“Towards a World War III Scenario” by Michel Chossudovsky

Bestselling book from Global Research

Global Research, April 14, 2017

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” –Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Following the highly acclaimed 2012 release of the latest book by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War“, this title is now available for purchase through the Amazon Kindle program! Now you can take this bestselling title wherever you go and access it through your portable reader.

This highly reviewed title is available to purchase through the Global Research Online Store:

Click to visit Online Store

Ordering from Canada or the US? Save on bulk orders of “Towards a World War III Scenario”:

3 copies for $25.00

10 copies for $65.00

90 copies for $540.00

Combined offer: 2 books for 1 price!

Save on shipping costs and purchase a PDF copy of this title for only $6.50!

Click to purchase PDF  directly from Global Research

Kindle listing of Amazon: “Towards a World War III Scenario

The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”.

While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled.

Breaking the “big lie”, which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

The object of this book is to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.

Editorial Reviews

Professor Chossudovsky’s hard-hitting and compelling book explains why and how we must immediately undertake a concerted and committed campaign to head off this impending cataclysmic demise of the human race and planet Earth. This book is required reading for everyone in the peace movement around the world.
–Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law

This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of U.S. wars since 9-11 against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of “freedom and democracy”.
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

WWIII Scenario

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He is the author of eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the Twenty-first Century (2009) (Editor), Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015). He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia.

Hillary Clinton Is A Psychopath And A War Criminal

By Prof. Francis Boyle

MN: Joining us today on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series is international lawyer and professor of international law at The University of Illinois Dr. Francis Boyle. Boyle has served as legal counsel to the Palestinian Authority, to Hawaiian independence groups, and served on the legal team which led to the conviction of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes. Professor Boyle, welcome to our program today.

March 02, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – FB: Well, thank you very much for having me on, and my best to all my friends in Greece. Great country, great people. I spent about two weeks traveling around in 1974, and another two weeks traveling around in 1982.

MN: Wonderful…well, let’s get started by talking about the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and the case which led to the conviction of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez and others in absentia for war crimes. Tell us about this commission, and about this case that you were a part of, and its aftermath.

FB: Well, there were two different proceedings. The first one was against Bush and Tony Blair, for their war of aggression and Nuremburg crime against peace against Iraq. I was part of the team that helped get a unanimous conviction there. And then, the second proceeding was against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez, and several others, for torture and war crimes. Again, I was part of the team that helped get a unanimous conviction, both for torture and for war crimes. Those materials have been filed with the International Criminal Court, and I’m doing the best I can to follow up on my own, tracking these people and staying in touch with all the lawyers to see if we could get them apprehended.

Now, Bush was about to go to Switzerland, and a Swiss parliamentarian aware of my work demanded that the Swiss prosecutor-general apprehend and prosecute Bush for torture and war crimes, under the domestic implementation of legislation for the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. So when word got back to Bush, he didn’t go to Switzerland. So that’s the way I’m proceeding, and other international human rights experts—I’m not the only one out there, I know the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York is involved, I believe Amnesty International is involved, and there’s some other human rights lawyers I stay in contact with around the world—we’ll keep after these people the best we can.

MN: Now, let’s look more closely at the role of United States foreign policy, its military, and the role of NATO in the world today…almost eight years ago, President Obama came to office promising to shut down Guantanamo Bay, promising to right the wrongs of the Bush administration, but instead, we’ve seen Guantanamo remain open, we’ve seen U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East continue and, in fact, intensify, and we’ve seen the growth of military operations using unmanned drones, in Yemen and elsewhere. How does international law view the actions of the Obama administration and the United States today?

FB: Well, actually I wrote a book that comprehensively covered all the violations of international law, human rights, the laws of war, and United States constitutional law by the Bush Jr. administration, called “Tackling America’s Toughest Questions,” and in the conclusion—I wrote the conclusion three weeks after Obama was inaugurated—I said it looked like we very well might be getting a third Bush term, and that’s what we’ve got here, two more Bush terms under Obama. He’s pretty much continued the Bush policies, both abroad and here at home, compounding and continuing the Bush police state here in the United States. At some point I guess I’ll get around to writing a book on the Obama administration’s violations of international law, but in the meantime you can read my book on the Bush violations, “Tacking America’s Toughest Questions,” and he’s basically continued the same policies.

MN: We are on the air with international law expert Francis Boyle here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series… Years ago, you had written about the plans of the United States, the European Union and NATO for the Ukraine and indeed for the world, with a stated goal of destroying specific states and listing seven countries that were slated to be taken over. What were those plans and have they come into fruition?

FB: Yes they have. In my book, “The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence,” I have in there a statement by deputy secretary of defense Wolfowitz, made right after 9/11/2001, that the United States government was going to get into the business of destroying states, and I analyze that sentence. It’s genocidal. And then soon thereafter, NATO general Wesley Clark was in the Pentagon and he was told they had a list of seven Muslim states that they were going to destroy. Basically, they’ve all been taken out now except for Iran. They’ve destroyed Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Lebanon has been pretty much paralyzed, and they lopped out South Sudan from Sudan. So that process continues, and now they’re moving towards the Ukraine and China. They’re moving towards Russia from the Ukraine, and also China. They’re moving directly to confront China.

MN: Is there, in your view, any political candidate, any political force in the United States at the present time that can put an end to this foreign policy and to the U.S. military machine overseas? For instance, there’s many progressives who have placed their hope in Bernie Sanders as the man to do this. Is this hope misguided, in your view?

