Wednesday, February 05, 2014

Rally Round the Family: Saving B.C.'s Agricultural Land Reserve

Rally planned on Family Day holiday to save Agricultural Land Reserve

by Farmland Protection Coalition

VICTORIA, BC  Farmers and their supporters will be rallying at the British Columbia Legislature on the Family Day holiday, Monday February 10, at a Noon-hour "Food for the Future" rally to save the Agricultural Land Reserve.

The rally is being organized by the Farmland Protection Coalition and has been endorsed by more than 50 organizations, from the National Farmers Union and Sierra Club of BC to the BC Federation of Labour and local church, seniors' and farm groups.

"British Columbians from all walks of life are coming together to demand that Premier Christy Clark and her government respect the autonomy of the Agricultural Land Reserve, strengthen the Agricultural Land Commission, and uphold the spirit and the letter of the Land Commission Act," says Nathalie Chambers, a Saanich farmer and co-chair of the Farmland Protection Coalition.

Chambers says the demonstration and wider farmland-protection movement has been building for years and picked up steam in November when leaked Cabinet documents suggested the BC government was considering far-reaching changes to the ALR and ALC, including a proposed two-zone system that would expedite the removal of farmland for oil and gas development as well as the Site C power project.

"We need farmland to grow food for the future," says Chambers, who spearheaded the successful effort to save Madrona Farm in the Capital Region's Blenkinsop Valley in perpetuity.
"The ALR protects the soils that are essential to agricultural as well as to the health, economy and security of British Columbians. Even on so-called 'marginal' ALR lands, soils can be improved through sustainable farming practices. The ALR really is a key to the future in our mountainous province."

The February 10 Family Day Rally features musical performances by the Capital City Syncopators and Oliver Swain's Big Machine, beginning at 11:30am on the Legislature Grounds, with speakers beginning at 12 Noon from organizations including the National Farmers Union, Island Chef's Collaborative and the Peace Valley Environmental Association.

Families and all members of the public are encouraged to attend Monday's rally.


-30-

- For Immediate Release -

February 5, 2014

For further information, please contact:

Nathalie Chambers, Farmland Protection Coalition, 250-893-4505

Toxic Ubiquity

Ubiquitous Toxins and Uncomfortable Questions

by Ray Grigg - Shades of Green

A January, 2014, report from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) that even organic foods are not free of pesticides and chemical residues was sad and sobering news — an ominous beginning to another year.

The CFIA analyzed hundreds of samples of fruits, vegetables, oils, cheeses, juices and syrups from local and international sources. Not even the most carefully and conscientiously grown food could escape the presence of toxins.

“The idea of toxin-free food in a modern world is a fantasy,” said Rebecca Kneen, the co-president of the Certified Organic Associations of BC.
“We aren't farming in a bubble” (The Vancouver Sun, Jan. 9/14).

Indeed, we are not. The consequences of using agro-toxins at an industrial scale for more than 70 years is now evident. Of conventionally grown fruits and vegetables bought in Canadian food stores, 80 percent contained residues of one or more commercially used pesticides, while 5 percent had levels higher than were considered safe by CFIA regulations. A surprising 50 percent of organically grown produce showed similar residue traces, with 1.8 percent over safe levels.

Of fruit juices tested, 67 percent made from fresh produce and 45 percent made from concentrate showed detectable amounts of pesticides. Not one of 167 samples of vegetable oils or 284 samples of cheeses were free of dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls, all known to be serious carcinogens. Mercury, a potent neurotoxin which is only safe at zero levels, was found 87 percent of the time in dried tea, 6 percent in soft drinks and 10 percent in corn syrup. Only 55 percent of rice was free of cadmium, another neurotoxin. Of the 879 samples of children's food tested, 25 percent contained measurable levels of at least one pesticide, while 11 percent contained measurable levels of two or more — a most worrying finding since children are the ones most susceptible to the effects of toxins.

Tara McDonald, the executive director of the Vancouver Farmers Markets, said that the results were discouraging though not surprising.

“Organic farmers share the air with other farms, and they share the same water table. Even the bees they use to pollinate crops don't just stay on one farm.”

Of course, nothing on this planet stays in one place forever. But the reckless abandon of our enterprising enthusiasm has made a special contribution to the movement of all manner of things — from atoms to mountains. The results are unprecedented and disturbing. Extracting and burning massive amounts of coal as our primary industrial energy for more than 250 years has resulted in huge quantities of multiple toxins being dispersed globally.

This probably explains the source of cadmium in food. And it is likely the principle source of mercury in ocean fish — some levels in large predator species are now so high that their regular consumption is not recommended. Toxins in whales make their edibility questionable — good news for whales if they can survive the health effects of being poisoned. The bodies of orcas, meanwhile, another species at the top of the food chain, are so laced with toxins that their carcasses are treated as contaminated sites.

As for contaminated sites, 22,000 have been identified in Canada alone, with an initial estimate of $8 billion for clean up. But this was before scientific studies — the kind the Canadian government doesn't want known — revealed the actual proportions of the problem. Just one site in Yukon, the Faro Mine, is expected to cost $590 million to remediate. Of the 75 contaminated sites in the Northwest Territories, the biggest is the Giant Mine. Over $1 billion will be required to fix the mess created by over 250,000 tonnes of arsenic, most of it abandoned in collapsing surface structures where wind and rain are beginning to disperse this toxin into land, waterways and air. Remediation will be so dangerous that “buildings will have to be sealed off as they are demolished. Workers would have wear full hazmat suits and breathe supplied air” (Globe and Mail, Apr. 2/13).

And then there are plastics, modern civilization's miraculous material. They are produced by the millions of tonnes per year but almost none of them break down or are removed from the planet's ecosystems. Their eventual repository is usually the world's oceans, where they either settle on beaches or into sediment to be ingested by worms and scavengers on their way into the food chain. If they float, they tend to concentrate in the five oceanic gyres as particulate pollutants — our own version of a Plastic Sargasso Sea that has become an obscene monument of wayward waste colonized by opportunistic plants and animals.

All the floating microscopic plastics drifting throughout the oceans are now estimated to be six times the dry weight of marine phytoplankton, according to Alana Mitchell in her e-book, Invisible Plastics. Used as platforms by phytoplankton, bacteria and algae, these plastics, too, enter the food chain. And because of the similar chemical composition of plastics and many of our industrial concoctions — nearly 62,000 remain untested for toxicity — these particulates accumulate toxins by up to 1 million times background concentrations.

So this is the dark side of our civilization — the creeping, insidious and ominous side we would prefer not to notice. And it raises questions we would prefer not to ask.

To feed ourselves with the ingenuity of our industrial agriculture, must we plague ourselves with poisonous pesticides?

To supply energy for the ravenous demands of our modern lives, must we pollute our ecosystems with horrific emissions?

To use the miraculous inventions of our sophisticated technology, must we contaminate our planet with toxic wastes? 

Surely, as a thinking species, we can find better options than the ones we are choosing.

Talking Back to the Corporate Press

The Anti-Empire Report #125

by William Blum – KillingHope.org

“Bias in favor of the orthodox is frequently mistaken for ‘objectivity’. Departures from this ideological orthodoxy are themselves dismissed as ideological.” – Michael Parenti
An exchange in January with Paul Farhi, Washington Post columnist, about coverage of US foreign policy:

Dear Mr. Farhi,

Now that you’ve done a study of al-Jazeera’s political bias in supporting Mohamed Morsi in Egypt, is it perhaps now time for a study of the US mass media’s bias on US foreign policy? And if you doubt the extent and depth of this bias, consider this:

There are more than 1,400 daily newspapers in the United States. Can you name a single paper, or a single TV network, that was unequivocally opposed to the American wars carried out against Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, and Vietnam? Or even opposed to any two of these wars? How about one? In 1968, six years into the Vietnam war, the Boston Globe surveyed the editorial positions of 39 leading US papers concerning the war and found that “none advocated a pull-out”.

Now, can you name an American daily newspaper or TV network that more or less gives any support to any US government ODE (Officially Designated Enemy)? Like Hugo Chávez of Venezuela or his successor, Nicolás Maduro; Fidel or Raúl Castro of Cuba; Bashar al-Assad of Syria; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran; Rafael Correa of Ecuador; or Evo Morales of Bolivia? I mean that presents the ODE’s point of view in a reasonably fair manner most of the time? Or any ODE of the recent past like Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, Moammar Gaddafi of Libya, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, or Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti?

Who in the mainstream media supports Hamas of Gaza? Or Hezbollah of Lebanon? Who in the mainstream media is outspokenly critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians? And keeps his or her job?

Who in the mainstream media treats Julian Assange or Chelsea Manning as the heroes they are?

And this same mainstream media tell us that Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, et al. do not have a real opposition media.

The ideology of the American mainstream media is the belief that they don’t have any ideology; that they are instead what they call “objective”. I submit that there is something more important in journalism than objectivity. It is capturing the essence, or the truth, if you will, with the proper context and history. This can, as well, serve as “enlightenment”.

It’s been said that the political spectrum concerning US foreign policy in the America mainstream media “runs the gamut from A to B”.

Sincerely, William Blum, Washington, DC

(followed by some of my writing credentials)

Reply from Paul Farhi:

I think you’re conflating news coverage with editorial policy. They are not the same. What a newspaper advocates on its editorial page (the Vietnam example you cite) isn’t the same as what or how the story is covered in the news columns. News MAY have some advocacy in it, but it’s not supposed to, and not nearly as overt or blatant as an editorial or opinion column. Go back over all of your ODE examples and ask yourself if the news coverage was the same as the opinions about those ODEs. In most cases. I doubt it was.

Dear Mr. Farhi,

Thank you for your remarkably prompt answer.

Your point about the difference between news coverage and editorial policy is important, but the fact is, as a daily, and careful, reader of the Post for the past 20 years I can attest to the extensive bias in its foreign policy coverage in the areas I listed. Juan Ferrero in Latin America and Kathy Lally in the Mideast are but two prime examples. The bias, most commonly, is one of omission more than commission; which is to say it’s what they leave out that distorts the news more than any factual errors or out-and-out lies. My Anti-Empire Report contains many examples of these omissions, as well as some errors of commission.

Incidentally, since 1995 I have written dozens of letters to the Post pointing out errors in foreign-policy coverage. Not one has been printed.

