Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The Evolving Populist Political Rebellion in the Arab World
Dave Lefcourt
OpEd News
January 30, 2011
What we are witnessing in the Arab world that began with the self immolation of a fruit seller in Tunisia, the subsequent rebellion there which saw the departure of the dictator Ben Ali and his 23 year rule has inspired a populist political rebellion well beyond Tunisia that has connected with and touched a nerve in many (most?)Arab people.
What started in Tunisia (the demand that Ben Ali step down over his corruption, oppression, high food prices, widespread unemployment and poverty and the humiliation by government agents that caused the desperate act of self immolation) has spread to Egypt with mass demonstrations that began Tuesday, continuing despite an official crackdown by the Mubarak regime. Through internet postings (Twitter and Facebook) larger demonstrations are planned for today in Cairo and other Egyptian cities. Former Chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei (and an Egyptian himself) has joined in the call for Mubarak to step down.
Yesterday saw thousands marching in Sanaa, the capitol of Yemen calling for President Ali Abdullah Saleh, in power for 32 years to step down.
All these countries are different unto themselves, but the people in all of them share similar circumstances of living under dictatorial rule with repression and oppression that brings personal humiliation, lack of respect and dignity toward the individual at the hands of their government, extreme poverty, unemployment, rising prices for necessities along with widespread official corruption.
Significantly, none of these indigenous rebellions have anything to do with fundamentalist, Islamic Jihadist terrorism.
The Egyptian government accuses the “Muslim Brotherhood” of being behind the people’s insurrection, but the “Brotherhood” is just a convenient scapegoat, an excuse for the government to attempt to intimidate and crack down on the demonstrator’s call for Mubarak to step down.
The rebellions have all been spontaneous and internet connected, not led by activist types and their groups who are the “usual” opponents of the government. They are amorphous swellings of “ordinary” people inspired to join in and take part in these movements to overthrow their oppressors.
As to the U.S., our sordid history in conducting coups and assassinations of legitimately elected governments and leaders (Iran, Chile, South Viet Nam, Nicaragua et al) and then actively supporting the subsequent repressive regimes we conspired to bring to power, our one sided support of the Israelis occupation of the Palestinians and now our endless war on terror, pre-emptive war and occupation of Muslim countries all under the guise of bringing freedom and democracy at the point of a gun, puts us on the wrong side of history particularly in the current turmoil roiling the Arab world, all in our client states.
Ironically, The U.S. support of these tyrants running these governments has not been an issue voiced by the Arab people in their indigenous rebellions.
Hopefully this will give pause to our own governments policy of hegemony that has (up to now) equated all Arab rebellion as radical, Islamist Jihadist terrorism inspired by Osama bin laden and those of his ilk.
OpEd News
January 30, 2011
What we are witnessing in the Arab world that began with the self immolation of a fruit seller in Tunisia, the subsequent rebellion there which saw the departure of the dictator Ben Ali and his 23 year rule has inspired a populist political rebellion well beyond Tunisia that has connected with and touched a nerve in many (most?)Arab people.
What started in Tunisia (the demand that Ben Ali step down over his corruption, oppression, high food prices, widespread unemployment and poverty and the humiliation by government agents that caused the desperate act of self immolation) has spread to Egypt with mass demonstrations that began Tuesday, continuing despite an official crackdown by the Mubarak regime. Through internet postings (Twitter and Facebook) larger demonstrations are planned for today in Cairo and other Egyptian cities. Former Chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei (and an Egyptian himself) has joined in the call for Mubarak to step down.
Yesterday saw thousands marching in Sanaa, the capitol of Yemen calling for President Ali Abdullah Saleh, in power for 32 years to step down.
All these countries are different unto themselves, but the people in all of them share similar circumstances of living under dictatorial rule with repression and oppression that brings personal humiliation, lack of respect and dignity toward the individual at the hands of their government, extreme poverty, unemployment, rising prices for necessities along with widespread official corruption.
Significantly, none of these indigenous rebellions have anything to do with fundamentalist, Islamic Jihadist terrorism.
The Egyptian government accuses the “Muslim Brotherhood” of being behind the people’s insurrection, but the “Brotherhood” is just a convenient scapegoat, an excuse for the government to attempt to intimidate and crack down on the demonstrator’s call for Mubarak to step down.
The rebellions have all been spontaneous and internet connected, not led by activist types and their groups who are the “usual” opponents of the government. They are amorphous swellings of “ordinary” people inspired to join in and take part in these movements to overthrow their oppressors.
As to the U.S., our sordid history in conducting coups and assassinations of legitimately elected governments and leaders (Iran, Chile, South Viet Nam, Nicaragua et al) and then actively supporting the subsequent repressive regimes we conspired to bring to power, our one sided support of the Israelis occupation of the Palestinians and now our endless war on terror, pre-emptive war and occupation of Muslim countries all under the guise of bringing freedom and democracy at the point of a gun, puts us on the wrong side of history particularly in the current turmoil roiling the Arab world, all in our client states.
Ironically, The U.S. support of these tyrants running these governments has not been an issue voiced by the Arab people in their indigenous rebellions.
Hopefully this will give pause to our own governments policy of hegemony that has (up to now) equated all Arab rebellion as radical, Islamist Jihadist terrorism inspired by Osama bin laden and those of his ilk.
Omar Suleiman: CIA’s Point Man in Egypt
Jane Mayer
The New Yorker
January 30, 2011
One of the “new” names being mentioned as a possible alternative to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Omar Suleiman, is actually not so new to anyone who has followed the American policy of renditions for terror suspects. After dissolving his cabinet yesterday, Mubarak appointed Suleiman vice-president, and according to many commentators he is poised to be a potential successor, and an alternative to Mubarak’s son and intended heir until now, Gamal Mubarak. Suleiman is a well-known quantity in Washington. Suave, sophisticated, and fluent in English, he has served for years as the main conduit between the United States and Mubarak. While he has a reputation for loyalty and effectiveness, he also carries some controversial baggage from the standpoint of those looking for a clean slate on human rights. As I described in my book “The Dark Side,” since 1993 Suleiman has headed the feared Egyptian general intelligence service. In that capacity, he was the C.I.A.’s point man in Egypt for renditions—the covert program in which the C.I.A. snatched terror suspects from around the world and returned them to Egypt and elsewhere for interrogation, often under brutal circumstances.
The New Yorker
January 30, 2011
One of the “new” names being mentioned as a possible alternative to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Omar Suleiman, is actually not so new to anyone who has followed the American policy of renditions for terror suspects. After dissolving his cabinet yesterday, Mubarak appointed Suleiman vice-president, and according to many commentators he is poised to be a potential successor, and an alternative to Mubarak’s son and intended heir until now, Gamal Mubarak. Suleiman is a well-known quantity in Washington. Suave, sophisticated, and fluent in English, he has served for years as the main conduit between the United States and Mubarak. While he has a reputation for loyalty and effectiveness, he also carries some controversial baggage from the standpoint of those looking for a clean slate on human rights. As I described in my book “The Dark Side,” since 1993 Suleiman has headed the feared Egyptian general intelligence service. In that capacity, he was the C.I.A.’s point man in Egypt for renditions—the covert program in which the C.I.A. snatched terror suspects from around the world and returned them to Egypt and elsewhere for interrogation, often under brutal circumstances.
Webster Tarpley: CIA fuels mob rule in Arab world to change power
The U.S. government had been planning to topple the Egyptian President for the past three years - that's according to diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks. The files show Washington had been secretly backing leading figures behind the uprising. Reportedly some fifty people have died and hundreds more injured in nationwide demonstrations since Tuesday. Protesters have returned to Cairo's central square this morning reiterating calls for President Hosni Mubarak to step down. Earlier the president dismissed his government, but refused to quit. Unrest in Egypt comes weeks after a month of chaos in Tunisia, which saw 80 deaths and the president being toppled before fleeing into exile. Investigative journalist, Webster Tarpley, told RT, Washington wants to put new leaders in power in the Arab world to follow the U.S. agenda.
George Soros A new economic reality
Who is George Soros
George Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1930. His father was taken prisoner during World War I and eventually fled from captivity in Russia to reunite with his family in Budapest. Soros was thirteen years old when Hitler's Wehrmacht seized Hungary and began deporting the country's Jews to extermination camps. In 1946, as the Soviet Union was taking control of the country, Soros attended a conference in the West and defected. He emigrated in 1947 to England, supported himself by working as a railroad porter and a restaurant waiter, graduated in 1952 from the London School of Economics, and obtained an entry-level position with an investment bank.
In 1956, Soros immigrated to the United States, working as a trader and analyst until 1963. During that time, he developed his own theory of markets called 'reflexivity', which he has laid out in his recent books THE ALCHEMY OF FINANCE and THE CREDIT CRISIS OF 2008 AND WHAT IT MEANS. In 1967 he helped establish an offshore investment fund; and in 1973 he set up a private investment firm that eventually evolved into the Quantum Fund, one of the first hedge funds, through which he accumulated a vast fortune.
Soros is a self-described student of Karl Popper, and strong opponent of totalitarianism. He has devoted much time to philanthropy — among other projects, founding the Open Society Institute in 1993 — and, after 2001, to US domestic politics, donating millions of dollars to Democratic candidates and liberal 527 organizations and earning political enmity in the process. Soros has published numerous books, including THE CREDIT CRISIS OF 2008 AND WHAT IT MEANS; THE AGE OF FALLIBILITY: CONSEQUENCES OF THE WAR ON TERROR (Public Affairs, 2006); THE BUBBLE OF AMERICAN SUPREMACY (2005); GEORGE SOROS ON GLOBALIZATION (2002); OPEN SOCIETY: REFORMING GLOBAL CAPITALISM (2000); THE CRISIS OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM: OPEN SOCIETY ENDANGERED (1998); SOROS ON SOROS: STAYING AHEAD OF THE CURVE (1995); UNDERWRITING DEMOCRACY (1991); OPENING THE SOVIET SYSTEM (1990); and THE ALCHEMY OF FINANCE (1987). His essays on politics,
Friday, January 28, 2011
Moscow Airport Bombing: Prime Suspects are Chechen Networks Backed by NATO Intelligence Circles
Webster G. Tarpley
TARPLEY.net
Webster G. TarpleyJanuary 25, 2011
Recent causes of US-UK animus towards Russia include the Khodorkhovsky verdict (the US position being that a finance oligarch that rich should of course be above the law), the inability of NATO to foment a gas crisis this winter, President Medvedev’s endorsement of a Palestinian state (re-affirming the 1988 decision by the USSR), and Afghan President Karzai’s visit to Moscow, where he created the premises for a long-term post-NATO strategic relationship with Russia including the Salang tunnel, hydroelectric plants, and a Turkmenistan-India gas pipeline the US has been seeking to block. Also worth noting is that, in a recent Wikileaks document dump, the impotent gaggle of marginal Russia opposition figuires assembled by Obama’s lightweight NSC Russia director Michael McFaul demonstrated a special desire to oust Chechen President Razman Kadyrov, a Putin ally. Are their alleged human rights concerns only a cover story for their fear that Kadyrov is actually suppressing NATO-backed terrorism in Chechenia?