FB: Well I’m not going to criticize Senator Sanders here, I’ve dealt with him personally, but everyone had the same hope about Obama during his campaign. Now, Obama was behind me at Harvard Law School, and he moved to the Hyde Park area in Chicago with the University of Chicago, where I was an undergraduate, so I had my own sources out there in Chicago, and they told me not to trust Obama, so I never have. And indeed, I didn’t vote for him two times in a row and I was not deluded by Obama, which is why I said, three weeks into his administration, in my book, “Tackling America’s Toughest Question,” it looked to me like we were going to get a third Bush term. You know, hope springs eternal. Maybe Bernie Sanders will actually do something, I don’t know.

Hillary Clinton is a psychopath and a war criminal, [who said] “we came, we saw, he died,” mimicking Julius Ceasar and laughing hysterically after Colonel Kaddafi, my former client, was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. She’s a certified psychopath and war criminal. As for the Republicans, none of them look very good at all, between you and me, so I guess maybe Senator Sanders might make a difference. The last time around I did support Jill Stein of the Green Party, I thought she was the best candidate and had the best platform, but unfortunately the Greens, with all due respect to them, didn’t really get themselves organized and accomplish everything. So there we are here in America, what can I say?

MN: We are on the air with international law expert Francis Boyle here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series… The ongoing and worsening conflict in Syria and all across the Middle East has led to a tremendous wave of refugees fleeing their homelands and traveling, under treacherous conditions, to Europe, with Greece often serving as the European entry point for these refugees. What do you make of the European Union’s stance towards the refugee crisis and the stance of the international community, and what does international law foresee in such circumstances?

FB: All these refugees are fleeing because the United States government has been destroying their states, as we’ve already discussed. Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya accounts for most of them, so that’s why they are fleeing, the outright terror of the aggression, war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity that the United States government is inflicting upon them. With respect to Europe, everyone there in Europe, all the states are parties to the U.N. refugees convention that’s the international law. Unfortunately it appears that they’re going to be making Greece the scapegoat for all of this and confining all of these refugees in Greece, if you’re reading the plans here, which is completely unfair. I don’t know exactly how to advise Greece as to how to deal with the situation. The refugee convention is there, but you’re being made the scapegoat for American policies here, and Europe is going along with it.

MN: You have written and spoken extensively about growing Israeli belligerence in the Middle East and about the Palestinian right of return. How does international law view Israeli actions in the region, such as the continued construction of settlements, and how can the Palestinian people defend their homeland and their sovereignty, from a legal point of view?

FB: Well I’ve written three books, including “Palestine: Palestinians and International Law: Breaking All The Rules,” and “The Palestinian Right of Return Under International Law,” so I’m not going to go through all that, but basically what we have here is outright genocide being perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians, with the full support of the United States government. And that is what confronts us today as citizens of the world community. Israel wants all of Palestine and they don’t want any Palestinians there, so it’s going to get worse. I gave the best advice I can to the Palestinian leadership, I’ve worked with them to get them up to the point where they are now a United Nations observer state, I have devised a means whereby they can overcome Obama’s threatened veto of their membership, full-fledged state membership in the United Nations, and I have also offered to sue Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the world court, for inflicting genocide against them and trying to stop the settlements, the genocidal siege of Gaza. So, the Palestinian leadership has my recommendations and offer to help. In the meantime, I’m doing everything I can…I was the one who set off the Israeli divestment, disinvestment campaign of November of 2000, and then in 2005, the Palestinian civil society contacted me and asked me if I would go in with them on a BDS campaign, which I agreed to do. So the BDS campaign has taken off now all over the world, and I would encourage your listeners to work with the Palestinian BDS campaign for sure. It’s having an impact.

MN: We are on the air with international law expert Francis Boyle here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series… Having mentioned Israel and the Middle East, this past summer, the Greek government signed an agreement with the armed forces of Israel, a so-called “status of forces” accord, which Israel has apparently signed with only one other country in the world, the United States. What does this accord mean and what do you make of the Greek government’s efforts to forge closer ties with Israel

FB: Well, I haven’t read this document, so I don’t think I should comment on a document I haven’t read. But, it is very unfortunate to see Greece move towards working hand-and-glove with Israel, when you did have a previous history there of supporting the Palestinians, and I think the Greek people need to make it clear to the current SYRIZA government that you’re not going to accept this at all, and you want the Greek government to go back and support the Palestinians.

MN: You used to be a member of the board of Amnesty International USA, back in the late 80s and early 1990s. However, you have since turned into a fierce critic of NGOs such as Amnesty International. Describe for us the relationship that exists between such NGOs and power structures in Washington and elsewhere.

FB: Yes. These western NGOs, and you probably have some of them in Greece, all operate on the basic principle: he who pays the piper calls the tune. There’s nothing objective, neutral, or dispassionate about any of them, including and especially Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, I could go down an entire list of these NGOs. So they’re really not there to help you and the people of Greece. You might have your own internal Greek NGOs that get money from Greek sources, but that’s a different matter. You have to be very careful with these NGOs. For example, this summer Amnesty International adopted a resolution to the effect that it was going to promote the sex industry and sex trade on a worldwide basis, which I did my best to stop. I read the documents in support of this, and it all went back to George Soros documentation. So it seems that Soros must have made a very big contribution to Amnesty International to get this reprehensible policy rammed through their headquarters in London, and then Amnesty worldwide. I take it that Soros must have some type of investments in the sex industry—you know, he’s a hedge fund manager—and you know, Soros gave $100 million to Human Rights Watch, so you can figure it out from there. It’s true of all of these western NGOs.

MN: We are on the air with international law expert Francis Boyle here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series… Your outspoken criticism of U.S. foreign policy, against Israel, also issues such as being in favor of independence for Hawaii and for many other issues has put you on the radar of the FBI and other intelligence agencies. Describe for us an encounter you had with the FBI about a decade ago.