Happy New Year

I present here an extreme example of bias by omission, in the entire American mainstream media: In my last report I wrote of the committee appointed by the president to study NSA abuses – Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies – which actually came up with a few unexpected recommendations in its report presented December 13, the most interesting of which perhaps are these two:

“Governments should not use surveillance to steal industry secrets to advantage their domestic industry.”

“Governments should not use their offensive cyber capabilities to change the amounts held in financial accounts or otherwise manipulate the financial systems.”

So what do we have here? The NSA being used to steal industrial secrets; nothing to do with fighting terrorism. And the NSA stealing money and otherwise sabotaging unnamed financial systems, which may also represent gaining industrial advantage for the United States.

Long-time readers of this report may have come to the realization that I’m not an ecstatic admirer of US foreign policy. But this stuff shocks even me. It’s the gross pettiness of “The World’s Only Superpower”.

A careful search of the extensive Lexis-Nexis database failed to turn up a single American mainstream media source, print or broadcast, that mentioned this revelation. I found it only on those websites which carried my report, plus three other sites: Techdirt, Lawfare, and Crikey (First Digital Media).

For another very interesting and extreme example of bias by omission, as well as commission, very typical of US foreign policy coverage in the mainstream media: First read the January 31, page one, Washington Post article making fun of socialism in Venezuela and Cuba.

Then read the response from two Americans who have spent a lot of time in Venezuela, are fluent in Spanish, and whose opinions about the article I solicited.

I lived in Chile during the 1972-73 period under Salvadore Allende and his Socialist Party. The conservative Chilean media’s sarcastic claims at the time about shortages and socialist incompetence were identical to what we’ve been seeing for years in the United States concerning Venezuela and Cuba. The Washington Post article on Venezuela referred to above could have been lifted out of Chile’s El Mercurio, 1973.

[Note to readers: Please do not send me the usual complaints about my using the name “America(n)” to refer to “The United States”. I find it to be a meaningless issue, if not plain silly.]
JFK, RFK, and some myths about US foreign policy

On April 30, 1964, five months after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, was interviewed by John B. Martin in one of a series of oral history sessions with RFK. Part of the interview appears in the book “JFK Conservative” by Ira Stoll, published three months ago. (pages 192-3)


RFK: The president … had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.

MARTIN: What was the overwhelming reason?

RFK: Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

MARTIN: What if it did?

RFK: Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just as it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of those countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists.

MARTIN: There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

RFK: No.

MARTIN: … The president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there …

RFK: Yes.

MARTIN: … And couldn’t lose it.

RFK: Yes.

These remarks are rather instructive from several points of view:

  1. Robert Kennedy contradicts the many people who are convinced that, had he lived, JFK would have brought the US involvement in Vietnam to a fairly prompt end, instead of it continuing for ten more terrible years. The author, Stoll, quotes a few of these people. And these other statements are just as convincing as RFK’s statements presented here. And if that is not confusing enough, Stoll then quotes RFK himself in 1967 speaking unmistakably in support of the war.
It appears that we’ll never know with any kind of certainty what would have happened if JFK had not been assassinated, but I still go by his Cold War record in concluding that US foreign policy would have continued along its imperial, anti-communist path. In Kennedy’s short time in office the United States unleashed many different types of hostility, from attempts to overthrow governments and suppress political movements to assassination attempts against leaders and actual military combat; with one or more of these occurring in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, British Guiana, Iraq, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba and Brazil.

2. “Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world.”
Ah yes, a vital part of the world. Has there ever been any part of the world, or any country, that the US has intervened in that was not vital? Vital to American interests? Vital to our national security? Of great strategic importance? Here’s President Carter in his 1980 State of the Union Address: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America”.
“What a country calls its vital economic interests are not the things which enable its citizens to live, but the things which enable it to make war.” – Simone Weil (1909-1943), French philosopher


3.If the US lost Vietnam “everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.”

As I once wrote:

Thus it was that the worst of Washington’s fears had come to pass: All of Indochina – Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos – had fallen to the Communists. During the initial period of US involvement in Indochina in the 1950s, John Foster Dulles, Dwight Eisenhower and other American officials regularly issued doomsday pronouncements of the type known as the “Domino Theory”, warning that if Indochina should fall, other nations in Asia would topple over as well. In one instance, President Eisenhower listed no less than Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Indonesia amongst the anticipated “falling dominos”.

Such warnings were repeated periodically over the next decade by succeeding administrations and other supporters of US policy in Indochina as a key argument in defense of such policy. The fact that these ominous predictions turned out to have no basis in reality did not deter Washington officialdom from promulgating the same dogma up until the 1990s about almost each new world “trouble-spot”, testimony to their unshakable faith in the existence and inter-workings of the International Communist Conspiracy.

 

Killing suicide


Suicide bombers have become an international tragedy. One can not sit in a restaurant or wait for a bus or go for a walk downtown, in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq or Russia or Syria and elsewhere without fearing for one’s life from a person walking innocently by or a car that just quietly parked nearby. The Pentagon has been working for years to devise a means of countering this powerful weapon.

As far as we know, they haven’t come up with anything. So I’d like to suggest a possible solution. Go to the very source. Flood selected Islamic societies with this message: “There is no heavenly reward for dying a martyr. There are no 72 beautiful virgins waiting to reward you for giving your life for jihad. No virgins at all. No sex at all.”

Using every means of communication, from Facebook to skywriting, from billboards to television, plant the seed of doubt, perhaps the very first such seed the young men have ever experienced. As some wise anonymous soul once wrote:

A person is unambivalent only with regard to those few beliefs, attitudes and characteristics which are truly universal in his experience. Thus a man might believe that the world is flat without really being aware that he did so – if everyone in his society shared the assumption. The flatness of the world would be simply a “self-evident” fact. But if he once became conscious of thinking that the world is flat, he would be capable of conceiving that it might be otherwise. He might then be spurred to invent elaborate proofs of its flatness, but he would have lost the innocence of absolute and unambivalent belief.

We have to capture the minds of these suicide bombers. At the same time we can work on our own soldiers. Making them fully conscious of their belief, their precious belief, that their government means well, that they’re fighting for freedom and democracy, and for that thing called “American exceptionalism”. It could save them from committing their own form of suicide.


Notes

Boston Globe, February 18, 1968, p.2-A
New York Times, April 8, 1954

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission, provided attribution to William Blum as author and a link to this website are given.


← Issue #124
 

In-Bedded Journalism: Postmedia and Tar Sands PR "Reporting"


Presentation suggests intimate relationship between Postmedia and oil industry

by Jenny Uechi and Matthew Millar - Vancouver Observer

"Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Postmedia 2013 Energy Channel Sponsorship": this was the title of a Prezi presentation. The presentation came to light on twitter today, on the same day that Postmedia eliminated its parliamentary bureau in Ottawa and laid off prominent environmental journalist Mike De Souza as well as political reporters Andrea Hill and Tobi Cohen.

 According to the Postmedia presentation, newspapers would work in partnership with CAPP to put the  spotlight on Canada's oil industry.

Tuesday, February 04, 2014

France's Next Revolution? Atzmon on Dieudonné, Alain Soral and French Zionism

Interview: Atzmon on Dieudonné, Alain Soral and Zionism  - Interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani

by Gilad Atzmon - http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

AU: What led you to offer Dieudonné such support in his struggle against the French government?

GA: Dieudonné is the true meaning of resistance. Being cogent and coherent, he has managed to expose in France the corrosive bond between contemporary Zionised socialism and Jewish political power.

For some time now, many of us who, in the 60s and 70s, were inspired by Left thinking have been confused by contemporary ‘progressive’ politics. For some reason, the so-called ‘New Left’ was very quick to compromise on crucial issues to do with labour and working class politics. Instead of siding with the workers and those struggling in society, the post-68 Left adopted an identity-politics discourse that was actually aimed at breaking up society and the working class into isolated marginalisd groups. This led to political paralysis which in turn prepared the way for the invasion of big money, monopoly culture and globalization. It is this that Dieudonné, has managed to expose. He has also identified the power of the Holocaust religion and Jewish lobby power at the very heart of political establishment. Being the author of The Wandering Who - the book that took apart Jewish identity politics, I see Dieudonné as a continuation of myself. He is my twin and I stand up for both him and his cause.

AU: Dieudonné’s detractors accuse him of antisemitism and as evidence they offer that in his show, (now banned) he said this about a prominent Jewish radio journalist: "You see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself : Gas chambers...too bad". His supporters explain that Dieudonné was simply responding to a provocation from this journalist who said that Dieudonné must be blacklisted from mainstream media and that people with "mental illness " shouldn't be invited to comment publically. What do you think? Did he go too far or do you think he had the right to respond to someone who wished for his social, economic and professional demise?

GA: Those Jews who insist that the Holocaust become our new state religion must accept that such a claim comes with a price. If you choose to identify yourself with gas chambers, Auschwitz and victimhood you must also accept that you will be identified as such by others. I have no problem with Dieudonné’s reaction to Cohen. Dieudonné is an artist, his duty is to reshape and revise the vision of the world around us. Accordingly, placing a mirror in front of Cohen was a most appropriate thing to do.

AU: The only main political party in France who didn't join in this "Dieudonné bashing" is the nationalist National Front founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen. What is your explanation of that?

GA: It obviously means that in terms of tolerance and multi-cultural/ethnic openness your Nationalists are way ahead of any so called ‘progressives’ and the Left. But this does not surprise me. The Left has always found it difficult to bond with working people, in fact, the entire ‘progressive’ ethos is elitist to the bone. And again, this should come as no surprise. After all. identifying oneself as ‘progressive’ surely means that someone else must be ‘reactionary’ – and that someone else is the working man or woman. This may explain why being ‘progressive’ is so attractive to so many Jews - it offers a godless alternative to their traditional choseness. It also explains why the workers generally stay away as far from the Left as they can. They much prefer identifying with the whole, the grand collective narrative, with the flag and with the language. rather than be progressive, they prefer to be patriotic and nationalist. And the outcome is clear: The left eventually drifts away into a state of total detachment which is the exact state of the French socialist at the moment.

Now, Dieudonné, has managed to galvanize this Left detachment. Here we have a black person who enjoys the support of the National Front and is cheered on by a massive popular movement consisting of migrants and White working class – and all this has now matured into one giant Left collective neurosis. How amusing is this?

AU: Thanks to Nicolas Anelka, the British Media started to talk about Dieudonné. According to Alain Soral, the BBC conducted quite fair interview with him : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8gdbXHsVks

Can you explain to us why the French media seem unable to give the same fair treatment to this story?