Tunisian Wikileaks Putsch: CIA Touts Mediterranean Tsunami of Coups; Libya, Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Jordan, Italy All Targeted; US-UK Want New Puppets to Play Against Iran, China, Russia; Obama Retainers Cass Sunstein, Samantha Power, Robert Malley, International Crisis Group Implicated in Destabilizations
Webster G. Tarpley
TARPLEY.net
January 16, 2011
Washington DC, January 16, 2011 – The US intelligence community is now in a manic fit of gloating over this weekend’s successful overthrow of the Tunisian government of President Ben Ali. The State Department and the CIA, through media organs loyal to them, are mercilessly hyping the Tunisian putsch of the last few days as the prototype of a new second generation of color revolutions, postmodern coups, and US-inspired people power destabilizations. At Foggy Bottom and Langley, feverish plans are being made for a veritable Mediterranean tsunami designed to topple most existing governments in the Arab world, and well beyond. The imperialist planners now imagine that they can expect to overthrow or weaken the governments of Libya, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Algeria, Yemen, and perhaps others, while the CIA’s ongoing efforts to remove Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi (because of his friendship with Putin and support for the Southstream pipeline) make this not just an Arab, but rather a pan-Mediterranean, orgy of destabilization.
The Tunisian tumults are being described in the US press as the “Jasmine revolution,” but it is far more accurate to regard them as a variation on the classic hunger revolution. The Tunisian ferment was not primarily a matter of the middle class desire to speak out, vote, and blog. It started from the Wall Street depredations which are ravaging the entire planet: outrageously high prices for food and fuel caused by derivatives speculation, high levels of unemployment and underemployment, and general economic despair. The detonator was the tragic suicide of a vegetable vendor in Sidi Bouzid who was being harassed by the police. As Ben Ali fought to stay in power, he recognized what was causing the unrest by his gesture of lowering food prices. The Jordanian government for its part has lowered food prices there by about 5%.
In this predicament, the CIA’s cyberspace predator drone Julian Assange and Wikileaks are providing an indispensable service to the imperialist cause. In Iceland in the autumn of 2009, Assange was deployed by his financier backers to hijack and disrupt a movement for national economic survival through debt moratorium, the rejection of interference by the International Monetary Fund, and re-launching the productive economy through an ambitious program of national infrastructure and the export of high technology capital goods, in particular in the field of geothermal energy. Assange was able to convince many in Iceland that these causes were not nearly radical enough, and that they needed to devote their energies instead to publishing a series of carefully pre-selected US government and other documents, all of which somehow targeted governments and political figures which London and Washington had some interest in embarrassing and weakening. In other words, Assange was able to dupe honest activists into going to work for the imperialist financiers. Assange has no program except “transparency,” which is a constant refrain of the US UK human rights mafia as it attempts to topple targeted governments across the developing sector in particular.
Ben Ali had been in power for 23 years. In Egypt, President Mubarak has been in power for almost 30 years. The Assad clan in Syria have also been around for about three decades. In Libya, Colonel Gaddafi has been in power for almost 40 years. Hafez Assad was able to engineer a monarchical succession to his son when he died 10 years ago, and Mubarak and Gaddafi are trying to do the same thing today. Since the US does not want these dynasties, The obvious CIA tactic is to deploy assets like Twitter, Google, Facebook, Wikileaks, etc., to turn key members of the youth bulge into swarming mobs to bring down the gerontocratic regimes.
Why is official Washington so obsessed with the idea of overthrowing these governments? The answer has everything to do with Iran, China, and Russia. As regards Iran, the State Department policy is notoriously the attempt to assemble a united front of the entrenched Arab and Sunni regimes to be played against Shiite Iran and its various allies across the region. This had not been going well, as shown by the inability of the US to install its preferred puppet Allawi in Iraq, where the pro-Iranian Maliki seems likely to hold onto power for the foreseeable future. The US desperately wants a new generation of unstable “democratic” demagogues more willing to lead their countries against Iran than the current immobile regimes have proved to be. There is also the question of Chinese economic penetration. We can be confident that any new leaders installed by the US will include in their program a rupture of economic relations with China, including especially a cutoff of oil and raw material shipments, along the lines of what Twitter revolution honcho Mir-Hossein Mousavi was reliably reported to be preparing for Iran if he had seized power there in the summer of 2009 at the head of his “Death to Russia, death to China” rent-a-mob. In addition, US hostility against Russia is undiminished, despite the cosmetic effects of the recent ratification of START II. If for example a color revolution were to come to Syria, we could be sure that the Russian naval presence at the port Tartus, which so disturbs NATO planners, would be speedily terminated. If the new regimes demonstrate hostility against Iran, China, and Russia, we would soon find that internal human rights concerns would quickly disappear from the US agenda.
Given the critical role of Assange and Wikileaks in the current phase, White House regulations czar Cass Sunstein must also be counted among the top putschists. We should recall that on February 24, 2007 Sunstein contributed an article entitled “A Brave New Wikiworld” to the Washington Post, in which he crowed that “Wikileaks.org, founded by dissidents in China and other nations, plans to post secret government documents and to protect them from censorship with coded software.” This was in fact the big publicity breakthrough for Assange and the debut of Wikileaks in the US mainstream press — all thanks to current White House official Sunstein. May we not assume that Sunstein represents the White House contact man and controller for the Wikileaks operation?
Czar Cass Sunstein is now married to Samantha Power, who currently works in the White House National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director (boss) of the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights – the precise bureaucratic home of destabilization operations like the one in Tunisia. Power, like Malley, is a veteran of the US intelligence community’s “human rights” division, which is a past master of using legitimate beefs about repression to to replace old US clients with new puppets in a never-ending process of restless subversion. Both Malley and Power were forced to tender pro forma resignations during the Obama presidential campaign of 2008 – Malley for talking to Hamas, and Power for an obscene tirade against Hillary Clinton, who is now her bureaucratic rival.
Accordingly, Arab governments must immediately expel all officials of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and their subset of lending institutions. Arab countries which are currently under the yoke of IMF conditionalities (notably Egypt and Jordan among the Arabs, and Pakistan among the Moslem states) must unilaterally and immediately throw them off and reassert their national sovereignty. Every Arab state should unilaterally and immediately declare a debt moratorium in the form of an open-ended freeze on all payments of interest and principal of international financial debt in the Argentine manner, starting with sums allegedly owed to the IMF-World Bank. The assets of foreign multinational monopolistic firms, especially oil companies, should be seized as the situation requires. Basic food staples and fuels should be subjected to price controls, with draconian penalties for speculation, including by way of derivatives. Dirigist measures such as protective tariffs and food price subsidies can be quickly introduced. Food production needs to be promoted by production and import bounties, as well as by international barter deals. National grain stockpiles must be quickly constituted. Capital controls and exchange controls are likely to be needed to prevent speculative attacks on national currencies by foreign hedge funds acting with the ulterior political motives of overthrowing national governments. Most important, central banks must be nationalized and reconverted to a policy of 0% credit for domestic infrastructure, agriculture, housing, and physical commodity production, with special measures to enhance exports. Once these reforms have been implemented, it may be time to consider the economic integration of the Arab world as an economic development community in which the foreign exchange earnings of the oil-producing states can be put to work on the basis of mutual advantage for infrastructure and hard commodity capital investment across the entire Arab world.
The alternative is an endless series of destabilizations masterminded by foreigners, and, quite possibly, terminal chaos.
TARPLEY.net
January 16, 2011
Washington DC, January 16, 2011 – The US intelligence community is now in a manic fit of gloating over this weekend’s successful overthrow of the Tunisian government of President Ben Ali. The State Department and the CIA, through media organs loyal to them, are mercilessly hyping the Tunisian putsch of the last few days as the prototype of a new second generation of color revolutions, postmodern coups, and US-inspired people power destabilizations. At Foggy Bottom and Langley, feverish plans are being made for a veritable Mediterranean tsunami designed to topple most existing governments in the Arab world, and well beyond. The imperialist planners now imagine that they can expect to overthrow or weaken the governments of Libya, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Algeria, Yemen, and perhaps others, while the CIA’s ongoing efforts to remove Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi (because of his friendship with Putin and support for the Southstream pipeline) make this not just an Arab, but rather a pan-Mediterranean, orgy of destabilization.
Hunger revolution, not Jasmine revolution
Washington’s imperialist planners now believe that they have successfully refurbished their existing model of CIA color revolution or postmodern coup. This method of liquidating governments had been losing some of its prestige after the failure of the attempted plutocratic Cedars revolution in Lebanon, the rollback of the hated IMF-NATO Orange revolution in Ukraine, the ignominious collapse of June 2009 Twitter revolution in Iran, and the widespread discrediting of the US-backed Roses revolution in Georgia because of the warmongering and oppressive activities of fascist madman Saakashvili. The imperialist consensus is now that the Tunisian events prefigure a new version of people power coup specifically adapted to today’s reality, specifically that of a world economic depression, breakdown crisis, and disintegration of the globalized casino economy.
The Tunisian tumults are being described in the US press as the “Jasmine revolution,” but it is far more accurate to regard them as a variation on the classic hunger revolution. The Tunisian ferment was not primarily a matter of the middle class desire to speak out, vote, and blog. It started from the Wall Street depredations which are ravaging the entire planet: outrageously high prices for food and fuel caused by derivatives speculation, high levels of unemployment and underemployment, and general economic despair. The detonator was the tragic suicide of a vegetable vendor in Sidi Bouzid who was being harassed by the police. As Ben Ali fought to stay in power, he recognized what was causing the unrest by his gesture of lowering food prices. The Jordanian government for its part has lowered food prices there by about 5%.