FB: One day, two agents of the FBI and the CIA showed up at my office, misrepresented to my secretary who they were, what they were about. I let them in to my office. They proceeded to interrogate me for one hour and tried to get me to become an informant against my Muslim clients, which I refused to do, repeatedly refused. So they went out then and put me on all the United States government’s terrorist watch lists. According to my lawyer, there’s six or seven of them and as far as he can figure out, I was put on all of them. You know, what can I say? My lawyer did appeal, but he was told I would remain on all of these watch lists until the FBI and CIA take me off, which course is not going to happen in my lifetime. He did make it possible for me to travel, but there we are.

MN: Now let’s turn to Greece one more time…over the past six years, successive Greek governments, including the supposedly leftist SYRIZA government, have signed a series of memorandum agreements which have not only imposed harsh economic austerity, which have not only resulted in the privatization and sell-off of key public assets, but which have also essentially signed away, at least on paper, Greece’s sovereignty. The EU and the troika have final approval rights over key legislation that is brought before the Greek parliament, while the memorandum agreements have been placed under the legal authority of the United Kingdom and Luxembourg. Are such agreements valid under international law, and what could Greece do to restore the country’s sovereignty? Are there any precedents in international law that Greece could turn to?

FB: It does appear that SYRIZA has abandoned and betrayed the Greek people and the promises it had made originally to get elected. You know, you’re asking me this question for the first time, but certainly one could use an argument of economic duress and threats of coercion under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to try to claw back some of these agreements that SYRIZA has made. As for this debt, there is a well-known doctrine under international law known as “odious debt” that I think Greece could consider to repudiate a good deal of this debt. I haven’t studied the elements of the Greek debt, but it does appear there are more than enough elements there that could be repudiated as odious debt. And then finally, clearly Germany owes massive reparations to Greece for the Nazi occupation and war crimes in Greece during World War II. They still have not paid up, and I think the Greek government or the Greek people need to insist on that, and that gives you a lot of leverage against Germany, which is really the most powerful country in Europe right now and is pretty much calling all of the shots here. I think there the Greek people understand this. So you have a lot of leverage, but the SYRIZA government has to use it.

MN: Are the examples of countries such as Iceland or Argentina possible precedents that could be used in the case of Greece?

FB: Well Iceland’s pretty small… yes, you could look at Argentina, and then also Malaysia, when it was threatened by Soros with his hedge fund’s attack on the “Asian Tigers.” Malaysia was able to pull through that.

MN: We are on the air with international law expert Francis Boyle here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series… We live in a global society today that is marked by increased government surveillance, police violence, an increasingly neoliberal and authoritarian world. In light of this, what can ordinary people do to not only stand up for human rights and the rule of law, but to also identify political and social movements that will truly stand up for their rights and not betray them?

FB: Well you just had a general strike in Greece. I thought that was great, it really shows the Greek people have had enough. Everyone taking to the street, I think we need to see more of that in Greece, and then some type of leadership emerge out of those general strikes. It seems to me they’re really in contact with people. SYRIZA has forfeited, in my opinion, its right to lead the Greek people. They’re working in cahoots with the IMF, the World Bank, the European Central Bank, Brussels, and Berlin.

MN: Professor Boyle, thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us today here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series, and for sharing your insights and experiences with our listeners.

FB: Thanks for having me on, and I look forward to coming back to Greece sometime when I can fit the trip in. Great country, I learned so much from your people and the history and the culture.

MN: Thank you once more, greatly appreciated.

Transcript byDialogos Radio.

Jewish Statistics

By Gilad Atzmon

The ultra Zionist Jewish Chronicle revealed last week that, “41 per cent of young Jews would back sanctions against Israel to advance peace.” This may sound as if young Jews are, at last, moving in the right direction. Not really!

The JC was quick to amend its article to correct the wrong impression. Though 2 out of 5 young Jews back sanctions on Israel to promote peace, most young Jews “also believed that there is no credible partner (to peace) on the Palestinian side.”

So, many young Jews support Israel in making peace, once they find a ‘partner.’ If only Jews could choose their enemies. I would similarly guess that at least 40% of young Jews would be happy to drive a Rolls Royce if only they could afford it.

If you insist upon indulging yourself with the thought that Jews are moving away from support of Israel, the polls contradict such an idea in clear terms: “On fundamentals such as recognising Israel’s legitimacy, British Jews “speak as one””*

The message is clear. The Jews are not going to bring Israel down and the progressive Jews who insist that Jews are moving in the right direction are lying to us. Maybe for them also, ‘by way of deception,’ is a kosher strategy.

If you ask yourself what the above poll may really mean, the answer is simple. Political Jews do and say what they believe to be ‘good for the Jews.’ Indeed, Jews don’t agree amongst themselves what is good for the Jews. Some believe that Jews should pretend to be humane, other believe that Jews should be seen as hawkish and aggressive. Accordingly 41% amongst young British Jews believe that saying that they support sanctions is good for the Jews because it makes the Jews look empathic and peace loving. But when it comes to questions on the legitimacy of Jews dwelling on someone else’s land, Jews apparently “speak as one.”

 

* The overwhelming majority – 93 per cent – said that their relationship with Israel forms part of their identity as Jews; 90 per cent supported its existence as a “Jewish state”;

Neo-Cons, Fundies, Feddies, and Con-Artists

Global Research, December 17, 2005
Perdana Peace Forum 17 December 2005

It is now a matter of public record that immediately after the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld and his pro-Israeli “Neoconservative” Deputy Paul Wolfowitz began to plot, plan, scheme and conspire to wage a war of aggression against Iraq by manipulating the tragic events of September 11th in order to provide a pretext for doing so.1 Of course Iraq had nothing at all to do with September 11th or supporting Al-Qaeda . But that made no difference to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, their Undersecretary of War Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, and the numerous other pro-Israeli Neo-Cons inhabiting the Bush Jr. administration.

