not the object of neoliberal austerity measures. In fact quite the opposite. Neoliberalism feeds the Military Industrial Complex.

What is at stake is the “Thirdworldization” of the so-called developed countries leading to mass unemployment in several EU countries including Spain, Portugal and Greece, whose economies are now subjected to same IMF style reforms as those applied in Third World countries. What this signifies is that the Globalization of Poverty has extended its grip, leading to the impoverishment not only of the former Soviet block countries and the Balkans but also of the so-called high income countries of Western Europe.

More generally, the 1990s coinciding with NATO’s “humanitarian” war against Yugoslavia is the launchpad of NATO’s military buildup as well as  the globalization of NATO beyond it’s North Atlantic boundaries in the post Cold War era.

The Asian crisis of 1997-98 also marks an important threshold in the evolution of the neoliberal economic framework, pointing to the ability through speculative manipulations of foreign exchange and commodity market to literally destabilize the national economy of targeted countries. In this regard, institutional speculators have now the ability of artificially pushing up the price of food staples, or pushing up or down the price of crude oil.

The Global Cheap Labor Economy

The neoliberal agenda characterized by the imposition of strong “economic medicine” (austerity measures, freeze on wages, privatisation, repeal of social programs) has in the course of the last 30 years supported the extensive delocation of manufacturing to cheap labor (low wage) havens in developing countries. It has also served to impoverish both the developing and developed countries.

“Poverty is good for business.” It promotes the supply of cheap labor commodities worldwide in industry as well as in sections of the services economy.

This global process of economic restructuring (which has reached new heights) relies on compressing wages and the cost of labor worldwide while at the same time reducing the purchasing power of hundreds of millions of people. This compression of consumer demand ultimately triggers recession and rising unemployment.

The low wage economy is supported by exceedingly high levels of unemployment, which in developing countries are also the result of the destruction of the regional and local production not to mention the destabilization of the rural economy. This “reserve army on unemployed” (Marx) contributes to keeping wages down to their bare minimum.

China is the most important haven of cheap labor industrial assembly with 275 million migrant workers (according to official Chinese sources). Ironically, the West’s former colonies, as well as countries which are the victims of US military aggression and war crimes (e.g. Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia) have been transformed into cheap labor havens. The conditions prevailing in the aftermath of the Vietnam war were in large part instrumental in the imposition of the neoliberal agenda starting in the early 1990s.

Cheap labor is also exported from impoverished countries (India, Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia, etc)  and used in the construction industry as well as in the services economy.

High levels of unemployment serve to maintain wages at an exceedingly low levels

Aggregate Demand

This global economic restructuring has been conducive to a dramatic increase in poverty and unemployment. While poverty is an input on the supply side favoring low levels of wages, the global cheap labor economy inevitably leads to a collapse in purchasing power, which in turn serves to increase the levels of unemployment.

Cheap labor and the compression of purchasing is the mainstay of neoliberalism. The transition from demand oriented Keynesian policies in the 1970s to the neoliberal macro-ecoomic agenda in the 1980s. The neoliberal economic policy agenda applied Worldwide sustains the global cheap labor economy. With the demise of demand oriented policies, neoliberalism emerges as the dominant economic paradigm.

Structural Adjustment in the Developed Economies

This generalized collapse in living standards which is the product of a macroeconomic agenda, is no longer limited to the so-called developing countries. Mass unemployment prevails in the United States, several EU countries including Spain, Portugal, Greece are experiencing exceedingly high levels of unemployment. Concurrently, the revenues of the middle class are being compressed, social programs are privatised, social safety nets including unemployment insurance benefits and social welfare programs are being curtailed.


The generalized collapse of purchasing power is conducive to a recession in the consumer goods industry. Commodity production is not geared towards the basic necessities of life (food, housing, social services, etc) for the majority of the World’s population. There is a dichotomy between “those who work” in the cheap labor economy and “those who consume”.

The fundamental injustice of this global economic system is that “those who work” cannot afford to purchase what they produce. In other words, neoliberalism does not promote mass consumption. Quite the opposite: the development of extreme social inequalities both within and between countries ultimately leads to recession in the production of necessary goods and services (including food, social housing, public health, education).