Assange and Wikileaks, Key CIA Tools to Dupe Youth Bulge
The economic nature of the current unrest poses a real problem for the Washington imperialists, since the State Department line tends to define human rights exclusively in political and religious terms, and never as a matter of economic or social rights. Price controls, wages, jobless benefits, welfare payments, health care, housing, trade union rights, banking regulation, protective tariffs, and other tools of national economic self-defense have no place whatsoever in the Washington consensus mantra. Under these circumstances, what can be done to dupe the youth bulge of people under 30 who now represents the central demographic reality of most of the Arab world?
In this predicament, the CIA’s cyberspace predator drone Julian Assange and Wikileaks are providing an indispensable service to the imperialist cause. In Iceland in the autumn of 2009, Assange was deployed by his financier backers to hijack and disrupt a movement for national economic survival through debt moratorium, the rejection of interference by the International Monetary Fund, and re-launching the productive economy through an ambitious program of national infrastructure and the export of high technology capital goods, in particular in the field of geothermal energy. Assange was able to convince many in Iceland that these causes were not nearly radical enough, and that they needed to devote their energies instead to publishing a series of carefully pre-selected US government and other documents, all of which somehow targeted governments and political figures which London and Washington had some interest in embarrassing and weakening. In other words, Assange was able to dupe honest activists into going to work for the imperialist financiers. Assange has no program except “transparency,” which is a constant refrain of the US UK human rights mafia as it attempts to topple targeted governments across the developing sector in particular.
“Yes we can” or “Food prices are too damn high!”
Tunisia is perhaps the first case in which Assange and Wikileaks can make a credible claim to have detonated the coup. Most press accounts agree that certain State Department cables which were part of the recent Wikileaks document dumps and which focused on the sybaritic excess and lavish lifestyle of the Ben Ali clan played a key role in getting the Tunisian petit bourgeoisie into the streets. Thanks in part to Assange, Western television networks were thus able to show pictures of the Tunisian crowds holding up signs saying “Yes we can” rather than a more realistic and populist “Food prices are too damn high!”
Ben Ali had been in power for 23 years. In Egypt, President Mubarak has been in power for almost 30 years. The Assad clan in Syria have also been around for about three decades. In Libya, Colonel Gaddafi has been in power for almost 40 years. Hafez Assad was able to engineer a monarchical succession to his son when he died 10 years ago, and Mubarak and Gaddafi are trying to do the same thing today. Since the US does not want these dynasties, The obvious CIA tactic is to deploy assets like Twitter, Google, Facebook, Wikileaks, etc., to turn key members of the youth bulge into swarming mobs to bring down the gerontocratic regimes.
CIA Wants Aggressive New Puppets to Play Against Iran, China, Russia
All of these countries do of course require serious political as well as economic reform, but what the CIA is doing with the current crop of destabilizations has nothing to do with any positive changes in the countries involved. Those who doubt this should remember the horrendous economic and political record of the puppets installed in the wake of recent color revolutions – people like the IMF-NATO kleptocrat agents Yushchenko and Timoshenko in Ukraine, the mentally unstable warmongering dictator Saakashvili in Georgia, and so forth. Political forces that are foolish enough to accept the State Department’s idea of hope and change will soon find themselves under the yoke of new oppressors of this type. The danger is very great in Tunisia, since the forces which ousted Ben Ali have no visible leader and no visible mass political organization which could help them fight off foreign interference in the way that Hezbollah was able to do in checkmating the Lebanese Cedars putsch. In Tunis, the field is wide open for the CIA to install a candidate of its own choosing, preferably under the cover of “elections.” Twenty-three years of Ben Ali have unfortunately left Tunisia in a more atomized condition.
Why is official Washington so obsessed with the idea of overthrowing these governments? The answer has everything to do with Iran, China, and Russia. As regards Iran, the State Department policy is notoriously the attempt to assemble a united front of the entrenched Arab and Sunni regimes to be played against Shiite Iran and its various allies across the region. This had not been going well, as shown by the inability of the US to install its preferred puppet Allawi in Iraq, where the pro-Iranian Maliki seems likely to hold onto power for the foreseeable future. The US desperately wants a new generation of unstable “democratic” demagogues more willing to lead their countries against Iran than the current immobile regimes have proved to be. There is also the question of Chinese economic penetration. We can be confident that any new leaders installed by the US will include in their program a rupture of economic relations with China, including especially a cutoff of oil and raw material shipments, along the lines of what Twitter revolution honcho Mir-Hossein Mousavi was reliably reported to be preparing for Iran if he had seized power there in the summer of 2009 at the head of his “Death to Russia, death to China” rent-a-mob. In addition, US hostility against Russia is undiminished, despite the cosmetic effects of the recent ratification of START II. If for example a color revolution were to come to Syria, we could be sure that the Russian naval presence at the port Tartus, which so disturbs NATO planners, would be speedily terminated. If the new regimes demonstrate hostility against Iran, China, and Russia, we would soon find that internal human rights concerns would quickly disappear from the US agenda.
Key Destabilization Operatives of the Obama Regime
For those who are keeping score, it may be useful to pinpoint some of the destabilization operatives inside the current US regime. It is of course obvious that the current wave of subversion against the Arab countries was kicked off by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her much touted speech last week in Doha, Qatar last week, when she warned assembled Arab leaders to reform their economies ( according to IMF rules) and stamp out corruption, or else face ouster.
Given the critical role of Assange and Wikileaks in the current phase, White House regulations czar Cass Sunstein must also be counted among the top putschists. We should recall that on February 24, 2007 Sunstein contributed an article entitled “A Brave New Wikiworld” to the Washington Post, in which he crowed that “Wikileaks.org, founded by dissidents in China and other nations, plans to post secret government documents and to protect them from censorship with coded software.” This was in fact the big publicity breakthrough for Assange and the debut of Wikileaks in the US mainstream press — all thanks to current White House official Sunstein. May we not assume that Sunstein represents the White House contact man and controller for the Wikileaks operation?
Every Tree in the Arab Forest Might Fall
Another figure worthy of mention is Robert Malley, a well-known US left-cover operative who currently heads the Middle East and North Africa program at the International Crisis Group (ICG), an organization reputed to run on money coughed up by George Soros and tactics dreamed up from Zbigniew Brzezinski. Malley was controversial during the 2008 presidential campaign because of the anti-Israeli posturing he affects, the better to dupe the Arab leaders he targets. Malley told the Washington Post of January 16, 2011 that every tree in the Arab forest could now be about to fall: “We could go through the list of Arab leaders looking in the mirror right now and very few would not be on the list.” Arab governments would be well advised to keep an eye on ICG operatives in their countries.
Czar Cass Sunstein is now married to Samantha Power, who currently works in the White House National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director (boss) of the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights – the precise bureaucratic home of destabilization operations like the one in Tunisia. Power, like Malley, is a veteran of the US intelligence community’s “human rights” division, which is a past master of using legitimate beefs about repression to to replace old US clients with new puppets in a never-ending process of restless subversion. Both Malley and Power were forced to tender pro forma resignations during the Obama presidential campaign of 2008 – Malley for talking to Hamas, and Power for an obscene tirade against Hillary Clinton, who is now her bureaucratic rival.
Advice to Arab Governments, Political Forces, Trade Unions
The Arab world needs to learn a few fundamental lessons about the mechanics of CIA color revolutions, lest they replicate the tragic experience of Georgia, Ukraine, and so many others. In today’s impoverished world of economic depression, a reform program capable of defending national interests against the rapacious forces of financial globalization is the number one imperative.
Accordingly, Arab governments must immediately expel all officials of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and their subset of lending institutions. Arab countries which are currently under the yoke of IMF conditionalities (notably Egypt and Jordan among the Arabs, and Pakistan among the Moslem states) must unilaterally and immediately throw them off and reassert their national sovereignty. Every Arab state should unilaterally and immediately declare a debt moratorium in the form of an open-ended freeze on all payments of interest and principal of international financial debt in the Argentine manner, starting with sums allegedly owed to the IMF-World Bank. The assets of foreign multinational monopolistic firms, especially oil companies, should be seized as the situation requires. Basic food staples and fuels should be subjected to price controls, with draconian penalties for speculation, including by way of derivatives. Dirigist measures such as protective tariffs and food price subsidies can be quickly introduced. Food production needs to be promoted by production and import bounties, as well as by international barter deals. National grain stockpiles must be quickly constituted. Capital controls and exchange controls are likely to be needed to prevent speculative attacks on national currencies by foreign hedge funds acting with the ulterior political motives of overthrowing national governments. Most important, central banks must be nationalized and reconverted to a policy of 0% credit for domestic infrastructure, agriculture, housing, and physical commodity production, with special measures to enhance exports. Once these reforms have been implemented, it may be time to consider the economic integration of the Arab world as an economic development community in which the foreign exchange earnings of the oil-producing states can be put to work on the basis of mutual advantage for infrastructure and hard commodity capital investment across the entire Arab world.
The alternative is an endless series of destabilizations masterminded by foreigners, and, quite possibly, terminal chaos.
Wikileaks: No Serious Derogatory Information about US, UK, Israel
It is illuminating that none of Assange’s document dumps have revealed any notable scandals involving Great Britain or Israel. No US public figures have had to resign because of anything Wikileaks has done. No major ongoing covert operation or highly placed agent of influence has been blown. After all these months, there are still no US indictments against Assange, even though we know that a US grand jury will readily indict a ham sandwich if the US Attorney demands it. If the CIA had wanted to silence Assange, they could have subjected him to the classic kidnapping aka rendition, meaning that he would have been beaten, drugged, and carted off to wake up in a black site prison in Egypt, Poland, or Guantanamo Bay. Otherwise, the CIA could have had recourse to the usual extralegal wetwork. We must also assume that the new US Cybercommand with its vast resources would have little trouble shutting down the Wikileaks mirror sites, no matter how numerous they might be. The same goes for Anonymous and other flanking organizations of Wikileaks. But these considerations are purely fantastic. Assange emerges today as the pampered darling and golden boy of The New York Times, Der Spiegel. The Guardian, El Pais — in short, of the entire Anglo-American official media Wurlitzer. He reclines today in baronial splendor in the country house of a well-connected retired British officer who should be quizzed by the media about his ties to British intelligence. The radical-chic world, from Bianca Jagger to Michael Moore, is at Assange’s feet.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
China's Military Comes Into Its Own
By Rodger Baker
Chinese President Hu Jintao is visiting the United States, perhaps his last state visit as president before China begins its generational leadership transition in 2012. Hu’s visit is being shaped by the ongoing China-U.S. economic dialogue, by concerns surrounding stability on the Korean Peninsula and by rising attention to Chinese defense activity in recent months. For example, China carried out the first reported test flight of its fifth-generation combat fighter prototype, dubbed the J-20, during U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit to China the previous week.