GA: To start with, let’s not delude ourselves. It is easy for Brits to mock French kosher totalitarianism but believe me, no one in the BBC dares discuss the embarrassing fact that 80% of our Tory MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel. No one in the BBC has ever been brave enough to delve into the embarrassing fact that when Tony Blair took us into an illegal war in Iraq, his chief fundraiser was Lord Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). But let me answer your question as concisely as I can.

Jewish power is the capacity to control and limit the discussion on Jewish power. CRIF and BHL are not the essence of Jewish power, they are just symptoms of this power. The real Jewish power is the capacity to silence all discussion of the Lobby, CRIF and HBL. So Alain Soral should carry the ban against him as a badge of honour. It only reaffirms that the media doesn’t find within itself the intellectual capacity to challenge him and his work. This is hardly surprising, I’ve now begun to realise that George Orwell might well have been the last thinking person in the Left. The contemporary Left is a soundbite culture far removed from any dialectical thinking or intellectual exchange. It is indeed a tragedy

AU: In our last interview you told us that you "learned that most Palestinian NGOs are funded by liberal Zionist George Soros’ Open Society Institute." A French cartoonist named Joe le Corbeau, who was briefly arrested over a photo of a quenelle http://www.crescentcityjewishnews.com/man-arrested-over-photo-of-quenelle-in-front-of-toulouse-jewish-school/, suggested in one of his cartoons that Femen are funded by Soros : http://judeologie.com/2013/05/28/the-femen-powers-prostitutes-par-joe-le-corbeau/ Do you think that may explain why these women perform only in mosques and churches and never in synagogues?

GA: Obviously, I don’t know whether Femen is funded by Soros but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are. Soros’ philosophy, as far as I understand it, is very simple. He is a Liberal Zionist who funds a lot of ‘good causes’ – causes that just happen to also be ‘good for the Jews’.

Now, let me address Femen’s preferred choice of ‘artistic’ venues. As you probably know, Post-Structuralism is pretty much a French philosophical school of thought and may be defined as an attempt to dismantle all ‘grand narratives’ except the Jewish one. In concert with the spirit of the 68 students’ revolution and the Frankfurt Yeshiva, Femen are more than happy pull apart every French cultural heritage - except the Jewish ones. Just follow the money trail, those people who facilitated their move to France - the record label and the ANR who signed them. Surely, you’ll find the answers within just a few minutes.

Here is an interesting anecdote that may throw some light on the topic. It was recently pointed out to me that in spite of the fact that Jewish radicals despise the Talmud and the Rabbinical culture and have been caught burning many religious congregation houses, mainly churches in Spain and the Ukraine etc., they have never burned a single synagogue.


AU: People who support the right of Femen to blaspheme are often the same people who call for the banning of Dieudonné’s shows. Don't you think that these kinds of double standards will lead people to rise up against the elite?

GA: No doubt at all, and as we see, it’s already happening.


AU: Former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni, who recently passed away, once said that accusation of antisemitism is a "trick" used to shut down critics of Israeli policy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbtu0-mgvw How do you explain the current weakness of the Israeli left?

GA: ‘Weakness’ is an understatement. The Israeli left is non-existent and for a good reason: Jewish Left is an oxymoron. While ‘Left’ is a universal concept, Jewishness is a tribally driven ideology. Even Aloni, whom I admired, wasn’t exactly a ‘universalist’. She didn’t really campaign for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages, she was mainly concerned with Israel being a ‘Jewish civilization’ as opposed to a universal one.

It is not a secret that the so-called ‘Jewish Left’ is in practice, a form of National Socialism. Those ‘radical’ Israeli leftists support a racially-driven ‘egalitarian’ philosophy – which applies to Jews only. In other words, they are full of contradictions so it’s hardly surprising that they are now pretty much extinct. On the other hand, right wing Israeli politics, is as consistent as it is crudely unethical. It postulates that Jews are entitled to return to Palestine, and it draws on a vile, militaristic ideology and practice that aims to maintain this Jewish hold on the land. Right-wing Zionist leaders admit daily to not being ethical - but they justify their national project in terms of survival. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, it is only natural for Israelis to identify with a consistently tribal right-wing ideology instead of some half-baked, convoluted and totally inconsistent (but always kosher), socialist clap-trap.




The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular - available on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk

Salt, Hunger, and Terror in Afghanistan

Salt and Terror in Afghanistan

by Kathy Kelly - War is a Crime

Two weeks ago in a room in Kabul, Afghanistan, I joined several dozen people, working seamstresses, some college students, socially engaged teenagers and a few visiting internationals like myself, to discuss world hunger. Our emphasis was not exclusively on their own country’s worsening hunger problems. The Afghan Peace Volunteers, in whose home we were meeting, draw strength from looking beyond their own very real struggles.


APV’s learn about world hunger. photo Abdulhai Safarali

With us was Hakim, a medical doctor who spent six years working as a public health specialist in the central highlands of Afghanistan and, prior to that, among refugees in Quetta, Pakistan. He helped us understand conditions that lead to food shortages and taught us about diseases, such as kwashiorkor and marasmus, which are caused by insufficient protein or general malnutrition.

We looked at UN figures about hunger in Afghanistan which show malnutrition rates rising by 50% or more compared with 2012. The malnutrition ward at Helmand Province’s Bost Hospital has been admitting 200 children a month for severe, acute malnutrition — four times more than in January 2012.

A recent New York Times article about the worsening hunger crisis described an encounter with a mother and child in an Afghan hospital: “In another bed is Fatima, less than a year old, who is so severely malnourished that her heart is failing, and the doctors expect that she will soon die unless her father is able to find money to take her to Kabul for surgery. The girl’s face bears a perpetual look of utter terror, and she rarely stops crying.”

Photos of Fatima and other children in the ward accompanied the article. In our room in Kabul, Hakim projected the photos on the wall. They were painful to see and so were the nods of comprehension from Afghans all too familiar with the agonies of poverty in a time of war.

As children grow, they need iodine to enable proper brain development. According to a UNICEF/GAIN report, “iodine deficiency is the most prevalent cause of brain damage worldwide. It is easily preventable, and through ongoing targeted interventions, can be eliminated.” As recently as 2009 we learned that 70% of Afghan children faced an iodine deficiency.

Universal Salt Iodization (USI) is recognized as a simple, safe and cost-effective measure in addressing iodine deficiency. The World Bank reports that it costs $.05 per child, per year.

In 2012, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) announced a four-year project which aimed to reach nearly half of Afghanistan’s population - 15 million Afghans - with fortified foods. Their strategy was to add vitamins and minerals such as iron, zinc, folic acid, Vitamin B-12 and Vitamin A to wheat flour, vegetable oil and ghee, and also to fortify salt with iodine. The project costs 6.4 million dollars.

The sums of money required to fund delivery of iodine and fortified foods to malnourished Afghan children should be compared, I believe, to the sums of money that the Pentagon’s insatiable appetite for war-making has required of U.S. people.

The price tag for supplying iodized salt to one child for one year is 5 cents.

The cost of maintaining one U.S. soldier has recently risen to 2.1. million dollars per year. The amount of money spent to keep three U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan in 2014 could almost cover the cost of a four year program to deliver fortified foods to 15 million Afghan people.

Maj. Gen. Kurt J. Stein, who is overseeing the drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, has referred to the operation as “the largest retrograde mission in history.” The mission will cost as much as $6 billion.

Over the past decade, spin doctors for U.S. military spending have suggested that Afghanistan needs the U.S. troop presence and U.S. non-military spending to protect the interests of women and children.

It’s true that non-military aid to Afghanistan, sent by the U.S. since 2002, now approaches 100 billion dollars.

Several articles on Afghanistan’s worsening hunger crisis, appearing in the Western press, prompt readers to ask how Afghanistan could be receiving vast sums of non-military aid and yet still struggle with severe acute malnourishment among children under age five.

However, a 2013 quarterly report to Congress submitted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan shows that, of the nearly $100 billion spent on wartime reconstruction, 97 billion has been spent on counter-narcotics, security, “governance/development” and “oversight and operations.” No more than $3 billion, a hundred dollars per Afghan person, were used for “humanitarian” projects - to help keep thirty million Afghans alive through twelve years of U.S. war and occupation.



Source: Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction Oct. 30, 2013, Quarterly Report to Congress, Available at www.sigar.mil. Note: This graph shows total U.S. spending on “relief and reconstruction” in Afghanistan up to a given year. It does not account for the U.S. military operations, said to cost $2 billion per week.

Funds have been available for tanks, guns, bullets, helicopters, missiles, weaponized drones, drone surveillance, Joint Special Operations task forces, bases, airstrips, prisons, and truck delivered supplies for tens of thousands of troops. But funds are in short supply for children too weak to cry who are battling for their lives while wasting away.

A whole generation of Afghans and other people around the developing world see the true results of Westerners’ self-righteous claim for the need to keep civilians “safe” through war. They see the terror, entirely justified, filling Fatima’s eyes in her hospital bed.

In that room in Kabul, as my friends learned about the stark realities of hunger -- and among them, I know, were some who worry about hunger in their own families -- I could see a rejection both of panic and of revenge in the eyes of the people around me. Their steady thoughtfulness was an inspiration.

Panic and revenge among far more prosperous people in the U.S. helped to drive the U.S. into a war waged against one of the poorest countries in the world. Yet, my Afghan friends, who’ve borne the brunt of war, long to rise above vengeance and narrow self-interest.

They wish to pursue a peace that includes ending hunger.

Kathy Kelly, Kathy@vcnv.org, co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org). For more information about The Afghan Peace Volunteers, visit ourjourneytosmile.com

Still Broken: Iraq's "Bad Years" Sliding Back

Iraq: The ‘Bad Years’ Are Back

by Ramzy Baroud - PalestineChronicle.com

As US Secretary of State John Kerry hurried to his helicopter ready to take off at the end of a visit to Iraq last year, it was becoming clearer that the Americans have lost control of a country they wished to mould to their liking. His departure on March 24, 2013 was the conclusion of a ‘surprise’ visit meant to mark the 10th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.

Ten years prior, the US had stormed Baghdad, unleashing one of the 20th century’s most brutal and longest conflicts. Since then, Iraq has not ceased to bleed.