These pro-Israeli Neo-Cons had been schooled in the Machiavellian/Nietzschean theories of Professor Leo Strauss who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago in its Department of Political Science. The best exposé of Strauss’s pernicious theories on law, politics, government, for elitism, and against democracy can be found in two scholarly books by the Canadian Professor of Political Philosophy Shadia B. Drury.2 I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was trained in Chicago’s Political Science Department by Strauss’s foremost protégé, co-author, and later literary executor Joseph Cropsey. Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago’s Political Science Department (A.B., 1971, in Political Science), I concur completely with Professor Drury’s devastating critique of Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process that has been inflicted by Chicago’s Straussian Neo-Con cabal.3

The University of Chicago routinely trained me and innumerable other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is precisely why so many neophyte Neo-Con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago or towards Chicago Alumni at other universities. Years later, the University of Chicago became the “brains” behind the Bush Jr. Empire and his Ashcroft Police State. Attorney General John Ashcroft received his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1967. Many of his lawyers at the Bush Jr. Department of Injustice are members of the right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, and totalitarian Federalist Society (aka “Feddies”),4 which originated in part at the University of Chicago. Feddies wrote the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) I and the draft for USAPA II, which constitute the blueprint for establishing an American Police State.5 Meanwhile, the Department of Injustice’s own F.B.I. is still covering up the U.S. governmental origins of the post 11 September 2001 anthrax attack on Washington D.C. that enabled Ashcroft and his Feddies to stampede the U.S. Congress into passing USAPA I into law.6

Integrally related to and overlapping with the Feddies are members of the University of Chicago “School” of Law-and-Kick-Them-in-the-Groin-Economics, which in turn was founded upon the Market Fundamentalism of Milton Friedman, now retired but long-time Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. Friedman and his “Chicago Boys” have raped, robbed, looted, plundered, and pillaged economies and their respective peoples all over the developing world.7 This Chicago gang of academic con-artists and charlatans are proponents of the Nazi Doctrine of “useless eaters.” Pursuant to Friedman’s philosophy of Market Fundamentalism, the “privatization” of Iraq and its Oil Industry are already underway for the primary benefit of the U.S. energy companies (e.g., Halliburton, formerly under Vice President Dick Cheney) that had already interpenetrated the Bush Jr. administration as well as the Bush Family itself. Enron.

Although miseducated8 at Yale and Harvard Business School, the “Ivies” proved to be too liberal for Bush Jr. and his fundamentalist Christian supporters, whose pointman and spearcarrier in the Bush Jr. administration was Ashcroft, a Fundie himself. The Neo-Cons and the Fundies contracted an “unholy alliance” in support of Bush Jr. For their own different reasons, both gangs also worked hand-in-hand to support Israel’s genocidal Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, an internationally acknowledged war criminal.9

According to his own public estimate and boast before the American Enterprise Institute, President Bush Jr. hired about 20 Straussians to occupy key positions in his administration, intentionally taking offices where they could push American foreign policy in favor of Israel and against its chosen enemies such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians.10 Most of the Straussian Neo-Cons in the Bush Jr. administration and elsewhere are Israel-firsters: What is “good” for Israel is by definition “good” for the United States. Dual loyalties indeed.11

In addition, it was the Chicago Straussian cabal of pro-Israeli Neo-Cons who set up a special “intelligence” unit within the Pentagon that was responsible for manufacturing many of the bald-faced lies, deceptions, half-truths, and sheer propaganda that the Bush Jr. administration then disseminated to the lap-dog U.S. news media12 in order to generate public support for a war of aggression against Iraq for the benefit of Israel and in order to steal Iraq’s oil.13 To paraphrase advice Machiavelli once rendered to his Prince in Chapter XVIII of that book: Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived.14 As I can attest from my personal experience as an alumnus of the University of Chicago Department of Political Science, the Bible of Chicago’s Neo-Con Straussian cabal is Machiavelli’s The Prince. We students had to know our Machiavelli by heart and rote at the University of Chicago.

As for the University of Chicago overall, its biblical Gospel is Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind (1987).15 Of course Bloom was another protégé of Strauss, as well as a mentor to Wolfowitz. In his Bloom-biographical novel Ravelstein (2000) Saul Bellow, formerly on the University of Chicago Faculty, outed his self-styled friend Bloom as a hedonist, pederast, and most promiscuous homosexual who died of AIDS. All this was common knowledge at the University of Chicago, where Bloom is still worshiped and his elitist screed against American higher-education still revered on a pedestal.

In Ravelstein Wolfowitz appeared as Bloom’s protégé Philip Gorman, leaking national security secrets to his mentor during the Bush Sr. war against Iraq. Strauss hovered around the novel as Bloom’s mentor and guru Professor Davarr. Strauss/Davarr is really the éminence grise of Ravelstein. With friends like Bellow, Bloom did not need enemies. On the basis of Ravelstein alone, Wolfowitz warrants investigation by the F.B.I.