The lack of purchasing power of “those who produce” (not to mention those who are unemployed) leads to a collapse in aggregate demand. In turn, there is surge in the demand for “high end luxury consumption” (broadly defined)  by the upper income strata of society.

Weapons and Luxury Goods. The Two Dynamic Sectors of the Global Economy

Essentially, while global poverty contributes to underconsumption by the large majority of the World’s population, the driving force of economic growth are the upper income markets (deluxe brand names, travel and leisure, luxury cars, electronics, private schools and clinics, etc).

The global cheap labor economy triggers poverty and underconsumption of necessary goods and services.

The two dynamic sectors of the global economy are

1. Production for the upper income strata of society.

2. The production and consumption of weapons, namely the military industrial complex.

Neoliberal policy  is conducive to the development of a global cheap labor economy which triggers decline in the production of necessary consumer goods (Marx’s Department IIa).

In turn, the lack of demand for necessary goods and services triggers a vacuum in the development of social infrastructure and investments (schools, hospitals, public transportation, public health, etc) in support of the standard of living of the large majority of world population.

The global cheap labor economy alongside the restructuring of the global financial apparatus creates an unprecedented concentration of income and wealth which is accompanied by the dynamic development of the luxury goods economy (broadly defined) (Marx’s Department IIb) .

Department III in the contemporary global economy is the production of weapons, which are sold Worldwide largely to governments. This sector of production in the US is dominated by a handful of large corporations including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, British Aerospace, Boeing, et al.

While neoliberal policies require the imposition of drastic austerity measures, the latter apply solely to the civilian sectors of government spending. State funding of advanced weapons systems is not the object of budgetary constraints.

In fact, the austerity measures imposed on health, education, public infrastructure, etc, are intended to facilitate the financing of the war economy, including the military industrial complex, the regional command structure consisting of 700 US military facilities Worldwide, the intelligence and security apparatus, not to mention the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons which is the object of a one trillion dollar allocation by the US Treasury to the US Defense Department. This money is ultimately trickles down to the so-called defense contractors, which constitute a powerful political lobby.

The reproduction of this global economic system is dependent upon the growth and development of two major sectors (departments): the Military Industrial Complex and the Production of High Income and Luxury Consumption.

High income luxury consumption for the upper social strata is combined with the dynamic development of the weapons industry and the war economy. This duality is what generates exclusion and despair.

It can only be broken and dispelled through the criminalization of war, the closure of the weapons industry and the repeal of the gamut of neoliberal policy instruments which generate poverty and social inequality.

How to Reverse The Tide of War and Globalization

The people’s movement had been hijacked. The antiwar movement is defunct. The civil society organisations which have all the appearances of being “progressive” are creatures of the system. Funded by corporate charities linked to Wall Street, they form part of a politically correct “Opposition” which acts as “a spokesperson for civil society”.

But who do they represent? Many of the “partner NGOs” and lobby groups which frequently mingle with bureaucrats and politicians, have few contacts with grass-roots social movements and people’s organisations. In the meantime, they serve to deflect the articulation of “real” social movements against the New World Order.” While the neoliberal paradigm is the focus of their attention, the broader issues of war and regime change are rarely addressed.

The programs of many NGOs and people’s movements rely heavily on funding from both public as well as private foundations including the Ford, Rockefeller, McCarthy foundations, among others.

The anti-globalization movement is opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Big Oil) with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities.

The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.

The objective of the corporate elites has been to fragment the people’s movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic. War and globalization are no longer in the forefront of civil society activism. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to the US led war.

Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate “issue oriented” protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women’s rights, climate change) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement. This mosaic was already prevalent in the counter G7 summits as well as the World Social Forum.

The Development of a Broad Grassroots Network

What is required is ultimately to break the “controlled opposition” through the development of a broad based grassroots network which seeks to disable patterns of authority and decision making pertaining both to war and the neoliberal policy agenda. It is understood that US military deployments  (including nuclear weapons) are ultimately used in support of powerful economic interests.

This network would be established at all levels in society, towns and villages, work places, parishes both nationally and internationally  Trade unions, farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, student unions, veterans associations, church groups would be called upon to integrate the antiwar organizational structure. Of crucial importance, this movement should extend into the Armed Forces as a means to breaking the legitimacy of war among service men and women.