Kerry offered nothing of value on that visit, save the same predictable clichés of Iraq’s supposedly successful democracy, as a testament to some imagined triumph of American values. But it was telling that a decade of war was not even enough to assure an ordinary trip for the American diplomat.

It was a ‘surprise’ because no amount of coordination between the US embassy, then consisting of 16,000 staff, and the Iraqi government, could guarantee Kerry’s safety.

Yet something sinister was brewing in Iraq. Mostly Muslim Sunni tribesmen were fed up with the political paradigm imposed by the Americans almost immediately upon their arrival, which divided the country based on sectarian lines.

The Sunni areas, in the centre and west of the country, paid a terrible price for the US invasion that empowered political elites purported to speak on behalf of the Shia. The latter, who were mostly predisposed by Iranian interests, began to slowly diversify their allegiance.

Initially, they played the game per US rules, and served as an iron fist against those who dared resist the occupation. But as years passed, the likes of current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, found in Iran a more stable ally: where sect, politics and economic interests seamlessly align.

Thus, Iraq was ruled over by a strange, albeit undeclared troika in which the US and Iran had great political leverage where the Shia-dominated government cleverly attempted to find balance, and survive.

Of course, a country with the size and history of Iraq doesn’t easily descend into sectarian madness on its own. But Shia and Sunni politicians and intellectuals who refused to adhere to the prevailing intolerant political archetype were long sidelined – killed, imprisoned, deported and simply had no space in today’s Iraq- as national identity was banished by sect, tribe, religion and race.

Currently, the staff of the US embassy stands at 5,100, and American companies are abandoning their investments in the south of Iraq where the vast majority of the country’s oil exists. It is in the south that al-Maliki has the upper hand. He, of course, doesn’t speak on behalf of all Shia, and is extremely intolerant of dissidents.

In 2008, he fought a brutal war to seize control of Basra from Shia militias who challenged his rule. Later, he struck the Mehdi Army of Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr in a Baghdad suburb. He won in both instances, but at a terrible toll. His Shia rivals would be glad to see him go.

Maliki’s most brutal battles however have been reserved for dissenting Sunnis. His government, as has become the habit of most Arab dictators, is claiming to have been fighting terrorism since day one, and is yet to abandon the slogans it propagates.

While militant Sunni groups, some affiliated with al-Qaeda, have indeed taken advantage of the ensuing chaos to promote their own ideology, and solicit greater support for their cause, Iraq’s Sunnis have suffered humiliation of many folds throughout the years long before al-Qaeda was introduced to Iraq – courtesy of the US invasion.

Iraq’s Sunni tribes, despite every attempt at negotiating a dignified formulation to help millions of people escape the inferno of war, were dismissed and humiliated.

The likes of former US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld was notorious for his targeting of Sunni tribes and mercilessness with any community that in any way supported or tolerated the resistance.

Due to strong support by Shia militias, which served as the core of today’s Iraqi army, and Kurdish militias in the north, the resistance was isolated and brutalized.

That history is not only relevant, but it is not history to begin with. It is the agonising reality.

When the last US military column snaked out of Iraq into Kuwait in Dec. 2011, the US was leaving Iraq with the worst possible scenario: a sectarian central government that was beyond corrupt, plus many ruthless parties vying for power or revenge and sectarian polarization at its most extreme manifestation.

Nonetheless, Iraq is still very important to the Americans. It is perhaps a failed military experiment, but it is still rich of oil and natural gas.

Moreover, Iraq is getting richer, the draft of the Iraqi budget for 2014 “anticipates average exports of 3.4m barrels/day (b/d), up 1m b/d from the previous year,” according to the Economist Intelligence Unit. “Radical shifts are certainly on the horizon,” reported Forbes on the future of the oil market.

Something is driving speculation and that “something is Iraq.” (Jan 31) Iraq’s prospected oil production potential “dwarfs everything else”, reported Canada’s Globe & Mail, citing Henry Groppe, a respected oil and gas analyst. “It’s the thing that everybody ought to be watching and following as closely as possible,” he said.

Drawing its conclusions for the 2012 Iraq Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency reported that Iraq could be “reaching output in excess of 9 mb/d by 2020”, which “would equal the highest sustained growth in the history of the global oil industry.”

And many are indeed watching. Kerry and the US administration are hardly fond of Maliki, for the latter is too close to Tehran to be trusted. But he is Iraq’s strongest man commanding about 930,000 security personnel “spread across the army, police force and intelligence services,” according to the BBC, and that for the Americans must count for something.

However, Iraq’s riches cannot be easily obtained. Sure, the country’s strong parties are comforted by the fact that the army crackdown on Sunni tribes, al-Qaeda affiliated militias and other groups in al-Anbar and elsewhere is happening outside the country’s main oil field. But they shouldn’t discount just how quickly civil wars spiral out of control. The death toll in 2013 was alarmingly high, over 8,000, mostly civilians, according to the UN. It is the highest since 2008.

Iraq’s ‘bad years’ seem to be making a comeback. This time the US has little leverage over Iraq to control the events from afar. “This is a fight that belongs to the Iraqis,” Kerry said in recent comments during a visit to Jerusalem. Indeed, with little military and diplomatic presence, the US can do very little. In fact, they have done enough.

Ramzy Baroud www.ramzybaroud.net is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).His latest book is: My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press).

Mi'kmaq Fracking Speaking Tour at UVic

Mi'kmaq Speaking Tour Thursday/Friday Feb. 6-7

by VIPIRG

Members of the Mi'kmaq Warriors Society who have been arrested and incarcerated will be on a speaking tour in January and February to raise awareness about their struggle against fracking, their ongoing assertion and exercise of nationhood, and the repression they face from police and courts.

“Our warriors are still being mistreated in the system, justice for our political prisoners of war.” Suzanne Patles, member of the Mi’kmaq Warrior Society

If you would like to support this tour, please get in touch hwalia8 at gmail dot com.

Thank you!All Are Welcome.


Thurs Feb 6th - BCGEU 2994 Douglas St: 
6PM-9PM

Friday Feb 7th - UVIC, Harry Hickman Bldg Room 105: 
6:30PM-9PM


Both events are FREE. Light supper will be provided at the Feb 6th BCGEU event, and snacks will be provided at the Feb 7th UVic event.

Accessibility info: Both events will have childcare. The venues are wheelchair accessible. Bus tickets are also available. Please help us provide a scent free event to accommodate people with chemical sensitivities.

Unfortunately, we aren't able to offer ASL interpretation for these events. Rides are available for Elders and people with mobility issues. *If needed, please contact us for a ride*

BACKGROUND:

Suzanne Patles speaks from Elsipogtog Anti-Fracking Blockade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyewGdAlQNk

Elsipogtog: The Fire Over Water
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0N-lDcq1PQ

Mi'kmaq Blockade
http://www.submedia.tv/stimulator/2013/10/16/mikmaq_blockade/

Warriors Defence Fund:
http://www.gofundme.com/4v80u4

Sacred Fire: The People United Against Fracking
http://sacredfirenb.com/welcome-to-the-sacred-fire-website/

Guardian: New Brunswick fracking protests are the frontline of a democratic fight
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/new-brunswick-fracking-protests

-0-
Seb Bonet
Research Coordinator
Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group (VIPIRG)

Phone: (250) 472-4386
 
Email: research@vipirg.ca

Web: www.vipirg.ca

Office: UVic student union building room B122

Mail: PO Box 3035 Stn CSC, Victoria, BC,
Lekwungen & WSANEC Territories, V8W 3P3

HAMP-Strung: The Other Obama Boondoggle

The Public-Private Profiteers: If You Want to Play Doctor, Don’t Hire an Insurance Company as Your Receptionist

by Barbara Garson  - TomDispatch

Health care isn't the first boon that President Obama tried to give us through a public-private partnership. When he took office, more than 25% of U.S. home mortgages were underwater -- meaning that people owed more on their houses than they could get if they tried to sell them.
The president offered those homeowners debt relief through banks. Now he's offering health care through insurance companies.

In both cases, the administration shied away from direct government aid. Instead, it subsidized private companies to serve the people. To get your government-subsidized mortgage modification, you applied at your bank; to get your government-mandated health coverage, you buy private insurance.


Tomgram: Barbara Garson, All the President's Middlemen

Every so often, the journalists who cover Washington, D.C., and its maze of federal departments and commissions and bureaus receive a strange sort of invitation. Calling you a "thought leader" or some similarly flattering form of corporate jargon, an agency urges you to attend a briefing about a particular issue -- healthcare, the bank bailout, the latest jobs report. There’s only one catch: the entire briefing is to be conducted on "deep background," which means nothing said in the meeting can be quoted. It's a strange little dance: the government asks you to come and hear its side of the story, yet nothing said can be used with the presenting official's name attached to it. Sometimes you can't even quote anything said in the meeting. Then, the information is said to be shared for "informational purposes only.”

This is how the Obama administration regularly pushes its various messages. And from reading reports on these not-for-attribution meetings and chatting with friends and colleagues who have attended (I've never been invited), they rarely result in anything journalistically juicy or groundbreaking -- with one exception. That was an August 2010 briefing at the Treasury Department at which bloggers and Treasury officials discussed President Obama's flagship initiative for aiding homeowners facing foreclosure and those who were "underwater" -- that is, owing more on their mortgages than their homes were worth. Remember, the Obama administration had deployed hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue ailing mega-banks and financial firms such as Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. But struggling homeowners? Their lifeline turned out to be Obama's Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a poorly designed, deeply flawed effort to nudge lenders into rewriting the terms of homeowners' mortgages so that they could remain in their homes.

All along the administration argued that HAMP was designed to help middle-class Americans; Wall Street had gotten its bail out, now this was Main Street's lifeline. But at that August 2010 briefing, Treasury officials -- we'll never know who -- made an incredible admission. Here's what economics blogger Steve Randy Waldman, who was in attendance, wrote at the time:

“On HAMP, officials were surprisingly candid. The program has gotten a lot of bad press in terms of its Kafka-esque qualification process and its limited success in generating mortgage modifications under which families become able and willing to pay their debt. Officials pointed out that what may have been an agonizing process for individuals was a useful palliative for the system as a whole. Even if most HAMP applicants ultimately default, the program prevented an outbreak of foreclosures exactly when the system could have handled it least... The program was successful in the sense that it kept the patient alive until it had begun to heal. And the patient of this metaphor was not a struggling homeowner, but the financial system, a.k.a. the banks.”

In other words, HAMP wasn't really about regular working people scraping and clawing to pay their mortgages. It was another way of keeping the banks, not homeowners, afloat as the global financial system slowly recovered.

The people interviewed by TomDispatch regular Barbara Garson for her latest book, Down the Up Escalator: How the 99% Live (the paperback version of which has just been published), know the failings of HAMP all too well. As Garson writes today, the Obama administration's inclination to rely on the private sector to solve major societal problems can lead to dysfunction, if not chaos, a fact that could spell trouble for Obama's signature policy achievement. Andy Kroll


The Public-Private Profiteers: If You Want to Play Doctor, Don’t Hire an Insurance Company as Your Receptionist

by Barbara Garson 

 

Let a Hundred Middlemen Bloom 

In other countries with national health plans, a variety of independent health care providers -- hospitals, doctors, and clinics, among others -- deliver medical care, while the government doles out the compensation. They let a hundred healthcare providers bloom, but there’s only a single payer. If the U.S. moved to single-payer healthcare, however, what would happen to the private health insurance business?

In the 1990s, the conservative Heritage Foundation floated the idea of extending health coverage to more Americans via government exchanges or "connectors" that would funnel individual buyers to competing, for-profit health insurance companies. In other words, let a hundred middlemen bloom.


On the face of it, such a plan would seem expensive, since it means supporting two bureaucracies, one of which would be obliged to take profits for investors. Meanwhile, doctors would still have the expense of trying to collect from multiple insurers with reasons to stall. But the Heritage plan had one great advantage. Since Harry Truman, American presidents have tried unsuccessfully to get us national health care. The exchange system, however awkward it might be, pacified the insurance companies which had previously spent millions of dollars to defeat other plans for "socialized medicine." With the support of those companies for a program that not only kept them in the picture, but also promised to deliver millions of new, subsidized customers to them, Obama gave us a national healthcare law.

The danger is that it essentially makes insurance companies our medical receptionists, a profit-making face that greets sick people whenever they try to use their government healthcare. That gives private companies a lot of power to make the government look bad.

That's why it's important to understand how banks used Obama's mortgage subsidy program to sabotage debt relief and discredit government. If we grasp how they pulled that off, we may be able to protect the present health plan and someday even get genuine single-payer healthcare out of it. So here’s the story.

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) offered banks government incentives -- cash bonuses -- to lower the principal or interest on underwater mortgages. Of course, health insurance companies don’t actually provide healthcare, but banks did provide the underwater mortgages so, however ill-advised or fraudulent they were, those institutions obviously had a role in negotiating their modification. The HAMP partnership was structured so that the government's role was to provide cash incentives to banks, while participating banks would be required to accept and process the applications of those who were eager to modify their onerous mortgages. Whether they granted a modification was, however, strictly up to them.

In 2009, when I visited Balthazar ("Balty") Alatas in Vallejo, California, he had been out of work for a year and had been negotiating a HAMP mortgage modification with Bank of America for nine months. He was beginning to suspect that the bank's elaborate application procedure was deliberately designed to give people just enough hope to keep paying their old mortgages for as long as humanly possible. He had already emptied his Individual Retirement Account and borrowed all he could, in good conscience, from his in-laws. "But I may be too cynical,” he said. “See what you make out of it." And he set down a pile of printed correspondence about a foot and a half thick in front of me.

The initial piece of paper I drew randomly from the stack was a request for documents verifying income and expenses. It wasn’t the first time he had gotten such a letter, as he would show me. Like HAMP applicants at other banks, Balty complained of receiving letters asking for the same documents over and over. He’d learned that it was quicker to send things again than to try to locate the person at the bank who’d already received and even discussed the documents with him.

“No matter how many times they ask, I’ve always complied in full,” he told me.

“I bet you didn’t submit this in full,” I said, indicating a request for utility bills and death certificates.

“Well, there hadn’t been any death in the family,” he responded. He had indeed, however, resubmitted the utility bills.

One letter I pulled from the pile indicated that his case was being transferred to the “Hope Team.” That sounded hopeful to me, but in Balty’s experience each transfer within the bank -- he’d recently been “escalated" to the Escalation Q Unit -- only meant that he had to start all over again with someone new.

At one point, he complained to a California banking agency about the delays. Bank of America's response to the state’s inquiry read in part:

“At times the process can be repetitive and lengthy. Our work-out negotiators work diligently to minimize delays, however, at times unforeseen occurrences beyond anyone’s control may further delay the process. We appreciate your continued patience as we work toward completing the modification of your loan.”

"Repetitive," "lengthy," full of "unforeseen occurrences beyond anyone's control": the bank's own description sounded remarkably like the morass so many HAMP applicants described to me. Now, I was starting to wonder: Could it possibly be that way on purpose?

No Modification Granted


If anyone could cope with paperwork it was Balty Alatas. He’d done a lot of it in his former job and, in some perverse way, he found filling out the forms almost soothing. That was definitely not the case on the next stop in my underwater-mortgage tour of America -- the mostly poor, mostly black city of Richmond, California, where house values had gone down by 66% since 2007.

Alice Epps, a home care attendant, was already behind on her mortgage payments when she heard about what her neighbors called the “Obama modifications.”

“So that’s when I went to all those different government agencies,” she told me. (Actually, some were community groups, but the confusion was easy enough to understand.) “I waited all day in Pittsburg,” she continued, mentioning a nearby city in the San Francisco Bay Area. “All those people getting money from the federal government saying they are helping people with modifications. They wouldn’t even talk to me -- said I wasn’t eligible.” 
 
That was true since HAMP modifications were only available to people who were assessed as having a good likelihood of repaying a new mortgage.

But along with the do-gooder organizations that told Alice she wasn't eligible, the inevitable do-badder outfits had sprung up to help people through the HAMP application for a fee.

"So I hooked up with Help-U-Modify," Alice went on, "and they charged me $3,500. Come to find out, Help-U-Modify wasn’t even licensed. They was taking people’s money -- they’re still taking people’s money -- but they don’t do nothing. Do Obama know what’s going on?” Mrs. Epps wailed.

When I remember that wail -- and I remember it too often -- I think of Russian peasants asking whether their "little father," the Czar, could possibly know that his Cossacks had shot them down when they came to his palace with a petition.

Within days of our conversation, Alice Epps lost her home. It took a full year and a half before Balty Alatas finally got a definitive rejection from Bank of America.

Five years later, I learned that its modification morass had been far more calculated and vicious than anything Balty Alatas -- or I -- suspected. The bank had hired a firm called Urban Lending Solutions to set up an operation that was authorized to call itself “the Office of the CEO and President.” As part of a deliberate subterfuge, HAMP applicants like Alatas were "escalated" to this "Office of the CEO" located in Colorado. (Bank of America’s actual headquarters are in North Carolina.)

An investigative article at Bloomberg News has since revealed how Urban Lending employees sent modification applicants requests for unneeded documents at regular 30- or 60-day intervals, how they falsified or destroyed records -- sometimes merely to meet work quotas -- and how they responded with "inaccurate statements" to congressional representatives or banking oversight officials who inquired on behalf of individual homeowners.

If a letter of inquiry from a congressman or a regulator's office was "dry signed" -- that is, computer generated -- it would be answered with boilerplate doubletalk of the type Balty Alatas showed me. If it had been signed personally -- "wet signed" -- it was to be forwarded to the bank's lawyers who were presumed better qualified to spot possible legal problems.

The signatures of some senators, including Harry Reid from the top housing-bust state of Nevada and Carl Levin of Michigan, were enlarged and pinned on a wall so that employees could better recognize their personally inked signatures.

I don't know whether other big banks created fancifully named "offices of the CEO." But the complaints of underwater borrowers and mortgage modification statistics suggest that Alice’s and Balty's experiences were the norm. Six million nine hundred thousand Americans applied for HAMP modifications. Only 13% of them were granted one, and 22% of those who got a modification had their homes foreclosed anyway. At Bank of America that figure was 33%.

Bloomberg News concluded:

“Instead of helping homeowners as promised under agreements with the U.S. Treasury Department, Bank of America stalled them with repeated requests for paperwork and incorrect income calculations, according to nine former Urban Lending employees. Some borrowers were sent into foreclosure or pricier loan modifications padded with fees resulting from the delays.”

Why should any of us be surprised that private banks perverted a government debt relief program? From their perspective, it made good business sense to encourage homeowners, by whatever means, to continue their mortgage payments while occupying and keeping up their property during the turbulent period after the housing bust of 2007-2008. A more advantageous time to foreclose was when home prices had stabilized and banks could incorporate any foreclosed properties into newly profitable investment vehicles like, for instance, the rental-backed securities that may replace the mortgage-backed ones that were such hot items for financialization before the crash of 2008.

The Blame Game


Balty Alatas never complained to me about the government. He understood that it was a bank -- or rather the real estate trust that held his mortgage -- that was denying him relief. Other HAMP victims tended to conflate the government and private banks into a generic “they.”

A church-going black woman who had applied for a HAMP modification from Wells Fargo assured me that, after the way “they” had treated her, she definitely wouldn’t vote for President Obama again. Her minister had a different but no less devastating way of describing the two HAMP partners. "Obama,” he said, “was the shepherd who delivered up a couple of our weaker members to the wolves."

In a somewhat similar fashion, the Affordable Care Act delivers millions of us up to insurance companies. The administration was embarrassed when its website couldn’t shepherd new customers to the companies fast enough because of computer bugs. Now that it’s working as it's supposed to, the real embarrassments begin.

We've already seen the president take full blame for assuring people that, under the new law, they could keep their old policies if they chose. Apparently he didn't anticipate that, in the months between the passage of the Affordable Care Act and its implementation, insurance companies would rush to sell policies that didn’t meet the minimal standards set in the law. Insurance companies knew that they would have to cancel these and other non-compliant policies as soon as the law went into effect. In the meantime, however, what a great two-fer: first you get to collect and invest the premiums, then you get to stick it to your government partner by announcing to customers that their policies are being canceled thanks to Obamacare.

For insurance companies, this blame game is more than just sport; it's their only real defense against single-payer healthcare. Vermont has already created a state health care plan that will go into effect in 2017. Oregon, Massachusetts, and Washington State are seriously considering similar plans. Seattle congressman Jim McDermott (who happens to be a doctor) hopes to attach “a patch” to the Affordable Care Act that would make it easier for governors to use the healthcare money Washington will send them to create statewide single payer options.