Just recently the University of Chicago officially celebrated its Bush Jr. Straussian Neo-Con cabal, highlighting Wolfowitz Ph.D. ’72, Ahmad Chalabi, Ph.D. ’69 (the CIA’s Iraqi puppet), Abram Shulsky, A.M. ’68, Ph.D. ’72 (head of the Pentagon’s special “intelligence” unit), Zalmay Khalilzad, Ph.D. ’79 (Bush Jr’s roving pro-consul for Afghanistan and then Iraq), as well as faculty members Bellow, X ’39, and Bloom, A.B. ’49, A.M. ’53, Ph.D. ’55, together with Strauss. According to the University of Chicago Magazine, Bloom’s rant “helped popularize Straussian ideals of democracy.”16 It is correct to assert that Bloom’s book helped to popularize Straussian “ideas,” but they were blatantly anti-democratic, Machiavellian, Nietzschean, and elitist to begin with. Only the University of Chicago would have the unmitigated Orwellian gall to publicly assert that Strauss and Bloom cared one whit about democracy, let alone comprehended the “ideals of democracy.”

Does anyone seriously believe that a pro-Israeli Chicago/Strauss/Bloom product such as Wolfowitz could care less about democracy in Iraq? Or for that matter anyone in the Bush Jr. administration? After they stole the 2000 presidential election from the American People in Florida and before the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court, some of whom were Feddies?17 Justice Clarence Thomas is a Straussian to boot.18

At the behest of its Straussian Neo-Con Political Science Department, in 1979 the entire University of Chicago went out of its way to grant the “first Albert Pick Jr. Award for Outstanding Contributions to International Understanding” to Robert “Mad Bomber” McNamara.19 In other words, the University of Chicago itself maliciously strove to rehabilitate one of the greatest international war criminals in the post-World War II era.20 Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like Wolfowitz or totalitarians like Ashcroft! The University of Chicago is an intellectual and moral cesspool.

Endnotes

1. See, e.g., Rahul Mahajan, Full Spectrum Dominance 108 (2003).

2. Shadia B. Drury, The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988); Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999). See also Alain Frachon & Daniel Vernet, The Strategist and the Philosopher: Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter, Le Monde, April 16, 2003, translated into English by Norman Madarasz on Counterpunch.org., June 2, 2003.

3. See also David Brock, Blinded by the Right (2002).

4. George E. Curry & Trevor W. Coleman, Hijacking Justice, Emerge, October 1999, at 42; Jerry M. Landay, The Conservative Cabal That’s Transforming American Law, Washington Monthly, March 2000, at 19; People for the American Way, The Federalist Society (August 2001); Institute for Democracy Studies, The Federalist Society and the Challenge to a Democratic Jurisprudence (January 2001).

5. Francis A. Boyle, Bush’s Banana Republic, Counterpunch.org, Oct. 11, 2002.

6. Francis A. Boyle, Biowarfare, Terror Weapons and the U.S.: Home Brew?, Counterpunch.org, April 25, 2002.

7. See Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (2003), at 5 et seq.

8. See Chomsky on Miseducation (Donald Macedo ed. 2000).

9. Francis A. Boyle, Take Sharon to The Hague, Counterpunch.org, June 6, 2002.

10. White House Press Release, President Discusses the Future of Iraq, Washington Hilton Hotel, Feb. 26, 2003.

11. Nasser H. Aruri, Dishonest Broker, 193-216 (2003). See also Tanya Reinhart, Israel/Palestine (2002); Cheryl A. Rubenberg, The Palestinians (2003).

12. Norman Solomon, The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media (1999); Noam Chomsky, Media Control (1997).

13. Seymour M. Hersh, Selective Intelligence, New Yorker, May 8, 2003; Michael Lind, The Weird Men Behind George W. Bus’s War, New Statesman – London, April 7, 2003; Julian Borger, The Spies Who Pushed for War, The Guardian, July 17, 2003.

14. Machiavelli, The Prince 147 (M. Musa trans. & ed. 1964): “. . . and men are so simple-minded and so dominated by their present needs that one who deceives will always find one who will allow himself to be deceived.” This Bilingual Edition of The Prince by Mark Musa was the one preferred by Joseph Cropsey to teach us students.

15. But see Lawrence W. Levine, The Opening of the American Mind (1996).

16. Between the Lines, University of Chicago Magazine, June 2003, at 54

17. Vincent Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America (2001); Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy 11-81 (2003).

18. Gerhard Sporl, The Leo-Conservatives, Der Spiegel, Aug. 4, 2003.

19. McNamara Receives Pick Award Amid Protests, University of Chicago Magazine, Summer 1979, at 4.

20. Noam Chomsky, Rethinking Camelot (1993); Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect (1995).

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

New Video Evidence of America’s Coup in Ukraine — and What It Means

 

Eric Zuesse

New video evidence has been added to the already-conclusive video evidence which shows that the U.S. Government was the controlling power behind the extremely violent  and illegal 18-27 February 2014 Ukrainian coup, which overthrew the democratically elected and never legally removed-from-power Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

This new evidence proves, even more than before (if that were even possible to do), that the current regime in Ukraine is definitely illegal — but that’s not all. Even after fake ‘democratic’ elections, it’s the same illegal regime in Ukraine that the U.S. imposed at its February 2014 coup, because no nationwide vote has occurred in Ukraine throughout that country’s expanse after the American coup; it’s still just a rump-Ukrainian Government, not one representing the residents either in Crimea or in Ukraine’s far east (neither of which regions participated in Ukrainian elections after the coup) — and yet this illegal violent coup-imposed Ukrainian regime (and the U.S. that imposed it, and even the EU that sheepishly backed it) nonetheless demand (against all legalities) that this blatantly illegal U.S.-imposed Ukrainian Government must control those areas, which reject this nazi imposed Government — that the residents in the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for Yanukovych don’t have the right to self-determination, but must instead accept a coup that goes exactly against, and even has gone so far as to overthrow, the Government for which the residents in those regions had overwhelmingly voted.