The development and test flight of China’s J-20 is not insignificant, but it is also by no means a game changer in the U.S.-China defense balance. More intriguingly, the test highlights how China’s military increasingly is making its interests heard.
China’s increased activity and rhetoric in and around the South and East China seas also clearly reflect this concern. For Beijing, it is critical to keep the U.S. Navy as far from Chinese waters as possible and delay its approach by maximizing the threat environment in the event of a conflict. Though the J-20 is still a work in progress, a more advanced combat fighter — particularly one with stealth capabilities — could serve a number of relevant roles toward this end.
The Chinese are still in the early stages of development, however. They are experimenting with stealth shaping, characteristics and materials, meaning the degree to which the J-20 can achieve low observability against modern radar remains an open question. Significant changes to the design based on handling characteristics and radar signature can be expected. And true “stealth” is the product of more than just shaping. Special coatings and radar-absorbing materials only top a lengthy list of areas in which Chinese engineers must gain practical experience, even allowing for considerable insight gained through espionage or foreign assistance. China still is thought to be struggling with indigenously designed and manufactured high-end jet engines, not to mention the integration of advanced sensors, avionics and the complex systems that characterize fifth-generation aircraft. It is too early to infer much from the single flight-tested prototype, something the United States learned during the Cold War when initial U.S. estimates of the Soviet MiG-25 attributed far more sophistication and capability to the design than proved to be the case after a Soviet pilot defected with his aircraft years later.
The Chinese role for the J-20 is based on a different set of realities than those the Soviets and Americans faced during the Cold War, meaning the J-20 prototype should not be judged solely by the American standards for fifth-generation aircraft. More than having the most advanced aircraft in the sky, the Chinese value the ability to maintain high sortie rates from many bases along the country’s coast to overwhelm with numbers the superior U.S. combat aircraft, which would be expected to be operated from aircraft carriers or from more distant land bases.
Gates asked Hu about the test when the two met in Beijing. According to some media reports citing American officials present at the meeting, Hu appeared surprised by the question and somewhat perplexed by the details of the test — the implication being that Hu was unaware of the test and that the Chinese military may have acted out of turn. Gates told reporters that Hu had assured him the timing was coincidental. After being asked for his own thoughts regarding the relationship between the military and the political leadership in China after his meetings with Chinese civilian and defense leaders, Gates noted that he had become concerned about that relationship over time. He added that ensuring civilian and military dialogue between the two countries was important.
Although Gates did not say the Chinese military tested the J-20 without political clearance from Hu, the idea was certainly suggested by the media coverage and Gates’ response. On the surface, this seems rather hard to believe. Hu, as president of China and general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, also serves as chairman of China’s parallel Central Military Commissions (one is under the government, the other under the Party, though both have exactly the same makeup).
That the head of China’s military would not know about a major new hardware test coming a week before his trip to meet with the president of the United States and coinciding with a visit of the U.S. defense secretary seems a reach. Furthermore, given the amount of attention just beneath the surface in China to the imminent test, and the subsequent attention in the foreign media, it would be startling that the Chinese president was so poorly briefed prior to meeting the U.S. defense secretary. If indeed the test surprised Hu, then there is serious trouble in China’s leadership structure. But perhaps the issue isn’t one of knowledge but one of capability: Could Hu have stopped the test given the timing, and if so, would he have wanted to stop it?
Some systems, like the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, are uniquely tailored to countering the U.S. Navy. Others, like an expanding and more aggressive Ocean and Fisheries Administration, is directed more at China’s neighbors in the South and East China seas, and at asserting China’s claims to these waters.
This change in focus is driven by three factors. First, China sees its land borders as being fairly well locked down, with its buffer territories largely under control, but the maritime border is a vulnerability — a particular concern for a trade-based economy. Second, as China’s economy has rapidly expanded, so has Beijing’s dependence on far-flung sources of natural resources and emerging markets. This drives the government and military to look at protection of sea-lanes, often far from China’s shores. Third, the military leadership is using these concerns to increase its own role in internal decision-making. The more dependent China is on places far from its borders, the more the military can make the case that it is the only entity with both the intelligence and the understanding to provide the necessary strategic advice and perspective to China’s civilian leadership.
There is also the issue of a modernizing military looking out for itself, battling for its share of China’s budget and economic pie. A key part of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin’s fundamental military reforms was stripping the military of much of its business empire. At the time, the state — while funding the military — assumed that military-run industry would supplement the defense budget. In short, the military ran industries, and the profits were used to support local and regional defense needs. That kept the official state military budget down and encouraged enterprising commanders to contribute to China’s economic growth.
But over time, it also led to corruption and a military where regional and local military commanders were at risk of becoming more intent on their business empires than on the country’s national defense. Money that largely had gone to support the living of the troops was sidelined and funneled to the military officials. And the faster the Chinese economy grew, the more profit there was for the taking. Regional military leaders and local governments teamed up to operate, promote and protect their own business interests regardless of the state’s broader national economic or social priorities. China’s central leadership saw troubling parallels to older Chinese history, when regional warlords emerged.
In response, Jiang ordered the military largely out of business. Military leaders grudgingly complied for the most part, though there were plenty of cases of military-run industries being stripped of all their machinery, equipment and supplies, which were then sold on the black market and then unloaded at bargain prices to the cronies of military officials. Other companies were simply stripped and foisted on the government to deal with, debts and all. Jiang placated the military by increasing its budget, increasing the living standard of the average soldier and launching a ramped-up program to rapidly increase the education of its soldiers and technical sophistication of China’s military. This appeased the military officials and bought their loyalty — returning the military to financial dependence on the government and Communist Party.
But the success of military reform, which also involved seeking greater sophistication in doctrine, training, communications and technology, has also given the military greater influence. Over time, the military has come to expect more technologically, and China has begun experimenting with technology-sharing between military and civilian industry to spur development. The drive for dual-use technology, from the evolving aerospace industry to nanotechnology, creates new opportunities for military officials to promote new weapons-system development while at the same time profiting from the development. As China’s global economic power has grown, the military has demanded more funding and greater capabilities to protect national interests and its own prerogatives.
But China’s military officials are also growing more vocal in their opinions beyond the issue of military procurement. Over the past year, Chinese military officers have made their opinions known, quite openly in Chinese and sometimes even foreign media. They have addressed not only military issues but also Chinese foreign policy and international relations. This step outside the norm has left the Chinese diplomatic community uncomfortable (or at least left it expressing its unease with the rising influence of the military to their foreign counterparts). This may be an elaborate disinformation campaign or a slightly higher level of the griping typical of bureaucrats, or it may in fact reflect a military that sees its own role and significance rising and is stepping forward to try to grab the influence and power it feels it deserves.
One example of the ostensible struggle between the military and the civilian bureaucrats over Chinese foreign policy played out over the past year. Through nearly the first three-quarters of the year, when the United States carried out defense exercises in the Asia-Pacific region — whether annual or in response to regional events like the sinking of the ChonAn in South Korea — the Chinese would respond by holding their own series of exercises, sometimes on a larger scale. It was a game of one-upmanship. But the foreign ministry and bureaucracy purportedly argued against this policy as counterproductive, and by the fourth quarter, China had shifted away from military exercises as a response. Instead, it once again pushed a friendlier and more diplomatic line even as U.S. exercises continued. By the November 2010 crisis over North Korea’s shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, China had returned to its standard call for moderation and dialogue.
If this narrative is accepted, the military response to being sidelined again was to leak plans to launch an aircraft carrier in 2011, to reinvigorate international attention to Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles, and to test the new Chinese fifth-generation aircraft while Gates was in Beijing and just before Hu headed to Washington. A Chinese military motivated by nationalism — and perhaps an even stronger interest in preserving its power and influence within China — would find it better to be in contention with the United States than in calm. This is because U.S. pressure, whether real or rhetorical, drives China’s defense development.
But the case could as easily be made that the Chinese political leadership has an equal interest in ensuring a mixed relationship with Washington, that the government benefits from seemingly endless U.S. criticism of Chinese defense development. This is because such criticism increases Chinese nationalism, distracting the people from the economic troubles Beijing is trying to manage. And this is the heart of the issue: Just how well-coordinated are the military and civilian leadership of China, and how stable is their relationship?
A divide between the military and civilian leadership would mean that China, already facing the social consequences of its economic policies, is facing another significant issue at the same time: the balance of civilian-military relations. However, a carefully coordinated drive to give the appearance of a split may help China convince the United States to ease economic pressure to avoid exacerbating this “split” while also appealing to nationalistic unity at home.
But even small signs of a split now are critical because of the stresses on the system that China will experience when its economic miracle expires in the not-so-distant future. Mao and Deng were both soldiers. Their successors were not. Neither Jiang Zemin nor Hu Jintao has military experience, and incoming President Xi Jinping similarly lacks such training. The rumors from China suggest that the military plans to take advantage of Xi’s lack of experience and use its influence to shape his policies. The leadership transition may provide a chance for the military to gain more influence in an institutional way, allowing it to drive a hard bargain and buy a bigger share of the pie in the fifth generation set-up.
For most of modern China’s history, the military has been an internal force without much appetite for more worldly affairs. That is now changing, appropriately, due to China’s growing global prominence and reliance on the global economy. But that means that a new balance must be found, and China’s senior leadership must both accommodate and balance the military’s perspective and what the military advocates for.