The insurance companies were successful in lobbying any kind of public option out of the national health care law and they will fight every local public option to the death. For if it works anywhere, it offers Obamacare a way to evolve, state by state, into “Medicare for all.”

Private health insurance companies can only survive if people throw their hands up in horror at the thought of an incompetent and intrusive government. Expect, then, that the untimely requests for death certificates, the delayed payments to doctors, the arbitrary denials of coverage, and all the other slings and arrows that the insured already endure will be baroquely embellished and cynically blamed on “government.”

If it was hard for underwater homeowners to distinguish between bankers and bureaucrats while they were losing their homes, it will be even harder for frustrated sick people to untangle the public and private strands so tightly braided into the Affordable Care Act. That, however, is what has to happen if Americans are to move toward a simpler, go-to-the-doctor-when-you’re-sick healthcare system.

Barbara Garson is a TomDispatch regular and the author of the play MacBird. Her latest book, Down the Up Escalator: How the 99% Live, (the paperback version of which has just been published) contains the fuller stories of Alice Epps and Balty Alatas, including the O. Henry-style surprise ending to Balty’s story.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook or Tumblr. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Ann Jones’s They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return From America’s Wars -- The Untold Story.

Copyright 2014 Barbara Garson

Cartoon Analyses and Reportage of Syria Conflict

'Not Even Close to Reality' - Filtering Sources on the Syrian War

by David Edwards  - Media Lens

If corporate media performance on Iraq was shocking, the response to Syria is made worse precisely because the lessons from Iraq could hardly be more obvious.

We know how the Iraqi 'threat' was demonised with hyped atrocity tales, invented 'links to al Qaeda' and non-existent WMD. We know the West was all along the real threat, using 'diplomacy' to achieve, not avoid, a war for control of Iraq and its oil.




Despite this, and despite the clear need for scepticism regarding claims made about a Syrian government also being targeted by the West, the cartoonist Steve Bell – respected as a rare radical voice at the Guardian - recently produced this cartoon in response to a report commissioned by the Qatari government claiming that the Syrian government had 'systematically tortured and executed about 11,000 detainees since the start of the uprising'.

The cartoon suggests, not only that Syrian president Assad is personally responsible for the mass torture and deaths, but that he is proud of them. This demonisation of an Official Enemy recalls the crude state propaganda of the First World War.

Consider the source of the claims depicted in Bell's cartoon. The Guardian reports that Qatar 'has played a major role arming the rebels seeking to overthrow Bashar al-Assad', having played 'a central role in extending support to the Libyan rebels fighting to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi'. Noam Chomsky notes that arms have been 'flown in [to Syria] from Qatar by the CIA'. Indeed, Qatar has close military ties to the US and UK, with forces armed and trained by the West. Qatar contains the principle overseas headquarters of the US military's Central Command (CENTCOM) and was a key staging ground for the invasion of Iraq. In 2012, the US State Department reported that arms totalling $1.7 billion had been approved to Qatar in the previous fiscal year.

Qatar has long been a dictatorship, an absolute monarchy - political parties are forbidden and there is no independent legislature. Amnesty International recently described how the authorities 'maintain strict control on freedom of expression'. New cases of torture recently emerged in a country where migrant workers are 'exploited, abused and inadequately protected under the law'.

We wrote to Bell:

Hi Steve

Regarding this week's cartoon on Assad's 'selfie', are you not at all sceptical about the timing, accuracy and provenance of the recent report on Syrian government killing and torture? You'll know that the report was commissioned by the Qatari government which, according to the Financial Times, has bankrolled the 'rebels' to the tune of $3 billion in weaponry and other support.

Isn't it obvious that Qatar timed the release of the report to provide an ideal backdrop for media discussion (cartoons included) of the Geneva II peace conference? Should that not encourage a little caution and scepticism?

Sincerely

David Edwards (January 23, 2014)

After an emailed nudge requesting a response, Bell replied:

Dear David Edwards
I'm quite aware of the role of the Qatari government in the Syrian disaster, just as you are well aware of the record of the Assad regime's security apparatus. Timing is important, as is the need to keep our eyes open.
Best wishes
Steve Bell (January 24, 2014)

No doubt many Guardian readers would consider it Bell's job to lampoon instant acceptance of questionable propaganda, and indeed stonewalling replies of the kind he sent us in response to our questions.

Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, put the cartoon, and much other media performance, in perspective:

'But whether 11,000 people really were murdered in a single detainee camp I am unsure. What I do know is that the BBC presentation of today's report has been a disgrace. The report was commissioned by the government of Qatar who commissioned Carter Ruck to do it. Both those organisations are infamous suppressors of free speech. What is reprehensible is that the BBC are presenting the report as though it were produced by neutral experts, whereas the opposite is the case. It is produced not by anti torture campaigners or by human rights activists, but by lawyers who are doing it purely and simply because they are being paid to do it.'

Murray added in a comment beneath his article:

'It is plain the intention of the commissioners of the report is not to investigate atrocities in Syria, but to push again for Western military intervention. Part of a strategy which will next involve a staged breakdown of the Geneva talks.'

The report was headline and front page news on BBC TV, radio and website, and was given massive coverage across the media. It was accepted - with rare caveats vaguely noting that Qatar 'supports' the 'rebels' - at face value.

'Trash Can' Flight Path


If a report from such an obviously biased source can merit wall-to-wall media coverage, how about a report on Syria's August 21, 2013 gas attacks by two authentically credible figures like Richard Lloyd and Theodore Postol?

Lloyd is a former United Nations weapons inspector who in two decades at Raytheon, a top military contractor, wrote two books on warhead design. He has written a critique of the Israeli Iron Dome anti-missile system for engineers and weapons designers. In March 2013, the New York Times noted that Lloyd 'has the credentials for a critique'.

Postol is a professor and national security expert in MIT's Program in Science, Technology and Society. In 1995 he received the Hilliard Roderick Prize from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and in 2001 he received the Norbert Wiener Award from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility 'for uncovering numerous and important false claims about missile defenses'. Postol has a proven track record in, for example, debunking Pentagon claims on the success of its Patriot missile system.

In September 2013, the New York Times described Lloyd and Postol as 'leading weapons experts'.

Their January 14 report titled, 'Possible Implications of Faulty U.S. Technical Intelligence,' examines US government claims regarding the August 21 chemical weapons attacks in Damascus. The report finds that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that night was too short for the device to have been fired from Syrian government positions, as claimed by the Obama administration.

Using mathematical projections about the likely force of the rocket – which has been variously described as 'a trash can on a stick' and 'a soup can' – Lloyd and Postol conclude that the device likely had a maximum range of 2 kilometres, or just more than 1.2 miles. The 'trash can' was not capable of flying the 6 miles from the centre of the Syrian government-controlled part of Damascus to the point of impact in the suburbs, as claimed by the US government, nor even the 3.6 miles from the edges of government-controlled territory. Lloyd and Postol comment in their report:

'This indicates that these munitions could not possibly have been fired at east Ghouta from the "heart" or the eastern edge of the Syrian Government controlled area depicted in the intelligence map published by the White House on August 30, 2013.
'This faulty intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action based on false intelligence.
'A proper vetting of the fact that the munition was of such short range would have led to a completely different assessment of the situation from the gathered data.'

Postol adds:

'I honestly have no idea what happened. My view when I started this process was that it couldn't be anything but the Syrian government behind the attack. But now I'm not sure of anything. The administration narrative was not even close to reality. Our intelligence cannot possibly be correct.'

Lloyd, who has carefully studied weapons capabilities in the Syrian conflict, rejects the claim that rebels are less capable of making these rockets than the Syrian military:

'The Syrian rebels most definitely have the ability to make these weapons. I think they might have more ability than the Syrian government.'

Lloyd and Postol have made clear that they are not arguing that the rebels were behind the attack, but instead pointing to the flawed assessments behind US claims.

So how have the same media that gave so much coverage to the Qatari-commissioned report responded?

According to the Lexis media database (February 3, 2014), Lloyd and Postol's report has not been mentioned in any UK newspaper. Following a search of the Factiva database (January 28, 2014), the US political analyst David Peterson told us that the only major US newspapers to have covered the report are the New York Times and Miami Herald, with one mention each.

This near-total blanking of the report comes in the wake of a detailed analysis of the same chemical weapons attacks by renowned, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books on December 19, 2013.

As we discussed in December, Hersh reported on his interviews with US intelligence and military personnel:

'I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration's assurances of Assad's responsibility a "ruse".'

In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, Hersh added:

'there are an awful lot of people in the government who just were really very, very upset with the way the information about the gas attack took place'.

Hersh's article has received one mention in the entire UK press, in the Daily Mail.

This, then, is more evidence indicating a prime mechanism of thought control in ostensibly democratic societies. Sources favourable to state-corporate power, however non-credible, are granted massive favourable coverage. Sources that challenge the required view of the same interests are simply ignored, with no explanations given by a media system that does not tolerate self-analysis or public interference in what is, after all, a business.

David Yelland explained:

'As a former Sun editor, I know newspapers are dictatorships... too often anyone who challenges the status quo is ejected from the group or sidelined. Indeed, many papers remain dictatorships: anyone who challenges the editor does not last long. This applies even more to proprietors.'

Elite proprietors and parent companies naturally select editors to represent the interests of elite power. Because the same interests run all major media outlets, it is no surprise that they flip as one, like a flock of starlings, towards favourable sources and away from unfavourable ones. The autocratic nature of the media system means that the public has no way to ask even the most basic questions about these decisions. We, for example, are largely dismissed as annoying malcontents.

While a number of national newspapers reported Yelland's comments, Lexis finds that, appropriately enough, not one of them mentioned his claim that 'many papers remain dictatorships'.


Suggested Action

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to:

Steve Bell

Email: belltoons@icloud.com

Monday, February 03, 2014

Manufacturing Dissent: West's True Colours Behind Revolutions Movements

How the West Manufactures “Opposition Movements”

by Andre Vltchek - CounterPunch

Government buildings are being trashed, ransacked. It is happening in Kiev and Bangkok, and in both cities, the governments appear to be toothless, too scared to intervene.

What is going on? Are popularly elected administrations all over the world becoming irrelevant; as the Western regime creates and then supports thuggish ‘opposition movements’ designed to destabilize any state that stands in the way of its desire to fully control the planet?

***

They are shouting and intimidating those who want to vote for the moderately progressive government that is presently leading Thailand. There is no dispute over the electoral process – voting is generally free, as both international observers and most of the local Election Commission members agree.

Freedom, legitimacy or transparency is not what is at stake now.

The rhetoric varies, but in essence, the ‘protesters’ are demanding the dismemberment of the fragile Thai democracy. Most of them are paid by the upper-middle and upper classes. Some of them are thugs, many hired for around 500 Baht a day (roughly US$ 15) in the villages of the restive southern provinces of the country. They are accustomed to the use of violence, their body language and facial expressions clearly show it.

Government officials of the legitimate government have to climb over blockades, or beg protesters to allow them to enter their own offices.

People who came to vote in the pre-election round were intimidated and insulted, and one man was almost strangled to death.

While life in the capital has been fully disrupted, the government does not dare to send in tanks or the police to clear the streets. It should. But it is too scared of the army and the monarchy – two pillars of this outrageous hybrid of savage capitalism and feudalism – comparable only to even worse regional nightmares, such as Indonesia and the Philippines.

It is all in the open now: the government speaks of its fear, while the military sends poisonous threats through the lackey media and through ‘leaks’.

What is happening and what is at stake? The Prime Minister’s older brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, while he was PM himself, attempted to bring in a modern capitalist system to this submissive and deeply scared nation. And not only that: he housed the poor, introduced an excellent free universal medical care system (much more advanced than anything ever proposed in the United States), free and very advanced primary and secondary education, and other concepts deemed dangerous to the world order, and to the local feudal elites, as well as the army.

Thai elites, whose love of being obeyed more than wealth, admired and feared, reacted almost immediately. The PM was exiled, barred from returning home to his country, and smeared. There were military coups, mysterious ‘alliances’, rumours, and ‘secret messages’ coming from a ‘very high place’. There was outright killing, a real massacre, when the so called ‘Red Shirts’, supporters of Mr. Shinawatra (ranging from moderate reformists to Marxists) were butchered by snipers, some shot in their heads.

But the people, the poor, the majority of Thailand, particularly those from the North and Northeast, reacted in a stoical and most determined fashion. Whenever elections were called, whenever the regime outlawed the pro-Shinawatra political parties, the new ones emerged, and kept winning the elections.

In 2011, Mr. Shinawatra’s sister, Yingluck, became Thailand’s Prime Minister.

‘Protestors’ blocked several central arteries of Bangkok, declaring that “Thailand is not ready for democracy”, and that “if elections should determine the country’s future, pro-Shinawatra forces would keep winning”.

That, of course, would be unacceptable to the elites and to many Western countries that have, for decades, benefited from the Thai feudal system.

One of Thailand’s generals, ‘refused to rule out the possibility of another military coup’.

What the opposition proposed was some hazy concept, of a government of technocrats, which would govern until Thailand ‘is ready’ to vote: read until people’s power is broken and it would become certain that a pro-elites, pro-monarchy and pro-military government would be ‘freely’ elected.

In the meantime, thugs are blocking public streets; cultural centers but not malls. They are described as ‘protesters’ in both Europe and the United States.

And here we are coming to the core of things: The terror of the military and feudalism was dressed up in the clothes of rebellion, even revolution. It was given legitimacy, even a certain romantic flair.

Fascism is raising its ugly head, once again. And the West is fully aware of it, and in fact it is openly supportive of the regime that is now de facto governing Thailand from behind the curtains. Because it is the regime it helped to manufacture.

***

I left Bangkok and while in the air, one thought kept repeatedly coming to me: many of the places I had been writing about lately are living a very similar reality as Thailand is.

Those elected democratically, those progressive in their core, these governments all over the world have been under severe attacks by some armed thugs, bandits, and anti-social elements, even by outright terrorists.

I saw it on the Turkish-Syrian border. I heard the stories of many locals, in the Turkish city of Hatay, and in the countryside near the Turkish-Syrian border.

There, I was stopped, prevented from working, interrogated by the local police, army and religious thugs, when I was trying to photograph one of those ‘refugee camps’ built by NATO specially for Syrian fighters, who were housed, trained and armed in this area.

Hatay was overran by Saudi and Qatari jihadi cadres, pampered by the US, EU and Turkish logistics, support, weaponry and cash.

The terror these people have been spreading in this historically peaceful, multi-cultural and tolerant part of the world, could hardly be described in words.

Children from the borderline village described raids, theft and violence, even killing, by anti-Assad ‘rebels’.

Here, and in Istanbul where I worked with Turkish progressive intellectuals, media and academia, I was explained to again and again, that the anti-Syrian ‘opposition’ has been trained, financed and ‘encouraged’ by the West, and by Turkey (a member of NATO), causing the death and destruction of millions of lives in the entire region.

As I write these words, RT is broadcasting an exclusive report from the Syrian city of Adra, the city that had been plundered and destroyed by pro-al Qaida and the pro-Western ‘opposition’ forces, including the Free Syrian Army.

This is the city where, allegedly, one month ago, people were murdered, stoned alive, burned in barrels, and beheaded.

Instead of stopping support for the racist, bigoted and extremely brutal Syrian ‘opposition’, Washington continues demonizing Assad’s government, and threatening it once again with military action.

***

And those thugs, in the countries that elected their own patriotic or progressive governments, were hired by local elites on behalf of the Western Empire.

And before that, the so-called ‘elites’ were hired, funded, or at least trained/’educated’ by the West.

On an ‘intellectual’ level, the private media outlets have been fiercely competing with each other, over which one would become more submissive towards the foreign handlers. The militaries and the most regressive feudalist, even fascist forces all over the world (see Ukraine, for instance) are clearly getting back into the saddle, benefitting and taking full advantage of the trend.

All this has been happening in different degrees and with variable levels of brutality, in Thailand, China, Egypt, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Zimbabwe and many other places all over the world.

Right after reading my article about the situation in Thailand, published on 30 January, my Brazilian reader reacted:

“Similar to our Brazil: though in a faded… somewhat lighter environment but substantially the same… the local elites, right now in January 2014, are doing whatever they can, to prevent the re election of Ms Dilma Roussef… You are an experienced Latin America´s observer, you know very well…”

The process, the tactics, are almost always the same: Western-paid media, or Western media directly, discredit designated popular governments, then ‘scandals’ are created, colors designated to some newly constructed ‘opposition’ movement, thugs selected and paid, and finally deadly weapons ‘miraculously’ appear at the ‘protest sites’.

As long as the government is ‘nationalist’, really patriotic and defending the interests of its own people against international plunder, (not like the Abe’s government in Japan which is peculiarly described as ‘nationalist’, but in reality it fully sides with US foreign policy in the region), it gets marked, and it appears on an invisible but powerful hit list, old-fashioned mafia-style.

As Michael Parenti correctly and colorfully described: “You do it our way, or we break your leg, capice?”

I witnessed President Morsi of Egypt (I was critical of his rule at first, as I was critical of the government of Mr. Shinawatra, before real horror swept both Egypt and Thailand), being overthrown by the military, which, while in its zealous over-drive, managed in the process to murder several thousands of mainly poor Egyptian people.

I was then in Egypt, in and out, for several months, filming a documentary film for the South American television network, Telesur.

In disbelief and dismay I witnessed my revolutionary friends going into hiding, disappearing from the face of the earth. This happened as outrageously arrogant families cheered on the military murderers with no shame, openly.

The logic and tactics in Egypt were predictable: although still capitalist and to a certain extent submissive to IMF and the West, President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood, were a bit too unenthusiastic about collaborating with the West. They never really said ‘no’, but that had not appeared to be enough for the Euro-North American regime, which, these days, demands total, unconditional obedience as well as the kissing of hands and other bodily parts. The regime demands old-fashioned, Protestant-style obedience, complete with self-deprecation and a constant feeling of guilt; it is ordering true and ‘sincere’ servility.

It appears that almost no country, no well-liked government can escape annihilation, if it does not fully submit.

It went so far that unless the government in a developing countries such as Philippines, Indonesia, Uganda or Rwanda, sends a clear message to Washington, London or Paris that “we are here simply to make you, in the West, happy”, it would risk total annihilation, even if it was elected democratically, even if (and actually ‘especially if’) it is supported by the majority of the people.

All this is nothing new, of course. But in the past, things were done a little bit more covertly. These days it is all out in the open. Maybe it is done on purpose, so nobody will dare to rebel, or even to dream.

And so, the revolution in Egypt has been derailed, destroyed, and cruelly choked to death. There is really nothing left of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, just a clear warning: “never try again, or else”.

Yes, I saw the ‘elites’ of Egypt dancing, and celebrating their victory. The elites love the army. The Army guarantees their continuous place at the zenith, their power. The elites even make their little children hold portraits of the military leaders responsible for the coup, responsible for thousands of lost lives, responsible for breaking the great hopes and dreams of the Arab world.

What I witnessed in Egypt was chilling, and it resembled the 1973 coup in Chile (a country which I consider my ‘second or third home’); the coup, which I am not old enough to remember, but footage of which I have seen again and again, in silent and never diminishing horror.

‘Or else’ could be the torture and murder of people in Bahrain. ‘Or else’ could be Indonesia in 1965/66. Or it could be the ‘collapse of the Soviet Union’. ‘Or else’ could be civilian airliners exploding mid-flight; a Cuban plane was destroyed by CIA agents. It could be ravaged Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, or Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, bombed into the stone ages. ‘Or else’ can easily be some fully devastated country like Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama or the Dominican Republic. Or ‘or else’ could mean ten million people butchered in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for both its natural resources and for the anti-imperialist outspokenness of its great leader, Patrice Lumumba.

Now in Egypt, Mubarak’s clique is rapidly coming back to power. He was a well-trusted ‘devil’, and the West quickly realized that to let him fall would be a serious strategic blunder; and so it was decided to bring him back; either personally, or at least his legacy, at the coast of thousands of (insignificant) Egyptian lives, and against the will of almost the entire nation.

The military of Egypt, of course, cannot be allowed to fall, either. The US has invested billions and billions of dollars in it, and the soldiers are now literally in control of half of the country. And it is a very reliable organization: it murders without scruple any being attempting to build a socially just society in this the most populous Arab nation on earth. And it plays with Israel. And it loves capitalism.

Two countries are separated by thousands of miles, and belong to two different cultures, located on two continents; Thailand and Egypt. In both countries, people spoke. They voted in their leaders. Not some Communist government, mind you: just a moderately socially-oriented one in Thailand, and a moderately nationalist/Islamic one in Egypt.