This was a violent takeover of the Ukrainian Government, by profoundly racist anti-Russian nationalist Ukrainians, who were in the pay of the U.S. Government. And, it sparked such terror into the hearts of Russians and of Ukraine’s minorities (who were especially large a proportion of the Crimean population), so that, first, Crimea broke away and declared its no longer being a part of Ukraine (it would return to Russia, of which it had been a part from 1783-1954, almost its entire modern existence); and, then, starting on May 9th of 2014, a Ukrainian civil war broke out when the U.S.-installed Government of Ukraine actually invaded the regions (other than Crimea) that rejected it; and the United States oversaw and sent even more mercenaries to this extremely bloody ethnic cleansing campaign to get rid of the residents in the specific region (called “Donbass” and shown in dark purple on this map) of Ukraine that had voted 90% for Yanukovych.

This was the first outright nazi action ever undertaken by any American President. Ever. That’s how bad it is, as a historical precedent for this country. It is being carried out by proud racist fascists (nazis), who are specifically admirers and followers of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis, which were the first, the original, nazi political party, and which are the pattern for Obama’s operatives in Ukraine — the perpetrators of this coup and its subsequent (also totally illegal) ethnic-cleansing campaign. (For examples: all these firebombings that Obama’s forces are doing to the residents in Donbass are against international law.) These Ukrainian nazis even send their children to nazi schools where kids are trained to hate Russians. Obama uses these people; he found this extermination of pro-Russians in Ukraine to be necessary; so as to get rid of the voters whose votes had made Yanukovych President. In Donbass, 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych; so, this was the prime area to be ethnically cleansed (and sometimes they’re driven at night to the countryside and shot at the edge of a ditch). If those voters were ever again allowed to vote in Ukraine, then a pro-Russian government could again be elected in Ukraine, and Obama’s action in that country (his turning it rabidly anti-Russian in its policies) could thus turn out to have been a mere waste for him — just a temporary matter. The strategy here is carefully thought-out, and this is also one reason why it has the support of almost every member of the U.S. House and Senate (even though 67% of the American public oppose it). A similar strategy would be as if Obama were to firebomb and otherwise lay waste Utah because it had voted in the 2012 election 73% for Romney and only 25% for Obama, and so killing the residents there would increase the future chances of electing a Democratic President in the U.S. But in Donbass, Yanukovych had actually won 90% of the vote, not a mere 73%; and, besides, nobody in the U.S. and its allies is even so much as criticizing Obama’s exterminations of the residents in Donbass (the people that Obama’s Ukrainian Government calls “terrorists” for simply living there), but instead Vladimir Putin is being criticized in the West for his “Russian aggression,” because he helps those forlorn people defend themselves from the Obama team’s firebombs, clusterbombs, bullets, and other killing-machines. (And here’s one of the Obama team’s firebombings of the city of Donetsk just a few days ago.)

The nazi United States Government today is ideologically, by its nazi actions, at war against the democratic United States that, by its democratic actions, had fought and shed blood to defeat Hitler’s Nazis in World War II. (And — unlike the firebombing of Nazi Dresden in February 1945 — Donetsk and the Obama team’s other Donbass targets are anti-nazi; the U.S. is this time the nazi invader, via its local Ukrainian surrogates. This is not to say that any firebombing should be allowed, but just to say that America has ideologically switched sides since then, which is atrocious.) Of course, there have been nazis in America even before Hitler came to power in Germany; but they were not running the U.S. Government until now; and, now, for the first time ever, the U.S. has itself a nazi Government, which is backed up by nazi American think tanks and media, etc., the entire panoply of political horror. The chief difference from Hitler’s (other than that this nazi government hasn’t yet gone as far toward its ultimate objectives as Hitler’s did) is that this one hates and seeks to destroy mainly Russians, whereas Hitler’s focused mainly against Jews. However, this one seems to be just about as obsessive about eliminating Russians as Hitler’s was about eliminating Jews. In fact, Obama’s hatred of Russia explains not only his Ukrainian policy but also his Syrian policy. Furthermore, Iran is also allied with Russia, and American policy there too might partly be a reflection of Obama’s bigotry against Russia — it should instead be a reflection of strictly U.S.-Iranian issues. Understanding Obama’s foreign policies without recognizing his vicious (and until fairly recently, secret) anti-Russian obsession, which is proven by his actions (not his rhetoric, which is basically dishonest and should simply be ignored except as his PR) can’t be done: it produces only misunderstanding (which is the real purpose behind most of his rhetoric).

So, this new item of evidence, which was posted to youtube on 27 January 2015, shows a courageous member of the “Rada” or Ukraine’s parliament, Oleg Tsarev, on 20 November 2013, and you can see the video’s (broken) English translation transcript, by clicking there on “More.” This is a parliamentary speech, in which he says (and I’ve cleaned up the translation here, only to make it easier to understand):

In my role as a representative of the Ukrainian people, activists from the Volya Public Organization turned to me, providing clear evidence that within our country, with support and direct participation of the US Embassy in Kiev, a “TechCamp” project is under way in which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine. The “TechCamp” project prepares specialists for information warfare and for the discrediting of state institutions [the Government] using modern media — potential revolutionaries for organizing protests and the toppling of the Government. This project is overseen by and currently under the responsibility of the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the Volya Organization, I learned that they actually succeeded to access facilities in the “TechCamp” project [they had hacked into it] disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, were found briefings that were held on peculiarities of modern media. American instructors explained there how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate potential protest to provoke violent unrest on the territory of Ukraine — radicalization of the population, and triggering of infighting. American instructors show examples of successful use of social networks to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. “Tech Camp” representatives currently hold conferences throughout Ukraine. A total of five events have been held so far. About 300 people have been trained as operatives, who are now active throughout Ukraine. The last conference took place on 14 and 14 November 2013, in the heart of Kiev, inside the US Embassy! You tell me which country in the world would allow an NGO to operate out of the US Embassy? This is disrespectful to the Ukrainian Government, and against the Ukrainian people! I thus appeal to the constitutional authorities of Ukraine with the following question: Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy who organize the “TechCamp” conferences misuse their diplomatic immunity? [Someone tries to interrupt him.] A UN Resolution of 21 December 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal “affairs of any State, and protects its independence and sovereignty.  I urge that there be an official  investigation into this matter.