As Chinese leaders deal with a generational transition, expanding international involvement and an increasingly difficult economic balance, the military is coming into its own and making its interests heard more clearly. How this balance plays out will be tremendously significant
"China's Military Comes Into Its Own is republished with permission of STRATFOR."
Chinese President Hu Jintao is visiting the United States, perhaps his last state visit as president before China begins its generational leadership transition in 2012. Hu’s visit is being shaped by the ongoing China-U.S. economic dialogue, by concerns surrounding stability on the Korean Peninsula and by rising attention to Chinese defense activity in recent months. For example, China carried out the first reported test flight of its fifth-generation combat fighter prototype, dubbed the J-20, during U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit to China the previous week.
The development and test flight of China’s J-20 is not insignificant, but it is also by no means a game changer in the U.S.-China defense balance. More intriguingly, the test highlights how China’s military increasingly is making its interests heard.
The J-20 Test Flight and China’s Strategic Concerns
The J-20 test flight shone a light on China’s strategic concerns and reflected some of the developing capability that addresses those concerns. The Chinese fear a potential U.S. blockade of their coast. While this may not seem a likely scenario, the Chinese look at their strategic vulnerability, at their rising power and at the U.S. history of thwarting regional powers, and they see themselves as clearly at risk.
China’s increased activity and rhetoric in and around the South and East China seas also clearly reflect this concern. For Beijing, it is critical to keep the U.S. Navy as far from Chinese waters as possible and delay its approach by maximizing the threat environment in the event of a conflict. Though the J-20 is still a work in progress, a more advanced combat fighter — particularly one with stealth capabilities — could serve a number of relevant roles toward this end.
The Chinese are still in the early stages of development, however. They are experimenting with stealth shaping, characteristics and materials, meaning the degree to which the J-20 can achieve low observability against modern radar remains an open question. Significant changes to the design based on handling characteristics and radar signature can be expected. And true “stealth” is the product of more than just shaping. Special coatings and radar-absorbing materials only top a lengthy list of areas in which Chinese engineers must gain practical experience, even allowing for considerable insight gained through espionage or foreign assistance. China still is thought to be struggling with indigenously designed and manufactured high-end jet engines, not to mention the integration of advanced sensors, avionics and the complex systems that characterize fifth-generation aircraft. It is too early to infer much from the single flight-tested prototype, something the United States learned during the Cold War when initial U.S. estimates of the Soviet MiG-25 attributed far more sophistication and capability to the design than proved to be the case after a Soviet pilot defected with his aircraft years later.
The Chinese role for the J-20 is based on a different set of realities than those the Soviets and Americans faced during the Cold War, meaning the J-20 prototype should not be judged solely by the American standards for fifth-generation aircraft. More than having the most advanced aircraft in the sky, the Chinese value the ability to maintain high sortie rates from many bases along the country’s coast to overwhelm with numbers the superior U.S. combat aircraft, which would be expected to be operated from aircraft carriers or from more distant land bases.
The J-20 Test’s Timing
Perhaps more interesting than the test was its timing, with its associated political implications. For weeks before the test flight, Chinese message boards and blogs were filled with photographs of the new prototype on the tarmac, conducting taxi tests in preparation for its first test flight. Foreign military and defense observers closely monitor such sites, and their “leaked” images renewed attention to China’s fifth-generation development program, about which there has been plenty of speculation but little hard detail. Chinese defense and security officials also closely monitor such boards, but the officials chose not to shut them down — clearly indicating Beijing’s intent to draw attention to the test.
Gates asked Hu about the test when the two met in Beijing. According to some media reports citing American officials present at the meeting, Hu appeared surprised by the question and somewhat perplexed by the details of the test — the implication being that Hu was unaware of the test and that the Chinese military may have acted out of turn. Gates told reporters that Hu had assured him the timing was coincidental. After being asked for his own thoughts regarding the relationship between the military and the political leadership in China after his meetings with Chinese civilian and defense leaders, Gates noted that he had become concerned about that relationship over time. He added that ensuring civilian and military dialogue between the two countries was important.
Although Gates did not say the Chinese military tested the J-20 without political clearance from Hu, the idea was certainly suggested by the media coverage and Gates’ response. On the surface, this seems rather hard to believe. Hu, as president of China and general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, also serves as chairman of China’s parallel Central Military Commissions (one is under the government, the other under the Party, though both have exactly the same makeup).
That the head of China’s military would not know about a major new hardware test coming a week before his trip to meet with the president of the United States and coinciding with a visit of the U.S. defense secretary seems a reach. Furthermore, given the amount of attention just beneath the surface in China to the imminent test, and the subsequent attention in the foreign media, it would be startling that the Chinese president was so poorly briefed prior to meeting the U.S. defense secretary. If indeed the test surprised Hu, then there is serious trouble in China’s leadership structure. But perhaps the issue isn’t one of knowledge but one of capability: Could Hu have stopped the test given the timing, and if so, would he have wanted to stop it?
The Rising Influence of China’s Military
Rumors and signs of the rising influence of the military establishment in China have emerged over the past few years. Since the 1980s, China has focused on and invested in a major reorientation of its military from a massive land army focused on territorial defense to one that emphasizes naval and air capabilities to protect China’s interests in the East and South China seas and beyond into the western Pacific. This has included expanding China’s reach and a focus on anti-access and area-denial capabilities, with accelerated development in this arena in recent years.
Some systems, like the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, are uniquely tailored to countering the U.S. Navy. Others, like an expanding and more aggressive Ocean and Fisheries Administration, is directed more at China’s neighbors in the South and East China seas, and at asserting China’s claims to these waters.
This change in focus is driven by three factors. First, China sees its land borders as being fairly well locked down, with its buffer territories largely under control, but the maritime border is a vulnerability — a particular concern for a trade-based economy. Second, as China’s economy has rapidly expanded, so has Beijing’s dependence on far-flung sources of natural resources and emerging markets. This drives the government and military to look at protection of sea-lanes, often far from China’s shores. Third, the military leadership is using these concerns to increase its own role in internal decision-making. The more dependent China is on places far from its borders, the more the military can make the case that it is the only entity with both the intelligence and the understanding to provide the necessary strategic advice and perspective to China’s civilian leadership.
There is also the issue of a modernizing military looking out for itself, battling for its share of China’s budget and economic pie. A key part of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin’s fundamental military reforms was stripping the military of much of its business empire. At the time, the state — while funding the military — assumed that military-run industry would supplement the defense budget. In short, the military ran industries, and the profits were used to support local and regional defense needs. That kept the official state military budget down and encouraged enterprising commanders to contribute to China’s economic growth.
But over time, it also led to corruption and a military where regional and local military commanders were at risk of becoming more intent on their business empires than on the country’s national defense. Money that largely had gone to support the living of the troops was sidelined and funneled to the military officials. And the faster the Chinese economy grew, the more profit there was for the taking. Regional military leaders and local governments teamed up to operate, promote and protect their own business interests regardless of the state’s broader national economic or social priorities. China’s central leadership saw troubling parallels to older Chinese history, when regional warlords emerged.
In response, Jiang ordered the military largely out of business. Military leaders grudgingly complied for the most part, though there were plenty of cases of military-run industries being stripped of all their machinery, equipment and supplies, which were then sold on the black market and then unloaded at bargain prices to the cronies of military officials. Other companies were simply stripped and foisted on the government to deal with, debts and all. Jiang placated the military by increasing its budget, increasing the living standard of the average soldier and launching a ramped-up program to rapidly increase the education of its soldiers and technical sophistication of China’s military. This appeased the military officials and bought their loyalty — returning the military to financial dependence on the government and Communist Party.
But the success of military reform, which also involved seeking greater sophistication in doctrine, training, communications and technology, has also given the military greater influence. Over time, the military has come to expect more technologically, and China has begun experimenting with technology-sharing between military and civilian industry to spur development. The drive for dual-use technology, from the evolving aerospace industry to nanotechnology, creates new opportunities for military officials to promote new weapons-system development while at the same time profiting from the development. As China’s global economic power has grown, the military has demanded more funding and greater capabilities to protect national interests and its own prerogatives.
But China’s military officials are also growing more vocal in their opinions beyond the issue of military procurement. Over the past year, Chinese military officers have made their opinions known, quite openly in Chinese and sometimes even foreign media. They have addressed not only military issues but also Chinese foreign policy and international relations. This step outside the norm has left the Chinese diplomatic community uncomfortable (or at least left it expressing its unease with the rising influence of the military to their foreign counterparts). This may be an elaborate disinformation campaign or a slightly higher level of the griping typical of bureaucrats, or it may in fact reflect a military that sees its own role and significance rising and is stepping forward to try to grab the influence and power it feels it deserves.
One example of the ostensible struggle between the military and the civilian bureaucrats over Chinese foreign policy played out over the past year. Through nearly the first three-quarters of the year, when the United States carried out defense exercises in the Asia-Pacific region — whether annual or in response to regional events like the sinking of the ChonAn in South Korea — the Chinese would respond by holding their own series of exercises, sometimes on a larger scale. It was a game of one-upmanship. But the foreign ministry and bureaucracy purportedly argued against this policy as counterproductive, and by the fourth quarter, China had shifted away from military exercises as a response. Instead, it once again pushed a friendlier and more diplomatic line even as U.S. exercises continued. By the November 2010 crisis over North Korea’s shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, China had returned to its standard call for moderation and dialogue.
If this narrative is accepted, the military response to being sidelined again was to leak plans to launch an aircraft carrier in 2011, to reinvigorate international attention to Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles, and to test the new Chinese fifth-generation aircraft while Gates was in Beijing and just before Hu headed to Washington. A Chinese military motivated by nationalism — and perhaps an even stronger interest in preserving its power and influence within China — would find it better to be in contention with the United States than in calm. This is because U.S. pressure, whether real or rhetorical, drives China’s defense development.
But the case could as easily be made that the Chinese political leadership has an equal interest in ensuring a mixed relationship with Washington, that the government benefits from seemingly endless U.S. criticism of Chinese defense development. This is because such criticism increases Chinese nationalism, distracting the people from the economic troubles Beijing is trying to manage. And this is the heart of the issue: Just how well-coordinated are the military and civilian leadership of China, and how stable is their relationship?