In both cases, the feudal and fascist elites went to work, immediately. Those that are behind them, that are financing them, and ‘morally’ supporting them, is, I believe, absolutely clear.

***

Ukraine is not a fresh victim of destabilization tactics of the European Union, which is so sickly greedy that it appears it, cannot contain itself anymore. It salivates, intensively, imagining the huge natural resources that Ukraine possesses. It is shaking with desire dreaming of a cheap and highly educated labor force.

European companies want to get into Ukraine, by all means. But one has to be careful not to allow the Ukrainian hordes to enter that sacred and thoroughly racist fortress – the European Union. Europe can plunder all over the world, but it is strict and brutal to those who want to get in and ‘steal its jobs’.

Of course the EU cannot do in Ukraine, what it freely does in many places like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It cannot just come and pay some proxy countries, as it pays Rwanda and Uganda (that are already responsible for the loss of over ten million Congolese lives in less than 2 decades), to plunder Ukraine and kill almost all those people that are resisting.

Europe, again and again, for centuries, has proven that it is capable of massacring entire nations without the slightest mercy, (while showing almost zero historic memory) and with almost no moral principles, at least compared to the rest of the world. But it is canny, and unlike the United States, it knows plenty about tactics, strategy and PR.

What the EU did in Libya is clear. Anyone claiming that the United States is acting on its own, must be exercising enormous discipline not to see how closely linked are the interests and actions of the old and new usurpers of Africa, Asia, Latin America, Middle East, Asia and Oceania. France is acting, once again, as the arch neo-colonial thug, particularly in Africa.

But Ukraine is ‘right there’, too near geographically, to the EU itself. It has to be destabilized, but it all has to appear very legitimate. ‘The rebellion’, ‘revolution’, ‘uprising of its people’; that is the way to handle things ‘properly’.

More than a month ago, a bizarre deal was proposed, where European companies would be allowed to enter and clean Ukraine of its natural resources, but the people of Ukraine would not be allowed to even come and work in the EU.

The government, logically and sensibly, rejected the deal. And then, suddenly, Thai-style or Egyptian-style thugs appeared all over the streets of Kiev, armed with sticks and even weapons, and went onto trashing the capital and demanding the democratically elected government to resign.

The groups of thugs include many neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and common criminals. They are emboldened by the Thai-style fear of the Ukrainian government, to use force. They are setting on fire police officers, blocking and occupying government buildings, preventing the administration from serving the people.

Just as their ‘orange’ predecessors, they have been manufactured and carefully crafted, before being released into the wider world.

***

In Africa, just to mention a few cases, tiny Seychelles, a country with the highest HDI (Human Development Index by UNDP) has for years been bombarded with criticism and destabilization attempts. The Government provides excellent totally free (including medicine) medical care and free education. The people of Seychelles are well fed and housed. It is definitely not a perfect society, but, together with Mauritius, it is the best the African continent has to show. But that does not seem to be relevant.

Propaganda from outside, as well as the mainly British-sponsored opposition press, is trashing the system.

One wonders why, but then, on closer scrutiny and understanding of the Empire, things become clear: The Seychelles used to cooperate closely with both Cuba and North Korea, on educational fronts and in other fields. It was too ‘socialist’ for the Empire. And for those retirees seeking an exclusive hedonist lifestyle, it would be acceptable to be surrounded by blue and maybe even by brown, but definitely not by red.

Eritrea, dubbed as the ‘African Cuba’, may be a proud and determined nation, but it was designated as total pariah and outcast state by most of the Western powers. It was hit by sanctions and punished for who knows what.

“We are trying to be inclusive, democratic and fair”, the Eritrean Director of Education recently told me, in Kenya. “But the more we do, the more we care about our people, the more infuriated Western countries appear to be.”

He was a very wise man and so he did not appear to be surprised. Both of us were just ‘comparing notes’.

Zimbabwe is another clear and extreme case. There, the West evidently and openly supports ‘the opposition’, against the government that is loved and supported by the great majority of citizens; the government of liberation struggle against colonialism and imperialism.

Provoked by outrageous lies disseminated by the mainly British mass media, I visited Zimbabwe last year, disputing point-by-point all the main propaganda points directed against Harare. Needless to say, my report, published by CounterPunch, created outrage against Western propaganda, all over the African continent.

The West builds and feeds ‘rebellions’ and ‘opposition’ against Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Brazil, and Ecuador, to mention just a few countries high on its hit list.

In Venezuela, the US sponsored an aborted coup, and it directly pays for hundreds of organizations, ‘NGO’s’ and media outlets, with the direct goal of overthrowing the revolutionary process and the government.

In Cuba, the people of this proud and humanist nation have been suffering for decades. They have been enduring what can only be described as terrorism against their beautiful country. The US and the West have sponsored invasions, terrorist acts, even attempts to influence weather patterns and cause devastating droughts. Crops have been poisoned.

Any Cuban ‘dissident’, any thug that takes up arms against the Cuban system and the government, would get immediate funding and support from the United States.

Even Western media outlets, performing secret polls in Cuba, often come to the conclusion that the majority of Cuban citizens support their system. But that only infuriates the West further. Cuban people are paying a heavy price for their freedom, for their pride, for their independence.

There are many other examples how the ‘opposition’ and terror against ‘unpopular’ (in the eyes of the West) governments are built.

Bolivians almost lost their ‘white’ and-right wing province of Santa Cruz, as the US supported, many say financed the ‘independence movement’ there, obviously punishing the extremely popular government of Evo Morales for being so socialist, so indigenous and so beloved. Brazil, in one great show of solidarity and internationalism, threatened to invade and rescue its neighbor, by preserving its integrity. Therefore, only the weight of this peaceful and highly respectable giant saved Bolivia from certain destruction.

But now even Brazil is under attack of the ‘manufacturers of opposition’!

I don’t want to write at length about China here, in this report. Readers are already familiar with my stand, but in summary: The more high-speed trains the Communist government builds, the more public parks, free exercise machines, more public transportation lines and wide sidewalks, the more it attempts to make medical care free for all once again, the more it attempts to make education free and public – the more it is being smeared and called ‘more capitalist than capitalist states (while over 50% of country’s production remains firmly in state hands).

Russia, like China, Cuba or Venezuela, is demonized relentlessly, every day and every hour. Any oligarch, any deranged pop figure, who criticizes the government of President Putin, is immediately elevated by the US, German and other Western governments, to the level of sainthood.

All this is definitely not because of the Russian human rights record, but because Russia, like the Latin American countries and China, is determinedly blocking Western attempts to destabilize and destroy independent and progressive countries all over the world. It is also due to the increasing influence of the Russian media, particularly RT (Russia Today), which became a commanding voice of resistance to Western propaganda. Needless to say, this writer is proudly associated with RT and its efforts.

***

It is certain that what the world is experiencing now, could be described as ‘the new wave’ of a Western imperial offensive. This offensive is taking place on all fronts, and it is rapidly accelerating. Under the proud Nobel Peace Price winner, Barack Obama and his closest European Neo-cons and ‘socialists with brown insides’, as well as the re-elected fascist Prime Minister of Japan, the world is becoming an extremely dangerous place. It feels like some frontier town invaded by violent gangs.

The biblical perception of ‘those who are not with me are against me’ is gaining new depth.

And be aware of the colors. Be aware of the ‘uprisings’, or anti-government ‘protests’. Which one is genuine and which one is unnaturally created by imperialism and neo-colonialism?

It all appears to be extremely confusing to the majority of people who are getting stuffed on the corporate media feed. Actually, it is supposed to be confusing! The more confused people get, the less capable they are to rebel against real dangers and oppression.

But in the end, despite everything, on the 2nd of February, the people of Thailand voted! They climbed the barricades; they fought with those who were attempting to close polling stations.

And in Ukraine, the majority still supports their government.

And Venezuela and Cuba have not fallen.

And the jihadi cadres are not yet in control of Syria.

And Eritrea and Zimbabwe are still behind their leadership.

People are not cattle. In many parts of the world they are already realizing who their real enemies are.

When the US sponsored a coup against Chavez, the military refused to follow, and as a handpicked businessman was sworn-in as President, the military began moving tanks towards Caracas, in defense of the legitimate and elected leader. The revolution survived!

Chavez passed away, and some say that he was poisoned; that he was infected with cancer, that he was hit from the North. I don’t know whether it is true, but before he died, he was photographed, bold and sweating, suffering from an incurable disease, but determined and proud. He was shouting: “Here nobody surrenders!” And this one image and one short sentence, inspired millions.

I remember, last year in Caracas, standing in front of a huge poster depicting his face, spelling out his words. I would thank him; embrace him if I could, if he were still alive. Not because he was perfect – he was not. But because his life and his words and actions inspired millions, pulled entire nations from depression, from gloom and doom, from slavery. I read from his face this: “They try to screw you by all means, but you fight… You fall but you fight again. They try to kill you but you fight… For justice, for your country, and for a better world.” Chavez did not say this, of course, but that is how it felt, looking at his photograph.

By then, most of South America was free and united against Western imperialism, and hard to defeat. Yes, here, nobody surrendered!

The rest of the world is still very vulnerable and mostly in shackles.

The West is continuously manufacturing and then supporting oppressive forces, be they feudal or religious. The more oppressed people are, the less disposed they are to fight for justice and for their rights. The more scared they are, the easier it is to control them.

Feudalism, religious oppression and cruel right-wing dictatorships, all that serves perfectly well both the market fundamentalism of the Empire, and its obsession with controlling the planet.

But such an arrangement of the world is abnormal, and therefore temporary. Human beings are longing for justice and, in their essence, are a sharing and decent species. Albert Camus, correctly, arrived at the conclusion in his powerful novel “The Plague” (analogy to fight against fascism): “there is more to admire than to despise in humans”.

What the West is now doing to the world; igniting conflicts, supporting banditry and terror, sacrificing millions of people for its own commercial interests, is nothing new under the sun. It is called ‘ordinary fascism’. And fascism came and was defeated, in the past. And it will be again. It will be defeated because it is wrong, because it is against natural human evolution, and because people all over the world are realizing that the feudal structures that Western fascism is trying to administer all over the world, belong to the 18th century, not to this one, and should never again be tolerated.

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His discussion with Noam Chomsky On Western Terrorism is now going to print. His critically acclaimed political novel Point of No Return is now re-edited and available. Oceania is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. He has just completed the feature documentary, “Rwanda Gambit” about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.