Wikipedia’s “Timeline of the Euromaidan” starts on 21 November 2013, the day after Tsarev’s speech. It says there:

Euromaidan started in the night of 21 November 2013 when up to 2,000 protesters gathered at Kiev’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti and began to organize themselves with the help of social networks.[7] After he heard of the Ukrainian government decree to Yatsenyuk government,”suspend preparations for signing of the Association Agreement on 21 November 2013,[8][9] opposition party Batkivshchyna faction leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk called, via Twitter, for protests (which he dubbed as #Euromaidan) on Maidan Nezalezhnosti.[10]

Of course, Yatsenyuk was the person who, in a 4 February 2014 phone-conversation between Victoria Nuland of Obama’s State Department and Mr. Pyatt of her Kiev Embassy, she told Pyatt was to be selected by him, as the head of the coup-Government that would become installed during the coup, which extended from 18-27 February 2014. (In other words: the coup started two weeks after that phone-conversation in which the new leader had already been selected.)

The CIA edits wikipedia articles, and so the title of the wikipedia article on the coup is titled “2014 Ukrainian revolution,” not “2014 Ukrainian coup.” Also because of the CIA’s editing, the date of Yatsenyuk’s official appointment to head the Government is buried, instead of being featured in that article (as it should be). The day-by-day account given there starts on 18 February, and ends on 21 February. Then comes: “Deal’s Aftermath.” Then, after yet 9 more such sections, comes “Lustration,” which mentions the new leader’s appointment only in passing: “On 26 February 2014, Ehor Sobolev was nominated to lead the ‘Committee on Lustration’ in the new Yatsenyuk Government.” In other words: the appointment, and the official installment, of “Yats” to run the new Government, isn’t even so much as mentioned in that article. If one clicks there on “Yatsenyuk government,” then one comes to an article that opens: “The first government headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk was created in Ukraine on 27 February 2014 in the aftermath of the Ukrainian revolution.[1] The cabinet was formed as a coalition of the parties Batkivschyna, UDAR and Svoboda and the parliamentary factions Economic Development and Sovereign European Ukraine and other independent MPs.[1]” Nothing is said there about the new Government’s domination by nazis (who were selected by Victoria Nuland’s man “Yats”). The rest of the article is just as deceptive, in the standard way: by avoiding to state the things that are the most important to state in order for a reader to be able to understand or interpret the given matter accurately. In other words: It’s written for deception.

The time when this speech was delivered by Tsarev was also extremely significant: The very next day, Yanukovych rejected the EU’s deal. On 21 November 2013, the reporter for Britain’s Guardian headlined online, “Ukraine suspends talks on EU trade pact as Putin wins tug of war,” and he reported that “Ukraine has abruptly ditched its plans to sign a historic pact with the European Union aimed at shifting the country out of the Kremlin’s orbit.” What Tsareve was saying on November 20th was that the U.S. had geared up long before that decison by Yanukovych, to overthrow him if he didn’t cave to the pressures from the U.S. and its allies, and that the “Euromaidan” demonstrations which immediately thereafter became stage-setting for America’s coup against him, were extremely well planned in advance, and constituted only the ‘democratic’ cover for the coup and would be nothing more than that — which turned out to be the case.

Oleg Tsarev, the man who warned parliament one day prior to the start of the Euromaidan demonstrations, was subsequently, in mid-May of 2014, phoned by the oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky, a friend of the Obama White House, and he was told to leave Ukraine or else he would be killed because some unnamed individual(s) had placed a million-dollar price on his head. Tsarev didn’t comply. (His courage was remarkable: he had already survived a beating by a nazi crowd on 15 April 2014. Speaking truth to power was his characteristic way.) Instead, Tsarev became elected to the parliament in one of the two breakaway new republics constituting Donbass. On 19 December 2014, Tsarev wrote that the Ukrainian Government was failing miserably all Ukrainians, not only in the areas that had left Ukraine; and he also mentioned, in passing, that, in one of Kolomoysky’s businesses, “Kolomoysky delivers cheesy vests for the price of gold chain mail.” Here’s what that passing reference meant: On 11 August 2014, “Life News” in Russia had headlined, “Ukrainian Ministry of Defense spent $ 3.5 million on substandard body armor” and reported that, in a no-bid deal with Ukraine’s army, the insider Kolomoysky had sold to the army substandard fake bulletproof vests, which they couldn’t use, and which were moreover priced at twice the going rate for real bulletproof vests. Kolomoysky then stole one of the Tsarev family’s own businesses, but there was no legal recourse, because Kolomoysky had been appointed by Obama’s people as the local governor in the region where that business happened to be located.