The first task would be to disable war propaganda through an effective campaign against media disinformation. The corporate media would be directly challenged, leading to boycotts of major news outlets, which are responsible for channelling disinformation into the news chain.  This endeavor would require a parallel process at the grass roots level, of sensitizing and educating fellow citizens on the nature of  the war and the global economic crisis, as well as effectively “spreading the word” through advanced networking, through alternative media outlets on the internet, etc.

The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the structures of political authority, is no easy task. It would require a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in World history. It would require breaking down political and ideological barriers within society and acting with a single voice. It would also require eventually unseating the war criminals, and indicting them for war crimes.

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at . Excerpts of the show have begun airing on Rabble Radio and appear as podcasts 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

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

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 4pm.

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


  1. Thomas Donnelly (September 2000), pg i, 51, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century’, Project for a New American Century;
  2. Elliott Abrams et al. “Statement of Principles” (June 3, 1997),;
  3. Thomas Donnelly Op cit. (p. iv)

Posted in WorldComments Off on The Globalization of War, Failures of the Antiwar Movement, “The Global War on Terrorism is Fake”

An Iran War Would Destroy the United States


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

The establishment of a military force to go abroad and overthrow governments does not appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, nor does calling for destruction of countries that do not themselves threaten America appear anywhere in Article 2, which describes the responsibilities of the President. Indeed, both Presidents George Washington and John Quincy Adams warned against the danger represented by foreign entanglements, with Adams specifically addressing what we now call democracy promotion, warning that the United States “should not go abroad to slay dragons.”

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has proven to be particularly prone to attacking other countries that have only limited capability to strike back. North Korea was the exception that proved the rule when the Chinese intervened to support its ally in 1950 to drive back and nearly destroy advancing U.S. forces. Otherwise, it has been a succession of Granada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, and Libya, none of which had the capability to hit back against the United States and the American people.

Iran just might prove to be a harder nut to crack. There has been a considerable escalation in tension between Washington and Tehran since the White House withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May. The JCPOA was intended to monitor Iran’s nuclear program to ensure that it would not be producing a nuclear weapon. Since that time, the U.S. and Israel have been threatening the Iranians and accusing them of both having a secret nuclear program and engaging in widespread regional aggression. In the latest incident, President Donald Trump tweeted in response to comments made on July 21st by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who had told a meeting of Iranian diplomats that war between America and Iran would be a misfortune for everyone, saying

“Mr. Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret. America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.”

Trump responded in anger all in capital letters,


Interventionist U.S. national security adviser John Bolton added fuel to the fire with a statement on the following day that

“President Trump told me that if Iran does anything at all to the negative, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid before.”

President Trump’s warning that he would annihilate Iran missed the point that Rouhani was offering peace and urging that both sides work to avoid war. The Administration has already announced that it will reinstate existing sanctions on Iran and will likely add some new ones as well. After November 4th, Washington will sanction any country that buys oil from Iran, markedly increasing the misery level for the Iranian people and putting pressure on its government.

Iran, while recognizing the overwhelming imbalance in the forces available to the two sides, has not taken the threats from Washington and Tel Aviv lightly. Its Quds Revolutionary Guards Special Forces chief Major Generral Qassem Soleimani has now warned Trump that

“We are near you, where you can’t even imagine … Come. We are ready … If you begin the war, we will end the war. You know that this war will destroy all that you possess.”

Iran’s Guards commanders have in the past threatened to target and destroy U.S. military bases across the Middle East, and also target Israel, within minutes of being attacked. Military targets would be defended by both Israeli and U.S. counter-missile batteries but civilian targets would be vulnerable, particularly if Hezbollah, with an estimated 100,000 rockets of various types, joins in the fighting from Lebanon.

Washington argues that its pressure on Iran is intended to force its government to end its nuclear program as well as its support for militant groups in the Middle East, where Iran, so the claim goes, is engaged in proxy wars in both Yemen and Syria. The arguments are, however, largely fabrications as Iran has no nuclear weapons program and its engagement in Syria is by invitation of the legitimate government in Damascus while aid to Yemen’s Houthi’s is very limited. And there is no Iranian threat to the United States or to legitimate American interests.

Given the size of Iran, its large population, and clear intention to resist any U.S. attack, military action against the country, which many in Washington now see as inevitable, would be by missiles and bombs from the air and sea. But it would not be a cakewalk. In the past year, Iran has deployed the effective Russian made SA-20c SAM mobile air defense units as well as the S-300 VM missile system, which together have a range of more than 100 miles that could cover the entire Persian Gulf. Radar has also been upgraded. They are the centerpieces of an air defense system that could prove formidable against attacking U.S. aircraft and incoming missiles while ballistic missiles in large numbers in the Iranian arsenal could cause major damage to U.S. bases, Israel, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.

All of which means that Americans will die in a war with Iran, possibly in substantial numbers, and the threat by Iran to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz is no fantasy. It has threatened to do so if its own oil exports are blocked after November 4th, even if there is no war. And if there were war, even if subjected to sustained attack, Iran would be able to threaten ships trying to use the Strait with its numerous batteries of anti-ship missiles hidden along the country’s rough and mountainous coastline, to include the Russian made SS-N-22 Sunburn, which is the fastest and most effective ship killing missile in anyone’s arsenal. Fired in volleys, it would be able to overwhelm the defenses of U.S. warships, to include aircraft carriers, if they get too close. With the Strait closed in either scenario, oil prices would go up dramatically, damaging the economies of all the major industrialized nations, including the United States. A major war would also add trillions to the national debt.

Iran also has other resources to strike back, including cadres ready and able to carry out terror attacks in the United States and Western Europe. American tourists in Europe will be particularly vulnerable. The reality is that the United States has no motive to go to war with Iran based on its own national interests but seems to be prepared to do so anyway under pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia. If it does do so, Iran will certainly lose, but the damage to the United States at every level might possibly be very high.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on An Iran War Would Destroy the United States

Arizona: Hillary Clinton’s Election Fraud Masterpiece

The Clinton machine used brazen voter suppression and election fraud to steal Arizona

She stole IowaNevada and Massachusetts – but Arizona is Hillary Clinton’s election fraud masterpiece.

Desperate to prevent another “Michigan upset”, Hillary found an ingenious way to guarantee victory in Arizona.

<figcaption>Vote early and often</figcaption>
Vote early and often

The key to Clinton’s strategy in Arizona was early voting. In Arizona, around 70% of voters cast their ballot by mail. Why is this important? Because

of the 297,714 voters who have already cast their ballots—174,706 were female, 59 percent of the total early Democratic vote. The breakdown of early Democratic voters by gender and age is shown below. The early vote by women is dominated by older age groups. Voters under 30 account for only 7 percent of Democratic early voters compared to 41 percent for the over 65 crowd. The large number of women, particularly older women, who have already cast Democratic ballots, is a good sign for Hillary Clinton.

In other words, the elderly (see: Clinton supporters) make up the vast majority of early voters in Arizona.

Hillary’s plan to steal Arizona was remarkably simple: Suppress voting on election day, and rely on her large lead with early voters to secure a win.

It was a perfectly executed heist. Here’s how she did it:

  1. Drastically reduce the number of polling locations to make voting nearly impossible

For starters, polling places were almost non-existent:

As reported by The Arizona Republic’s Mary Jo Pitzl, Maricopa County reduced the number of polling places from more than the 200 available for the 2012 presidential election to…60.

Sixty? Are you kidding me.

The fact that a voter could go to any polling place didn’t matter much when the lines were so long that many people were forced to abandon the line.

I’ve heard from a number of those who stood outside and waited, and waited, and waited.

One of them, Todd Johnson wrote in part, “I was in one of those long lines — from 4 p.m. to just about 6:40.  As we stood, the line just got longer…I saw motivated voters, some with children, trying to fulfill their civic duties. The poll workers were exhausted. The line had been there since 5 in the a.m. and the line only grew in length.  My estimate is that if someone were to join before the 7 p.m. cutoff they were looking at a four-hour wait.  Call these county officials out!”


Officials apparently believed that so many of us utilize the mail-in early-voting ballots that there is less demand for in-person voting locations.


Yeah, why would at least 30% of eligible voters feel the need to vote? What is this, some sort of “democracy”?

So far, so good.

2. Declare Hillary the winner while people are still standing in line and less than 1% of the vote is counted

This is cute:

Yes, the media called the election for Clinton with less than 1% of the vote counted and thousands of people still waiting in line to cast their ballot. Even four hours after polling stations closed, hundreds of people were still waiting in line:

More than four hours after polling places closed, hundred of people were still in line to vote at the Salvation Army office on Third Avenue in downtown Phoenix.

Aracely Calderon, 56, was the last person to get in line in time to vote at the site.

She made it just seconds before a volunteer began enforcing the site’s closing shortly after 7 p.m.

When Calderon arrived, the line spanned more than 700 people and almost 4 blocks.



VOTING UPDATE: Hundreds still in line as polls close 

And it gets worse.

3. Thousands of voters say their party affiliation was altered or undocumented, preventing them from voting

Arizona has closed primaries, which means that if you aren’t registered as a Democrat, you can’t vote. As a local news report put it:

Arizona law already effectively disenfranchises 36 percent of registered voters.

These would be voters who are unaffiliated with any political party. Independent. The only way those individuals can vote in a primary is to re-register with a political party. And they have to do so 29 days before the election.

It’s ridiculous to think that 36 percent of Arizona voters — can’t vote.

But many independents did change their party affiliation, and guess what happened on election day?

Leaders from the Arizona branch of the Democratic Party have confirmed that its lawyers are officially making an inquiry after multiple Democratic voters showed up to the polls only to find that they were listed as independents, Republicans, or had no party affiliation at all.

Many voters wound up having to wait in line under the hot Arizona sun only to find that they were ineligible to vote for the candidates of their choice. To add insult to injury, the polling locations have been so poorly planned that many voters had to wait in line up to four hours before finding out that their information had been improperly filed.

And just to be clear: We’re not talking about a few isolated incidents. Every corner of the Internet is full of stories from people who tried to vote and were turned away:

And there’s plenty of video evidence as well:

I posted earlier about my being denied my legal right to vote this morning. I went to the Pima County Recorders office and video taped the whole thing. Here’s what they are doing. They are copying voter registration cards changing the date and the party preference. They can’t change the original because that goes out to the party. At first she tried to say I sent in a second voter registration card (of course I didn’t not) then she changes her story to its a computer glitch then states it’s an error.

This “error” also benefits Clinton tremendously:

People don’t fully understand just how easy it is to write a database script to modify large sets of data in a matter of seconds or less.

Search for independent voters that have recently changed to dem, randomly select a % of them to be changed to lower the delegate loss and still seem on the books so they could tout it as a resounding victory.

The most-recent official roster has 37 percent (or 1.219 million) of registered Arizona voters declared as independents; 34 percent (or 1.115 million) as Republicans; and 28 percent (or 932,722) as Democrats.

THERE ARE MORE INDEPENDENTS THAN DEMOCRATS. That scared the sh*t out of the Clinton campaign, given Sanders has trounced her with independents in every state.

We’re not done yet.

4. A purely coincidental but extremely convenient bomb threat prevented voters from seeking help

As you might expect, plenty of disenfranchised Arizona voters sought assistance from local authorities who could help them clear up problems with their voter registration. Unfortunately, bomb threats prevented many voters from getting the help they needed:

Pima County says the staff at the Recorder’s Office was allowed back into the Public Service Center, after it was evacuated at around 5:30 p.m.

According to officials, Tucson Police Department found an item in the garage of the building, located at 240 N. Stone Ave. Due to bomb threat reports received earlier in the day, TPD decided to send its bomb squad to the scene.

TPD said the suspicious item was later found to not be a threat. The staff was allowed back in the building at around 6:35 p.m.

Officials say the area is still closed off.

Pima County said an additional 15 staff members have been added to help the voter help line.

Oh, good. Right in time for the polling stations to close at 7:00 pm.

The Clinton machine really outdid itself this time. Bravo, Hillary.

Posted in USAComments Off on Arizona: Hillary Clinton’s Election Fraud Masterpiece

Naziyahu’s Incitement on Nation-state Law

Image result for Netanyahu IN NAZI UNIFORM CARTOON


Netanyahu’s Incitement on Nation-state Law Heralds Approach of Israel’s Day of Reckoning

Controversial laws force many Israelis to look at their state in the mirror and to discover they can hardly recognize it any more

On Sunday, Benjamin Netanyahu was at his worst. Intentionally and maliciously, he transformed the debate over the new nation-state law into a test of loyalty. If you’re with the Jews, you’re with me, the prime…

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Naziyahu’s Incitement on Nation-state Law

Nazi regime Expelling Two Italian Artists

Israel Expelling Two Italian Artists Who Painted Mural of Ahed Tamimi on Separation Wall

The two were released and ordered to leave the country within 72 hours

A mural painted on Israel's separation barrier in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on July 29, 2018.
A mural painted on Israel’s separation barrier in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on July 29, 2018.AFP.

Israel is expelling two Italian graffiti artists who were painting a mural of Ahed Tamimi, a Palestinian teenager released Sunday from Israeli prison, on the separation barrier in the West Bank city of Bethlehem.

The two, arrested Saturday, were questioned and then transferred to the Interior Ministry, which decided to revoke their tourist visas and to order them to leave the country within 72 hours, the Border Police said.

A Palestinian man who was arrested with the two was also released.

An artist paints a mural depicting Palestinian teen Ahed Tamimi, Bethlehem, West Bank July 25, 2018.
An artist paints a mural depicting Palestinian teen Ahed Tamimi, Bethlehem, West Bank July 25, 2018.\ MUSSA ISSA QAWASMA/ REUTERS
Artists painting a mural depicting Palestinian teen Ahed Tamimi.
Artists painting a mural depicting Palestinian teen Ahed Tamimi. \ MUSSA ISSA QAWASMA/ REUTERS

Tamimi, 17, from Nabi Saleh in the West Bank, turned into a protest icon after she was filmed slapping an Israeli soldier. She was detained for three months before being sentenced in March to eight months in jail after reaching a plea deal.

“The resistance will continue until the end of the occupation,” Tamimi said upon her release. After briefly addressing reporters, Tamimi met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at his office in Ramallah.

At a press conference Nabi Saleh, Tamimi, who is under probation, refrained from saying whether she would slap the Israeli soldier again, but was vocal about issues ranging from the demolition of a Bedouin village to the Gaza protests to Israel’s nation-state law.

“Ahed Tamimi is a role model and an example of the popular Palestinian struggle for liberty and independence,” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said during a reception for Tamimi.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan congratulated Tamimi on her release in a phone call, lauding “her bravery and determination to fight.”

Tamimi’s father, Bassem Tamimi, said that the family was aware that she has become a symbol for the Palestinian people, including the youth, and she intends to visit many Palestinian cities, including Bethlehem, in the days after her release.

“Tamimi’s long detention stemmed from political motives than from legal reasons,” Tamimi’s lawyer Gaby Lasky said on Thursday, adding “legal proceedings are not intended to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and instead of sending minors to prison for resisting the occupation, the time has come for a courageous leadership to free us all from the chains of the occupation.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi regime Expelling Two Italian Artists

Actor from ‘The Americans’ and ‘House of Cards’

Actor from ‘The Americans’ and ‘House of Cards’ Makes Great Film About Breakaway Republics of Ukraine, their Socialism – Shown on Fox in US, Sky in UK

Political winds might well be changing if they are allowing honest portrayals of what is happening in Ukraine onto mainstream TV.

The film, now available on YouTube, is very well made with excellent production values. It consists of a series of interviews with residents of Donbas, from ordinary people, to an American volunteer soldier from Houston (Russell ‘Texas’ Bentley), to the Prime Minister (Zakharchenko). It includes an interesting segment with a parish priest, who talks about the spiritual aspect of the war.

Democrat and left-leaning audiences will be surprised to learn of the strong socialist convictions of the Donetsk leadership. They are very serious about ‘redistributing the wealth’ and proud of their very affordable health-care. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would feel very much at home with them.

This is the 30 minute version which aired on Fox in the US.

This is the 70 minute version of the same film

The narrator is Peter von Berg, an American actor of Russian descent. Von Berg played a key role in the blockbuster series ‘The Americans’, ‘Vasily Nikolaevich‘, the KGB chief at the Russian embassy in Washington, who was seduced and then framed by embassy employee Nina Krilova, whom the FBI had blackmailed. Krilova later had an affair with one of the main characters, FBI agent Stan Beeman.

In House of Cards, he played the Russian Foreign Minister, Ivan Bugayev. Von Berg also had frequent appearances on the 1990s TV show ‘Law and Order’.

Von Berg is able to talk to the interview subjects in Russian. At one point in the film he tours the parts of Donetsk city which have been destroyed by long-range artillery. The devastation is appalling.

In addition to airing last weekend in the UK and US, the film was shown in Russia, where it was reviewed by prominent Russian film critic Alexander Shpagin. The following text is taken from his review:

The film “New York to Donetsk and back” tells of the drama of a people who found themselves in a certain condition, which for them was neither habitual nor expected  – that of constant resistance, a stay in a besieged fortress where everyday life is essentially taking a Stand, and therefore loses those qualities and properties habitual to us  – those we have already got used to behind our mundane capitalist existence with it’s settled rhythm of life.

Here the rhythm is different. It is the rhythm of an eternal alarm, a constant tension. It reminds of a cardiogram of a person struggling with illness.

They used to live in Donbass in the same way that the rest of us live. But they tried to disobey the new Ukrainian “powers” born of the coup in Kiev who have been consistently pushing the country to disorder.

Just refused to obey, nothing more. Initially nobody planned to resist (with arms), nor even thought of any offensive action. It was Kiev’s new “government” which started an offensive against Donbass.  Now Donbass has entered into a strange, somewhat surrealistic space – a semi-war and a semi-peace, a permanent existential self-defense.

Does such a space create a special consciousness amongst the people who live there? Certainly. Any “romantic” superficial optimism and pathos gives way to a deep and dramatic comprehension of a complex world, which barely submits itself to one’s aspirations.

But then other states of mind and spirit also emerge. Before us we see the world, where “Man to Man” are brothers “for all that”. Where all are united by a common purpose and by a “Blitz” or “Leningrad blockade” spirit. Where all “hear” each other, as in “Avatar’s” Pandora. Where there is a special understanding between you and ‘“thy neighbour” – an understanding on a thinner, more sensory level than between you and I here, where we have it all “easy”.

The film is also defined by it’s lyrical-dramatic nature, it’s host encounters the state and the state of mind, as well as a state of perception, which is absolutely new to him. We see all the events through the eyes of a stranger, even if not a complete one – Peter von Berg, an American actor of Russian ancestry. He is absolutely key to this film, because he is on the “outside” of these events, like us. Without him they wouldn’t appear on screen as convex and capacious. He is our eyes, our way of seeing. From our quiet, “normal” reality he enters a world existing in that thin place between life and death, albeit a morally firm one. Perhaps, much more morally firm and steadfast in spirit than the one we live in.

In the film there are two spiritual centres, two spiritual cores – external and internal. The external is defined by the American actor and the internal is the Head of the Donetsk People’s Republic – Alexander Zakharchenko. An image of his consciousness – an absolutely steady condition of spirit coupled with the clear and distinct nature of his thinking. Gradually our American host develops a similar mindset. That’s how another deep layer of the film is created.

We understand that Donbass gives us a lesson in moral firmness, perhaps even sets a vector toward the way to go for the rest of us. Because we also – purely ontologically – live in that “instant between the past and the future” that, as a famous Russian song puts it, is exactly what Life is. Only we don’t often realise it.

Thanks to Donetsk we are reminded of that. We are getting a reminder of the immemorial ontology of Life.

There is only one Life, and death too. But in life there is a sense, a purpose. It is also called a Stand, being a spiritual stoicism before the world. More precisely, “the purpose” has to be that. Then the “feeling” of Life becomes sharp, more rigid, more dramatic, and that way – is truer to life.

One needs to take a Stand against Evil. Not to submit to Evil.

And so, after we see the film, we go on living our everyday lives. But Donetsk stays with us.The film is a remarkable lesson, a matrix of how simple publicistic journalism can develop into an in-depth social and philosophical study. Or perhaps turns into a religious parable.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Actor from ‘The Americans’ and ‘House of Cards’

Shoah’s pages