An End to the Chinese Miracle
The Chinese miracle is nearing its natural conclusion, as Beijing begins to face a reality like that seen by Japan, South Korea and the other Asian Tigers that all followed the same growth pattern. How that crisis plays out is fundamentally different depending upon the country: Japan has accepted the shared long-term pain of two decades of malaise; South Korea saw short, sharp, wrenching reforms; Indonesia saw its government collapse. The reliability of the military, the capability of the civilian leadership and the level of acceptance of the population all combine to shape the outcome.
A divide between the military and civilian leadership would mean that China, already facing the social consequences of its economic policies, is facing another significant issue at the same time: the balance of civilian-military relations. However, a carefully coordinated drive to give the appearance of a split may help China convince the United States to ease economic pressure to avoid exacerbating this “split” while also appealing to nationalistic unity at home.
But even small signs of a split now are critical because of the stresses on the system that China will experience when its economic miracle expires in the not-so-distant future. Mao and Deng were both soldiers. Their successors were not. Neither Jiang Zemin nor Hu Jintao has military experience, and incoming President Xi Jinping similarly lacks such training. The rumors from China suggest that the military plans to take advantage of Xi’s lack of experience and use its influence to shape his policies. The leadership transition may provide a chance for the military to gain more influence in an institutional way, allowing it to drive a hard bargain and buy a bigger share of the pie in the fifth generation set-up.
For most of modern China’s history, the military has been an internal force without much appetite for more worldly affairs. That is now changing, appropriately, due to China’s growing global prominence and reliance on the global economy. But that means that a new balance must be found, and China’s senior leadership must both accommodate and balance the military’s perspective and what the military advocates for.
As Chinese leaders deal with a generational transition, expanding international involvement and an increasingly difficult economic balance, the military is coming into its own and making its interests heard more clearly. How this balance plays out will be tremendously significant
"China's Military Comes Into Its Own is republished with permission of STRATFOR."
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Dispatch : 2011 Annual Forecast
Vice President of Strategic Intelligence Rodger Baker previews STRATFOR's in-depth 2011 Annual Forecast by focusing on China, Russia and the United States.
Debt has to be measured against net worth....japan's debt is bigger proportionally i think , 2011 is a year of war. and natural disasters ...
Debt has to be measured against net worth....japan's debt is bigger proportionally i think , 2011 is a year of war. and natural disasters ...
Iran Should Not Be Threatened: Says Russia
Russia has denounced threatening Iran with tougher sanctions or use of force as counterproductive, insisting that the deadlock over Iran's nuclear program can be resolved only through diplomatic means.
Speaking at a press conference in Moscow on Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned against "stirring up frenzy" regarding the Islamic Republic's peaceful nuclear program, adding that the United States' recent call to ramp up pressure against Tehran as well as Israel's scheme to threaten Iran with the use of force will be "counterproductive," a Press TV correspondent reported.
On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for "a credible military option against Iran" in an attempt to coerce Tehran into moving towards halting its nuclear program activities.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, sought to trump up support among Iran's neighboring states to further enforce the Washington-sponsored sanctions against Tehran as she embarked on a tour of Middle East countries this week.
The remarks came forth days after Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh said on Tuesday that a host of envoys representing "geographical and political groups in Vienna of the countries represented in the IAEA have been invited to visit Natanz enrichment facilities and Arak heavy water reactor.
Meanwhile, Russian foreign minister hailed Iran's invitation of a group of foreign diplomats to tour its nuclear facilities, saying Tehran's decision "deserves attention."
"We believe that any gesture that indicates greater openness from Tehran should be welcomed," Lavrov said during the press conference on Thursday.
Iran and the P5+1 representatives held their previous round of multifaceted talks in the Swiss city of Geneva on December 6-7, during which both sides agreed to hold the next round of negotiations in the Turkish city of Istanbul in late January.
Speaking at a press conference in Moscow on Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned against "stirring up frenzy" regarding the Islamic Republic's peaceful nuclear program, adding that the United States' recent call to ramp up pressure against Tehran as well as Israel's scheme to threaten Iran with the use of force will be "counterproductive," a Press TV correspondent reported.
On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for "a credible military option against Iran" in an attempt to coerce Tehran into moving towards halting its nuclear program activities.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, sought to trump up support among Iran's neighboring states to further enforce the Washington-sponsored sanctions against Tehran as she embarked on a tour of Middle East countries this week.
The remarks came forth days after Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh said on Tuesday that a host of envoys representing "geographical and political groups in Vienna of the countries represented in the IAEA have been invited to visit Natanz enrichment facilities and Arak heavy water reactor.
Meanwhile, Russian foreign minister hailed Iran's invitation of a group of foreign diplomats to tour its nuclear facilities, saying Tehran's decision "deserves attention."
"We believe that any gesture that indicates greater openness from Tehran should be welcomed," Lavrov said during the press conference on Thursday.
Iran and the P5+1 representatives held their previous round of multifaceted talks in the Swiss city of Geneva on December 6-7, during which both sides agreed to hold the next round of negotiations in the Turkish city of Istanbul in late January.
Keiser Report: Schizo-Psycho-Bermuda-flation
Greenspan on Wall Street / bank regulation (13Jan11)
Alan Greenspan claims he was right with the things he did for the American economy. Well, if you think running it into the ground with deliberate crooked financial deals left unchecked....
Alan Greenspan claims he was right with the things he did for the American economy. Well, if you think running it into the ground with deliberate crooked financial deals left unchecked....
Thursday, January 13, 2011
8 Ways Monsanto is Destroying Our Health
by Delia Quigley
“The deeper you can manipulate living structures, the more you can control food and medicine.” Dr. Vandana Shiva
Lots of talk these days about the bullying of young boys and girls in school by more aggressive students. This brings to my mind the biggest bully of all: the biotech company, Monsanto Corporation. Taken in context, Monsanto’s list of corporate crimes should have been enough to pull their corporate charter years ago. And yet we allow them to continue to destroy our food supply, our health and the planet. Monsanto or Monsatan? Take a look at the company’s track record and decide for yourself.
Agent Orange: Monsanto was the major financial beneficiary of this herbicide used to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam and destroy the health of American troops and their offspring. It also allowed Monsanto and other chemical companies to appeal for and receive protection from veterans seeking damages for their exposure to Agent Orange and any future biotech creations.
Aspartame: as far back as 1994 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report listing 94 health issues caused by Aspartame. It has been shown to cause slow but serious damage to the human body and yet it is used extensively in many commercial products.
Saccharin: studies have shown that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice; and in six human studies, including one done by the National Cancer Institute, that consuming artificial sweeteners, such as saccharin and cyclamate, resulted in bladder cancer
Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH): a genetically modified hormone injected into dairy cows to produce more milk, despite the fact that more milk was needed. The cows suffer excruciating pain due to swollen udders and mastitis. The pus from the infection enters the milk supply requiring more antibiotics to be given to the cows. BST milk may also cause breast cancer, colon cancer and prostate cancer in humans.
RoundUp: the worlds most commonly used herbicide and weed killer has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, in a study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden. Used on genetically modified crops resistant to RoundUps active ingredient glyphosate, environmentalists and health professionals are concerned that far from reducing herbicide use, glyphosate resistant crops may result in increased residues in food to which consumers will be exposed.
Genetically Modified Crops (GMO): Monsanto created Frankenfoods by gene-splicing corn, cotton, soy, and canola with DNA from a foreign source. Consequently these crops are resistant to massive doses of the herbicide, RoundUp, but in turn herbicide-resistant Superweeds are taking over. After running into resistance in the west, Monsanto is pushing GMO crops in third world countries. According to physicist, ecologist and activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, “Syugenta and Monsanto are rushing ahead with the mapping and patenting of the rice genome. If they could, they would own rice and its genes, even though the 200,000 rice varieties that give us diverse traits have been bred and evolved by rice farmers of Asia collectively over millennia. Their claim to inventing rice is a violence against the integrity of biodiversity and life-forms; it is a violence against the knowledge of Third World farmers.”
Terminator Seeds: a technology that produces sterile grains unable to germinate, forcing farmers to buy seeds from Monsanto rather than save and reuse the seeds from their harvest. Terminators can cross-pollinate and contaminate local non-sterile crops putting in danger the future seed supply and eventually giving control of the world’s food supply to Monsanto and the GM industry.
Standard American Diet: According to the Organic Consumers Association, “There is a direct correlation between our genetically engineered food supply and the $2 trillion the US spends annually on medical care, namely an epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases. Instead of healthy fruits, vegetables, grains, and grass-fed animal products, US factory farms and food processors produce a glut of genetically engineered junk foods that generate heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer. Low fruit and vegetable consumption is directly costing the United States $56 billion a year in diet-related chronic diseases.”
Lots of talk these days about the bullying of young boys and girls in school by more aggressive students. This brings to my mind the biggest bully of all: the biotech company, Monsanto Corporation. Taken in context, Monsanto’s list of corporate crimes should have been enough to pull their corporate charter years ago. And yet we allow them to continue to destroy our food supply, our health and the planet. Monsanto or Monsatan? Take a look at the company’s track record and decide for yourself.
Agent Orange: Monsanto was the major financial beneficiary of this herbicide used to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam and destroy the health of American troops and their offspring. It also allowed Monsanto and other chemical companies to appeal for and receive protection from veterans seeking damages for their exposure to Agent Orange and any future biotech creations.
Aspartame: as far back as 1994 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report listing 94 health issues caused by Aspartame. It has been shown to cause slow but serious damage to the human body and yet it is used extensively in many commercial products.
Saccharin: studies have shown that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice; and in six human studies, including one done by the National Cancer Institute, that consuming artificial sweeteners, such as saccharin and cyclamate, resulted in bladder cancer
RoundUp: the worlds most commonly used herbicide and weed killer has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, in a study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden. Used on genetically modified crops resistant to RoundUps active ingredient glyphosate, environmentalists and health professionals are concerned that far from reducing herbicide use, glyphosate resistant crops may result in increased residues in food to which consumers will be exposed.
Terminator Seeds: a technology that produces sterile grains unable to germinate, forcing farmers to buy seeds from Monsanto rather than save and reuse the seeds from their harvest. Terminators can cross-pollinate and contaminate local non-sterile crops putting in danger the future seed supply and eventually giving control of the world’s food supply to Monsanto and the GM industry.
Standard American Diet: According to the Organic Consumers Association, “There is a direct correlation between our genetically engineered food supply and the $2 trillion the US spends annually on medical care, namely an epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases. Instead of healthy fruits, vegetables, grains, and grass-fed animal products, US factory farms and food processors produce a glut of genetically engineered junk foods that generate heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer. Low fruit and vegetable consumption is directly costing the United States $56 billion a year in diet-related chronic diseases.”
Delia Quigley is the Director of StillPoint Schoolhouse, where she teaches a holistic lifestyle based on her 28 years of study, experience and practice. She is the creator of the Body Rejuvenation Cleanse, Cooking the Basics, and Broken Bodies Yoga. Delia's credentials include author, holistic health counselor, natural foods chef, yoga instructor, energy therapist and public speaker. Follow Delia's blogs: brcleanse.blogspot.com and brokenbodiesyoga.wordpress.com. To view her website go to www.deliaquigley.com
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Spinning Unemployment in a Collapsing Empire
Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars.com
January 10, 2011
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported Friday that the economy gained only 103,000 new jobs in December—not enough to keep up with population growth—but the rate of unemployment (U.3) fell from 9.8% to 9.4%. If you are confused by the report, you are among the many.
In truth, what fell was not the number of unemployed people but the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for work. Those who have become discouraged and have ceased looking for work are not considered to be in the work force and are not counted as unemployed in the U.3 measure. The unemployment rate fell because discouraged workers increased, not because employment rose.
The BLS counts short-term discouraged workers (less than one year) in its U.6 measure of unemployment. That unemployment rate is 16.7%. When statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) adds the long-term discouraged, the US unemployment rate as of December 2010 was 22.4%.
The question to ask yourself is: why does the media focus on the unemployment measure that does not count any discouraged workers? The answer is that the U.3 measurement only counts 42% of the unemployed and makes the situation appear to be a lot better than it is.
Where are the 103,000 new jobs? As I have reported for years, the jobs are in non-tradable domestic services: waitresses and bar tenders, health care and social assistance (primarily ambulatory health care services), and retail and wholesale trade.
Today the United States has only 11,670,000 manufacturing jobs, less than 9% of total jobs. Yet, despite America’s heavy dependence on foreign manufactures and foreign creditors, the idiots in Washington think that they are a superpower standing astride the world like a colossus.
John Williams reports that “the level of payroll employment still stands below where it was a decade ago, despite the U.S.population growing by more than 10% in the same period. The structural impairments to U.S. economic activity continue to constrain normal commercial activity, preventing any meaningful recovery in business activity.”
Another way of saying this is that American corporations have taken American jobs offshore and given them to the Chinese. So much for big business patriotism.
Williams also reports that, unless it is finagled, next month’s BLS benchmark revision of payroll employment data will lower the level of previously reported employment by more than 500,000.
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke used his testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last Friday to warn that the U.S. government must get its budget deficit under control or “the economic and financial effects would be severe.” Here Bernanke is acknowledging that the Federal Reserve cannot indefinitely print money in order to finance wars and bailouts of the mega-rich.
But how is the government to get its budget under control? The U.S. government, regardless of political party or president, is committed to American hegemony over the world. The Congress has just passed the largest military budget in history, and there is no indication that any of America’s wars and military occupations are near an end
The financial crisis is not over, with more foreclosures and more losses for the financial sector that will result in more taxpayer bailouts for those “too big to fail.” John Williams says that the double-dip is already happening, just disguised by faulty statistics, and that the deficit implications are horrendous and are likely to result in hyperinflation as the Federal Reserve will have to monetize the otherwise un-financeable deficits.
The dollar is also in danger, its role as reserve currency undermined by the Federal Reserve’s creation of more and more dollars. Temporarily, the dollar is buttressed by the grief that Wall Street’s sale of fraudulent derivative financial instruments to Europe has caused the euro.
The Republicans will try to destroy Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for wars and bailouts. If Americans are capable of realizing that they are threatened on a much greater level by the Republicans’ evisceration of the social safety net than they are by terrorists, the Republican assault on what they call “the welfare state” will fail.
The fallback target will be private pensions, assuming any survive plunder by the Wall Street investment banks. Pension funds could be required to invest in Treasury debt or they could face a levy. In the Clinton administration, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Alicia Munnell proposed confiscating 15% of all pension assets on the grounds that they had accumulated tax free. Certainly Washington will steal Americans’ pensions, just as Washington has stolen Americans’ civil liberties, in order to continue the empire’s wars of hegemony.
Increasingly, the rest of the world views America as the single source of its financial and political woes. While the superpower massacres Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia, people in the rest of the world have learned from WikiLeaks that the U.S. government manipulates, bribes, threatens, and deceives other governments in order to have those governments serve the U.S. government’s interest at the expense of the interests of their own peoples.
The American Imperial Empire rests on puppet governments that are increasingly distrusted and hated by the peoples under their rule. Like the Soviet Union’s Eastern European empire, the American Empire is ruled not directly but through puppet states.
Puppet governments are caught between the empire’s power and the power of the local population. To the extent that Europeans have a moral conscience, they will find America’s foreign policy increasingly repugnant. To the extent that Muslim solidarity grows, the Muslim puppet governments that support America’s and Israel’s massacres of Muslims will find themselves threatened from within.
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect
The American Empire is on the rocks, despite its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and its control over the foreign and domestic policies of its subservient puppet states in Western and Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, parts of Africa, the Middle East, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, the Baltic states, Georgia, Kosovo, Mexico, Central America, Columbia, and, no doubt, others.
A country that is the font of war and oppression, whose dominance rests on the weak reed of puppet states, and whose economy is collapsing will not long remain dominant.
Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Infowars.com
January 10, 2011
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported Friday that the economy gained only 103,000 new jobs in December—not enough to keep up with population growth—but the rate of unemployment (U.3) fell from 9.8% to 9.4%. If you are confused by the report, you are among the many.
 | |
 | |
| Why does the media focus on the unemployment measure that does not count any discouraged workers? | |
The BLS counts short-term discouraged workers (less than one year) in its U.6 measure of unemployment. That unemployment rate is 16.7%. When statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) adds the long-term discouraged, the US unemployment rate as of December 2010 was 22.4%.
The question to ask yourself is: why does the media focus on the unemployment measure that does not count any discouraged workers? The answer is that the U.3 measurement only counts 42% of the unemployed and makes the situation appear to be a lot better than it is.
Where are the 103,000 new jobs? As I have reported for years, the jobs are in non-tradable domestic services: waitresses and bar tenders, health care and social assistance (primarily ambulatory health care services), and retail and wholesale trade.
Today the United States has only 11,670,000 manufacturing jobs, less than 9% of total jobs. Yet, despite America’s heavy dependence on foreign manufactures and foreign creditors, the idiots in Washington think that they are a superpower standing astride the world like a colossus.
John Williams reports that “the level of payroll employment still stands below where it was a decade ago, despite the U.S.population growing by more than 10% in the same period. The structural impairments to U.S. economic activity continue to constrain normal commercial activity, preventing any meaningful recovery in business activity.”
Another way of saying this is that American corporations have taken American jobs offshore and given them to the Chinese. So much for big business patriotism.
Williams also reports that, unless it is finagled, next month’s BLS benchmark revision of payroll employment data will lower the level of previously reported employment by more than 500,000.
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke used his testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last Friday to warn that the U.S. government must get its budget deficit under control or “the economic and financial effects would be severe.” Here Bernanke is acknowledging that the Federal Reserve cannot indefinitely print money in order to finance wars and bailouts of the mega-rich.
But how is the government to get its budget under control? The U.S. government, regardless of political party or president, is committed to American hegemony over the world. The Congress has just passed the largest military budget in history, and there is no indication that any of America’s wars and military occupations are near an end
The financial crisis is not over, with more foreclosures and more losses for the financial sector that will result in more taxpayer bailouts for those “too big to fail.” John Williams says that the double-dip is already happening, just disguised by faulty statistics, and that the deficit implications are horrendous and are likely to result in hyperinflation as the Federal Reserve will have to monetize the otherwise un-financeable deficits.
The dollar is also in danger, its role as reserve currency undermined by the Federal Reserve’s creation of more and more dollars. Temporarily, the dollar is buttressed by the grief that Wall Street’s sale of fraudulent derivative financial instruments to Europe has caused the euro.
The Republicans will try to destroy Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for wars and bailouts. If Americans are capable of realizing that they are threatened on a much greater level by the Republicans’ evisceration of the social safety net than they are by terrorists, the Republican assault on what they call “the welfare state” will fail.
The fallback target will be private pensions, assuming any survive plunder by the Wall Street investment banks. Pension funds could be required to invest in Treasury debt or they could face a levy. In the Clinton administration, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Alicia Munnell proposed confiscating 15% of all pension assets on the grounds that they had accumulated tax free. Certainly Washington will steal Americans’ pensions, just as Washington has stolen Americans’ civil liberties, in order to continue the empire’s wars of hegemony.
Increasingly, the rest of the world views America as the single source of its financial and political woes. While the superpower massacres Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia, people in the rest of the world have learned from WikiLeaks that the U.S. government manipulates, bribes, threatens, and deceives other governments in order to have those governments serve the U.S. government’s interest at the expense of the interests of their own peoples.
The American Imperial Empire rests on puppet governments that are increasingly distrusted and hated by the peoples under their rule. Like the Soviet Union’s Eastern European empire, the American Empire is ruled not directly but through puppet states.
Puppet governments are caught between the empire’s power and the power of the local population. To the extent that Europeans have a moral conscience, they will find America’s foreign policy increasingly repugnant. To the extent that Muslim solidarity grows, the Muslim puppet governments that support America’s and Israel’s massacres of Muslims will find themselves threatened from within.
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect
The American Empire is on the rocks, despite its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and its control over the foreign and domestic policies of its subservient puppet states in Western and Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, parts of Africa, the Middle East, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, the Baltic states, Georgia, Kosovo, Mexico, Central America, Columbia, and, no doubt, others.
A country that is the font of war and oppression, whose dominance rests on the weak reed of puppet states, and whose economy is collapsing will not long remain dominant.
Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Poll: Americans Reject Media Hoax On Arizona Shootings
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 12, 2011
Within minutes of Saturday’s shootings and before the identity of the gunman was even known, establishment mouthpieces like the New York Times and MSNBC, backed up by statist blogs like Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, instantly seized upon the bloodshed to blame the events on tea partiers and what they termed “violent right-wing rhetoric.”
This prompted leftist talking heads, enthusiastically backed by the Associated Press, to contrive a phony national debate about “toning down the rhetoric,” which as we explained, was a mere ploy to politicize the shootings to eviscerate free speech and dissent against big government.
This agenda was made brazenly transparent by the actions of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who has been heavily criticized for giving a speech shortly after the shootings in which he accused “irresponsible political rhetoric of conservatives,” in particular radio and TV talk show hosts, for the murders of six people.
Even after it emergedthat shooter Jared Lee Loughner was a drug-using, Communist Manifesto-reading occultist whom his classmates had described as being left-wing, the effort to link the events with political opponents of big government continued unabated.
Unfortunately for the architects of this national hoax, a clear majority of the American people just aren’t buying it.
A CBS News nationwide telephone poll found that, “57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did.”
Even a majority of Democrats say that political rhetoric had nothing to do with the shooting.
“Among Democrats 49 percent placed no blame on the heated political tone against 42 percent who did. Among independents the split was 56 percent to 33 percent, CBS said.”
Amongst Republican voters, just 19 per cent blamed political rhetoric for the massacre, versus 69 per cent who rejected such a link.
The fact that Americans are not buying the “tone down the rhetoric” ploy means that Target, Cupid, Fruit Punch, and other examples of violent hate speech will probably survive, at least until they are blamed for the actions of another mentally ill psychotic, clearly motivated by nothing other than his own inner demons.
—
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
Infowars.com
January 12, 2011
Image: Kyle Fasanella
The establishment media campaign to crassly exploit the tragic Arizona shootings as a way to bludgeon the First Amendment and silence critics of the Obama administration has failed spectacularly, with even a majority of Democrats telling a CBS poll that “violent political rhetoric” was not to blame for the actions of a mentally disturbed madman.Within minutes of Saturday’s shootings and before the identity of the gunman was even known, establishment mouthpieces like the New York Times and MSNBC, backed up by statist blogs like Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, instantly seized upon the bloodshed to blame the events on tea partiers and what they termed “violent right-wing rhetoric.”
This prompted leftist talking heads, enthusiastically backed by the Associated Press, to contrive a phony national debate about “toning down the rhetoric,” which as we explained, was a mere ploy to politicize the shootings to eviscerate free speech and dissent against big government.
This agenda was made brazenly transparent by the actions of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who has been heavily criticized for giving a speech shortly after the shootings in which he accused “irresponsible political rhetoric of conservatives,” in particular radio and TV talk show hosts, for the murders of six people.
Even after it emergedthat shooter Jared Lee Loughner was a drug-using, Communist Manifesto-reading occultist whom his classmates had described as being left-wing, the effort to link the events with political opponents of big government continued unabated.
Unfortunately for the architects of this national hoax, a clear majority of the American people just aren’t buying it.
A CBS News nationwide telephone poll found that, “57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did.”
Even a majority of Democrats say that political rhetoric had nothing to do with the shooting.
“Among Democrats 49 percent placed no blame on the heated political tone against 42 percent who did. Among independents the split was 56 percent to 33 percent, CBS said.”
Amongst Republican voters, just 19 per cent blamed political rhetoric for the massacre, versus 69 per cent who rejected such a link.
The fact that Americans are not buying the “tone down the rhetoric” ploy means that Target, Cupid, Fruit Punch, and other examples of violent hate speech will probably survive, at least until they are blamed for the actions of another mentally ill psychotic, clearly motivated by nothing other than his own inner demons.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Banking Secret Exposed
AFP.NET
By Mark Anderson
Deceptive corporate media sources often confuse small “upticks” in the economy with major rebounds. As homelessness and joblessness spread, even minor recovery signs, graded “on a curve,” might seem like prosperity.
Still, a large and diverse nation like America—populated by resilient people who are learning to cut up credit cards, protest the debt system and save more money—has a number of places to seek refuge.
A Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) report lists 10 states and one district that offer calmer economic waters where one can set sail toward a better life. Those states are, starting with the best: Oklahoma, Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, Louisiana, South Dakota, the District of Columbia, West Virginia, Arkansas, Nebraska and Virginia.
Places like Michigan, Indiana and Illinois, North Carolina, Tennessee and Florida appear close to rock-bottom, while Texas, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Alabama and Maine are in the middle, adds the BEA, a division of the U.S. Commerce Department.
The fastest-growing states in America in 2009, according to a BEA chart, include those in the Great Plains and just to the south of the Plains, where natural resources have fueled local growth. AMERICAN FREE PRESS has maintained that natural resources represent real wealth, and money is simply a means to quantify and transfer wealth. Mining and agriculture are among the natural-resource activities cited by the BEA as a source of this growth.
“States like Oklahoma, which was particularly helped by growth in mining, and Louisiana and South Dakota have seen growth rates that would put much of the rest of the nation to shame,” online news site Huffington Post observed. However, states that relied on manufacturing durable goods and construction experienced major drops in local gross domestic product, which is mainly a consequence of the North American Free Trade Agreement and other global schemes that have closed U.S. factories or sent formerly good-paying jobs overseas.
Looking deeper, author and Federal Reserve critic Ellen Brown points out that North Dakota scores high because, “Only one U.S. state actually owns its own bank—North Dakota. As of last spring [2009], North Dakota was also the only . . . state sporting a budget surplus. Amid widespread economic wreckage, it has the nation’s lowest unemployment rate.”
Tackling what most media avoid, Brown summarized that North Dakota’s bank “is a major profit generator for the state, returning a 26 percent dividend in 2008.”
The bank “makes the assets of the state the assets of the bank.” The law requires all state revenues to be deposited in the state’s bank. Municipal deposits also are accepted. Illinois and New Jersey, featured in recent national newscasts over imploding budgets and crumbling municipalities, may want to seriously study North Dakota’s innovation.
By Mark Anderson
Deceptive corporate media sources often confuse small “upticks” in the economy with major rebounds. As homelessness and joblessness spread, even minor recovery signs, graded “on a curve,” might seem like prosperity.
Still, a large and diverse nation like America—populated by resilient people who are learning to cut up credit cards, protest the debt system and save more money—has a number of places to seek refuge.
A Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) report lists 10 states and one district that offer calmer economic waters where one can set sail toward a better life. Those states are, starting with the best: Oklahoma, Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, Louisiana, South Dakota, the District of Columbia, West Virginia, Arkansas, Nebraska and Virginia.
Places like Michigan, Indiana and Illinois, North Carolina, Tennessee and Florida appear close to rock-bottom, while Texas, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Alabama and Maine are in the middle, adds the BEA, a division of the U.S. Commerce Department.
The fastest-growing states in America in 2009, according to a BEA chart, include those in the Great Plains and just to the south of the Plains, where natural resources have fueled local growth. AMERICAN FREE PRESS has maintained that natural resources represent real wealth, and money is simply a means to quantify and transfer wealth. Mining and agriculture are among the natural-resource activities cited by the BEA as a source of this growth.
Looking deeper, author and Federal Reserve critic Ellen Brown points out that North Dakota scores high because, “Only one U.S. state actually owns its own bank—North Dakota. As of last spring [2009], North Dakota was also the only . . . state sporting a budget surplus. Amid widespread economic wreckage, it has the nation’s lowest unemployment rate.”
Tackling what most media avoid, Brown summarized that North Dakota’s bank “is a major profit generator for the state, returning a 26 percent dividend in 2008.”
The bank “makes the assets of the state the assets of the bank.” The law requires all state revenues to be deposited in the state’s bank. Municipal deposits also are accepted. Illinois and New Jersey, featured in recent national newscasts over imploding budgets and crumbling municipalities, may want to seriously study North Dakota’s innovation.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
IMF and The World Bank are weapons of war , by John Pilger
This is a 21 minutes montage of an original 52 minutes special report by John Pilger that you can find if you google for WAR BY OTHER MEANS
Citibank fraud gets murkier
The Gurgaon police has filed an FIR against naming Citibank CEO Vikram Pandit and 10 other officials in the Rs 300-crore Citibank fraud case. Besides Pandit, the FIR filed by a high networth individual (HNI) Sanjiv Agarwal with the Gurgaon police also names Citibank chairman William R Rhodes along with other senior officials based in India.
Monday, January 3, 2011
That 97% Solution, Again
Source: National Post (Canada)
by Larry Solomon
[SPPI Note:
Also see http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/origi/climate_qconsensusq_opiate_the_97_solution.html ]
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
Read the rest of this entry »
by Larry Solomon
[SPPI Note:
Also see http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/origi/climate_qconsensusq_opiate_the_97_solution.html ]
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
Read the rest of this entry »
IPCC Prediction Failure — Again
by Robert Sheaffer
The UN’s “Nobel Prize Winning” IPCC Report in 2007, predicted “warmer northern winters” for Europe. As summarized in this UN Press Release of April, 2007, we should expect to see “the ongoing thawing of European glaciers and permafrost, the delayed winter freeze of rivers and lakes, the lengthening of growing seasons, the earlier spring arrival of migratory birds… In addition to warmer winters, Europe’s northern regions will experience more precipitation and run-off. The expansion of forests and agricultural productivity will be accompanied by greater flooding, coastal erosion, loss of species and melting of glaciers and permafrost.”
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=504&ArticleID=5560&l=en
A classic case of a “failed prediction.” Theories making predictions that fail are called “refuted.”
The UN’s “Nobel Prize Winning” IPCC Report in 2007, predicted “warmer northern winters” for Europe. As summarized in this UN Press Release of April, 2007, we should expect to see “the ongoing thawing of European glaciers and permafrost, the delayed winter freeze of rivers and lakes, the lengthening of growing seasons, the earlier spring arrival of migratory birds… In addition to warmer winters, Europe’s northern regions will experience more precipitation and run-off. The expansion of forests and agricultural productivity will be accompanied by greater flooding, coastal erosion, loss of species and melting of glaciers and permafrost.”
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=504&ArticleID=5560&l=en
A classic case of a “failed prediction.” Theories making predictions that fail are called “refuted.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