So: Obama is treated as if he is a respectable person, while Putin is treated as if he had been the aggressor in all this. But there was once a time when the differences between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were ideological, and the U.S. was an authentic democratic nation, and the U.S.S.R. was an authentic communist dictatorship; and, in that time, and specifically back in 1962, it was the U.S.S.R. that was seeking to place nuclear missiles near to us (in Cuba), not like now, when the dictatorial U.S. is instead trying to place nuclear missiles near to democratic Russia (inside Ukraine). Did America’s major news media, back at that earlier time, think that what the U.S.S.R. was trying to do to us was tolerable, and should be permitted? Of course not! So: why their double standard now? Or is today’s U.S. instead a totally different country, an outright nazi one now, against Russia? Even if Russia were a dictatorship (and it’s probably less so than the U.S. now is), what America is trying to do to it is disgraceful. And what the U.S. Government is trying to do to the residents in Donbass is absolutely outrageous, and should be

presented to the International Criminal Court for war-crimes trials. (Maybe that’s why the U.S. has refused to sign to the Court’s jurisdiction; maybe G.W. Bush and Obama were intending to commit international war crimes.)

America (and its client Ukraine) is the aggressor; Russia (and its client Donbass) is doing what it needs to do in order to defend themselves from the U.S. and its allies: there are 27 of those other nations in the U.S.-run Russia-hating club; it’s called NATO, and it needs to be disbanded immediately, because its constructive function ended when the Soviet Union did; and, afterwards, it’s just nazi, and is a huge threat against the entire world.

This new evidence from Tsarev, piled on top of all the other evidence that already proved the assertion by the founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor, that the overthrow of Yanukovych was “the most blatant coup in history,” simply cements the reality, that all of the sanctions against Russia, and all of the “me too” statements supporting Obama’s coup and ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, by David Cameron, Steven Harper, and Obama’s other co-nazis, are abominations, which should be loudly condemned by all decent persons in all countries. The aggressor here is Obama, not Putin; and NATO must end, now: all decent nations should quit it ASAP. (War crimes trials against Obama and his agents should follow. After all: these people are bringing the world closer to a nuclear war than has been the case since 1962, and there is no decent reason for it.)

Here was Professor Francis Boyle, the most internationally prestigious authority on such matters, summing it all up:

Boyle told RIA Novosti on May 8: ’The Ukrainian crisis had been planned as well as the war. There was a war plan, there was a war game. Then it was revised and implemented. … We are seeing steps now being taken that were planned in advance,’ Boyle said, adding, ‘This is all being used as a pretext to bring NATO military forces, as Rasmussen said, by air, sea, and land right up to the borders of the Russian Federation. They are clearly going ahead with this.’

Boyle extolled Russia for trying to exhaust all diplomatic means possible to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and accused the United States and NATO of deliberate escalation.

‘So that the US won’t be provided with any more pretexts for hostile provocative maneuvers that they are going to take in any event,’ Boyle asserted, … Russian President Vladimir Putin is in a very difficult and dangerous situation and needs to be very careful. ‘The US has already resumed the Cold War with the neo-Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine that the United States sponsored, controlled, and directed,’ he said.

It’s still not too late for the condemnation by the entire decent world to come down upon the leading nazis and force them to stop, before they blow the entire habitable world up with their evil.

Never before in the history of the world have the proofs of perfidy come so voluminously and so much in current time, as has now happened here, in the Age of the Internet. One doesn’t have to wait for places like Auschwitz to open up to the world before the evil is laid bare for all to see: it already has been, well before things get that far. Thus, what’s desperately needed now is action: the condemnation, by the publics, in all countries, against those nazis.

The time for the collecting of evidence is already past. The evidence is already here. There are already international war crimes enough, and so no need exists for us to await the ultimate one — a totally unnecessary nuclear war — before finally acting.

To start with: the sanctions against Russia must end — immediately. They are crimes that can end fast. And they must, in order for the prosecutions against the perpetrators to start, and in order for this nazi cancer upon humanity to be removed before it’s too late to be able to do that. The patient might already be in the emergency room.

—————

Needed: New York March Against War, Because U.N. Is About to Pretend to Legalize It

So this is a Chapter 7 Resolution, which arguably establishes the predicate for the use of force. It should have been adopted under Chapter 6 to rule out any use of force against Syria. It was not. SC resolutions are binding under either Chapter 6 or Chapter 7 according to ICJ in Namibia Advisory Opinion. So obviously, Obama wants to set the predicate here for using force against ISIS in Syria, which will ultimately lead to the deposition of the Assad government, the crack up of Syria, and genocide against the Alawites and the Christians.

OK. Well obama’s puppet government that he just installed in Iraq could on the basis of this Resolution, Article 51 right of collective  self-defense and the bogus doctrine of hot pursuit ask Obama to bomb ISIS in Syria in order to prevent their cross-border movement from Syria into Iraq and back. Under international law there is no doctrine of hot pursuit on land, only at sea. That Obama scenario and strategy become very clear in OP5 and OP10 and OP14, inter alia. Basically trying to create a right of hot pursuit across land  borders where it did not previously exist —at least Obama will interpret it that way to justify bombing ISIS in Syria at the request of Iraq. There is nothing in this Resolution to rule out that scenario. Indeed, it seems that this Resolution has been drafted for precisely that purpose.

OK. I have read but am not going to go through the rest of this Resolution. It appears that USG specifically drafted this Resolution so that its puppet government in Iraq can on its basis as well as UN Charter Article 51 right of collective self-defense bomb ISIS in Syria. Otherwise, it would be naked aggression against the wishes of the Syrian government. So Obama will use this Resolution as his legal fig-leaf to start the bombing campaign in Syria upon his return to Washington. He will do to Assad and Syria  what he did to Ghadafy and Libya.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

 

For Washington’s neocons the world is a huge playground. In the name of “democracy” they have destroyed one regime after another.

Ukraine is now on the agenda. CrossTalking with Robert Parry, Jim Lobe and Francis Boyle.

 Chaos Incorporated

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

%d bloggers like this: