Bahrain Crackdown: Regime Files Lawsuit to Dissolve Political Party

Local Editor

The apartheid Al Khalifa regime’s government filed a lawsuit Monday to dissolve a political party, the second-such organization it had targeted in the last year as part of an intense crackdown on opposition in the island nation.

Waad political party

The country’s so-called Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments Ministry accused Waad of “supporting terrorism,” according to a statement. The announcement, coming just a day after Bahrain’s parliament approved a constitutional amendment allowing military tribunals to try civilians, recalled the clampdown that followed the nation’s 2011 Arab Spring protests.

The party could not be immediately reached for comment, but it long had been the target of authorities. One Waad politician previously was arrested and briefly faced charges for speaking to The Associated Press in November during a visit by Britain’s Prince Charles and his wife Camilla.

Bahrain had already dissolved the country’s largest Shiite opposition group, al-Wefaq, and doubled a prison sentence for its secretary-general, Sheikh Ali Salman.

Regime forces, with help from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, crushed the 2011 uprising by opposition who sought political reform.

Since the beginning of a government crackdown in April, activists had been imprisoned or forced into exile. Bahrain’s main Shiite opposition group had been dismantled. Independent news gathering on the island also had grown more difficult.

Bahrain later made reforms following a regime-sponsored investigation into the 2011 demonstrations and the crackdown following it, but several of them had been overturned in recent weeks. Along with allowing military tribunals, the kingdom restored the power of its feared domestic spy service to make some arrests.

In January, Bahrain executed three men charged of a deadly bomb attack on police. Activists said that testimony used against the condemned men was obtained through torture.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

06-03-2017 | 15:15

American Fascists Co-Opt Trump Protests Hiding Inside Civil Rights Movement

February 23, 2017

by GH Eliason

American Fascists Co-Opt Trump Protests Hiding Inside Civil Rights Movement

Over the last couple of years I’ve written volumes on fascists making inroads into American politics and civil life. With civil and human rights it starts with understanding a little about what’s known as the Four Freedoms. And there are many legitimate civil rights groups today that go under that banner.

In 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave what became known as the Four Freedoms speech. He proposed that there were four freedoms that people everywhere in the world should enjoy. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear. The speech was mainly concerned with national security and democracies that were heading into a world war. The first two freedoms are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The last two were and are revolutionary.

Unfortunately ever since the Four Freedoms were first spoken it have been used politically to gear America up for war. They became a cornerstone of American Exceptionalism and intervention.

After World War II, the same groups that manned the gas chambers of the Holocaust took up the mantle of human rights victims and human rights advocates by starting groups named according to these freedoms and hiding among the legitimate rights groups.

By building a track record working for their own pet project civil rights, they thought no one would look at their own history very closely. They found over time by supporting legitimate human rights efforts, they could count on real activists to take up their causes.

What you need to decide is whether these are or aren’t the kind of groups you want support from. It’s that simple. Accepting the help is saying what they are and what they do is fine with you.

In reality when you start looking up their history, the first thing that comes up is files Released Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act.” I’m referring to the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, Inc.

This is the only human rights group has the distinction of taking its name from a speech by a US president they tried to assassinate. If you scroll down their Face Book page you’ll notice they are not shy about Ukrainian nazi flags or support of neo-nazis murderers like Pravy Sektor. This despite the fact that they say they subscribe to the “freedom from fear” part.

In an official statement from 2004 in Ukraine Weekly they are a little more open about their participation with Adolf Hitler. They were the prison guards that committed the Holocaust and Waffen SS that the Nazis were afraid of.

“Ukraine Weekly 2004 statement- National Executive Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, Inc.

Over 55 years ago, a group of Ukrainian Americans, guided by a love for their native Ukraine created a committee in the United States that would support the liberation of Ukraine during World War II. Their committee supported the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army as they fought against the Nazi and Communist occupation of Ukraine. This committee became the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, named after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s famous address wherein he declared that all nations and individuals have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from fear and a freedom from want. Today, we reiterate our commitment to defend these four freedoms for Ukraine.”

What they don’t say is that during the war, they killed 3 million prisoners of war, 250,000 Jews including the first recorded act of Holocaust at Babi Yar. During the war, Ukrainian Americans were in charge of the SS battalions that were fighting and directed them from the USA. As late as 1945, the Ukrainian Diaspora was asking Adolf Hitler to fund new armies.

And they have never changed their political views. In 2014, they bought the bullets used to kill 100 protesters that were on their side sparking the Ukrainian coup against Victor Yanukovych.

According to the Huff Post, “Apparently, the aid doesn’t stop there. In a Newsweek interview, Ukrainian rightist Dmitry Yarosh admits that he has received U.S. dollars from the Ukrainian Diaspora. Yarosh is a leader of Right Sektor and has been training paramilitary fighters for almost 25 years. Moreover, Foreign Affairs notes that the Diaspora reportedly funds infamous Azov Battalion, a volunteer outfit which is enthralled by wartime Nazi insignia and iconography. Al-Jazeera remarks that “While the battalion is recognized by the Interior Ministry and provided with some arms, it is largely funded by charity from Ukrainians, wealthy businessmen, the Ukrainian diaspora and other European far-right groups.

Officially, Ottawa has pledged the Azov Battalion will not receive Canadian training or support. However, such pledges aren’t enshrined in law and the authorities have remarked defensively that Azov Battalion and a “small number of bad apples” shouldn’t be allowed to tarnish the entire Ukrainian defense effort. Meanwhile, within the Canadian Diaspora the Azov Battalion is reportedly a “touchy subject.” The Globe and Mail reports, “While opinions are divided, many see the 1,500-man Azov unit as being populated not with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, but with patriots willing to fight in order to rollback Russian-backed separatists.”

What does this have to do with the Women’s March or Trump protests that are following? They along with George Soros are providing most of the media coverage and providing tens of thousands of protesters to liven things up.

When you look at the list of groups supported by Soros, there is a couple that stand out which support the Women’s march. Common Cause sticks out because of what they did in Ukraine when the protests heated up. They killed people and stepped back to watch the carnage.

Another is the Four Freedoms Fund. This group started by Soros, to was designed to serve as

a conduit through which large foundations could fund state based open borders organizations more flexibly and quickly. It does this through ethnic-specific groups to coordinated state and national campaigns that advance immigration reform and defend the rights of immigrants.

“FFF’s mission is “to secure the full integration of immigrants as active participants in our democracy.” Designed to serve as a conduit through which charitable foundations could bankroll the activities of immigrant-rights organizations with maximum efficiency and flexibility.

The Four Freedoms Fund (FFF) was established in 2003 by Geri Mannion (a director with the Carnegie Corporation of New York) and Taryn Higashi (deputy director of the Ford Foundation’s Human Rights Unit). The Fund’s name was suggested by Craig McGarvey, a consultant and former program officer of the James Irvine Foundation, who was inspired by the Norman Rockwell paintings based on former President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous “Four Freedoms” speech.”

Is the Four Freedoms Fund tied to the Ukrainian Nazi supporting Defense of Four Freedoms? If this is the case then it’s legitimate proof of how much media and NGO pull the Ukrainian emigres have. While researching for an article I came upon this.

carnegie euromaidan press-carnegie.stfi.re 2016-06-15 01-23-06.png
Why is the Ukrainian propaganda website euromaidan press recommending reading at Carnegie Moscow? The Ukrainian website was started and is owned by Sviatoslav Yurash. He was the spokesman for Maidan, Dimitry and Yarosh’s spokesman. Euromaidan press has been in the process of whitewashing history for the last 3 years. They are making the perpetrators of the Holocaust into heroes. Yurash has been promoted to deputy director of the Ukrainian World Congress Kiev office.

Euromaidan press is propped up by the Ukrainian-American Diaspora. They are connected through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake, and Informnapalm. All three are tied into Ukrainian Intelligence Services.

In the US they provided Team Clinton with an almost unbeatable voting bloc during election cycle 2016. And this same group are behind the organization of and media supporting the anti-Trump protests.

How Much Influence Did They Have in the Election? This is the question to start with. First, let’s look at the raw numbers.

Starting in early June 2016, I started writing about real voting blocs that have the size to shape national politics. The simple math works like this. Out of 231,556,622 eligible voters, 25.6% voted for Clinton, and 25.5% voted for Trump. This is the final voter percentage tallies.

Out of the eligible voter pool, if we take 13%(low conservative reckoning) which make up the combined emigre bloc vote, their contribution is 30,102,360 bloc votes. Not shown at the CEEC link are the Middle East, South and Central American, Russian, or the Asian portions of the emigre bloc.

These articles show the background of the groups and how they work together en-bloc. I wrote them back then for today.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Out of Hillary Clinton’s total count of 65,844,610 votes, the emigre bloc made up 45% of the total because 92,622,648 Americans didn’t cast their ballot. Keep that last figure in mind for later.

In real terms 13% became 45% because of low voter turnout. The emigre bloc percentage is based on total eligible voters (231,556,622) and the bloc number didn’t change. When the real vote total was known, it could be measured against the bloc. The value of the votes in the bloc skyrocketed with low turnout.

The reason Bernie Sanders would not have a snowballs chance in hell is the combined bloc vote. Bernie should have been a shoo-in for them. His father is Galician. Galicia is the still disputed land between Poland and Ukraine including the regional capital of Lviv. He claims Polish ancestry, and that is the true nationality border or no border. Both emigre groups claim to support Polish and Ukrainian people. He was the natural candidate for them except for one thing.

Until the fall of the Soviet Union, these groups were known as the anticommunist emigres. They are the children of groups that manned Hitler’s SS. The problem with Sanders is he calls himself a Socialist. He was not electable as long as this type of bloc vote exists. If Sanders got the nod to run in the general election, a deal would have been cut for a new Republican candidate at the convention. If you look back, things started to shape up that way.

The only thing a nationalist hates worse than an enemy outside his country, is the enemy within. For an anticommunist and nationalist, there is no greater enemy than a socialist. Progressive’s have already forgotten how Sanders was derailed. Most progressives don’t realize that very directly, it WAS the emigre community that did it.

Even after seeing Propornot, progressive, libertarian, and conservative publications are spewing the memes created by these same people that put them on lists to be hacked, isolated, and eventually shut down. It started when journalists started questioning the Syria narrative and supporting ISIS.

Did the “Berners” make any change to the Democratic party? “It is very concerning that Bernie Sanders is so intent on taking over a party that he’s not even a member of that he’d insult the beloved vice president — and really the president — about a failed status quo approach,” said Texas Democratic chairman Gilberto Hinojosa.” Was Sanders ever a viable candidate for the Democratic Party? Was he ever treated like one?

The only chance he had was to tap into the over 90 million that did not vote. It’s not coincidental that the number coincides with Obama’s 5% jobless report. These people are too disaffected to vote, but had they, would it be for another Democrat?

If what I’m saying is true then there would have to be some evidence of this in the Woman’s March/ Inaugural Protest and following protests. And there is, but it’s not pretty.

ny nazi ukie nazi.jpg

If you look at the gray hat in the left image and the one in the center of the right image, it’s the same hat. This particular hat, as well as the rest of the young man’s clothing are a designer version of the OUNb Nazi uniform. This is the same uniform the Bandera OUNb wore when they manned the Concentration Camps in Europe.

This is the same uniform that they wore when they starved 3 million prisoners of war to death. This is the same uniform they wore when they murdered over 250,000 Jews and close to 500,000 Ukrainians. Behind him is the Ukrainian flag.

Today, this is the same uniform he wore to support the Woman’s march. The CEEC and Ukrainian emigres are behind most of the press hype, support articles and organization for the Women’s march and all the subsequent protests.

Standing next to him and working in concert is Shia Labeouf, actor, activist, and a Polish Jewish- American by background. In the video below, if you turn the sound off and focus on the image, you’ll see them smiling at each other. The unknown Ukrainian- American nazi and Labeouf appear to be dancing together. Labeouf got good press for it.

What do the Central and Eastern European American emigres believe politically? Are they Democrats, Progressive, or even Conservative? Shown above , it is integral nationalism in the same sense that drove Adolf Hitler.

They still celebrate the people that tried to murder Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They still celebrate the Ukrainian Americans that commanded the SS battalions fighting against the USA.

Today they still celebrate the SS murderers that perpetrated the Holocaust. The most awesome weapon fascists have in 2017 are human and civil rights. Every time they successfully hide behind a legitimate cause, they win. Every time they create a “legitimate cause” they win. In the most cynical fashion progressives are being corralled into supporting memes they stood against for the last sixteen years.

For years progressives, centrists, and libertarians have complained about the George Soros inspired color revolutions around the world. Why are progressives flocking to the very people that want to take away their freedoms hoping they are protecting them?

What does this have to do with the Women’s March or protests that are following? Along with George Soros are the CEEC and Ukrainians are providing most of the media coverage. They are providing tens to hundreds of thousands of protesters depending on location to liven things up.

Among the nasty women at the protest, the Ukrainians provided their own homegrown version to show women how to protest Donald Trump.

femen 4-www.google.ru 2017-01-26 20-58-37.png

She looks like a nasty woman protester doesn’t she? What they didn’t say is what it takes to make them happy again.

femen at odessa massacre.jpg

As you can see, she has her clothes on. Behind her, almost 400 people were killed or are missing at Odessa in May, 2014. The integral nationalists burned them to death. This is Femen’s vision for your protests.

Among this group’s natural partners is the Syrian American Council. These Syrians are also integral nationalist emigres. By protesting a stronger vetting process the US may end up with the same problem the UK had in 2015.

The Prime Minister has come under under fire after the International Development Committee, which is investigating the Syrian refugee crisis, received evidence that ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups were running the camps within the war-torn country, but also in Lebanon and Jordan where the majority of the 20,000 heading for the UK are currently based.”

In one of the most cynical manipulations yet, Holocaust survivors are being asked their opinion of Trump’s refugee policy. While it makes a good headline, instead of asking about refugees, they should be asked if mixed groups should be vetted for terrorists too. A fair question would be “were they willing to let the Nazis that killed their families to emigrate with them to America.”

It was Steve Bannon that first breathed “Muslim ban.” And Soros media is sticking that statement down Trumps throat now. Maybe that part is for the better. The US government needs to say precisely what it means. The problem is while everyone and their brother are having their relevant article day, they are ignoring National Security issues.

Let’s look at how the CEEC and Ukrainian emigre groups look at Holocaust victims and Jews 2017. We know their families tortured and killed during WWII but that was over 70 years ago.

Dolinsky combined.jpg

Like many of the CEEC countries are managed by the American emigres, Ukraine is no exception. They were behind Yanukovych’s ouster and the nationalist uprising, murder, and the war in Donbass. Apparently, they still don’t think much of Holocaust victims or Jews in general.

The fact that they have to hide their background and try to keep their involvement quiet does not cover their sins. For Progressives, women’s rights, civil rights, or human rights activists, are these legitimate partners to protest with?

I’ve seen how our heroes, activists, journalists, and celebrities have completely sold their souls to support something no person with an iota of morality would do. I’ve seen them say and do things to derail candidates who would have been a million times better for those less fortunate around us. It’s unfortunate most pretend to fight the establishment, to act like they love the people more than they love the struggle and the relevance that it brings them. I am not one of those and I won’t continue to be until the good Lord takes me.” Cesar Vargas

I agree with Cesar Vargas wholeheartedly.

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See
EDITOR’S CHOICE | 16.02.2017

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See

James DiEUGENIO

It is not very often that a documentary film can set a new paradigm about a recent event, let alone, one that is still in progress. But the new film Ukraine on Fire has the potential to do so – assuming that many people get to see it.

Usually, documentaries — even good ones — repackage familiar information in a different aesthetic form. If that form is skillfully done, then the information can move us in a different way than just reading about it.

A good example of this would be Peter Davis’s powerful documentary about U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Hearts and Minds. By 1974, most Americans understood just how bad the Vietnam War was, but through the combination of sounds and images, which could only have been done through film, that documentary created a sensation, which removed the last obstacles to America leaving Indochina.

Ukraine on Fire has the same potential and could make a contribution that even goes beyond what the Davis film did because there was very little new information in Hearts and Minds. Especially for American and Western European audiences, Ukraine on Fire could be revelatory in that it offers a historical explanation for the deep divisions within Ukraine and presents information about the current crisis that challenges the mainstream media’s paradigm, which blames the conflict almost exclusively on Russia.

Key people in the film’s production are director Igor Lopatonok, editor Alex Chavez, and writer Vanessa Dean, whose screenplay contains a large amount of historical as well as current material exploring how Ukraine became such a cauldron of violence and hate. Oliver Stone served as executive producer and conducted some high-profile interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin and ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The film begins with gripping images of the violence that ripped through the capital city of Kiev during both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 removal of Yanukovich. It then travels back in time to provide a perspective that has been missing from mainstream versions of these events and even in many alternative media renditions.

A Longtime Pawn

Historically, Ukraine has been treated as a pawn since the late Seventeenth Century. In 1918, Ukraine was made a German protectorate by the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Ukraine was also a part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 signed between Germany and Russia, but violated by Adolf Hitler when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941.

German dictator Adolf Hitler

The reaction of many in Ukraine to Hitler’s aggression was not the same as it was in the rest of the Soviet Union. Some Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis. The most significant Ukrainian nationalist group, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), had been established in 1929. Many of its members cooperated with the Nazis, some even enlisted in the Waffen SS and Ukrainian nationalists participated in the massacre of more than 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar ravine in Kiev in September 1941. According to scholar Pers Anders Rudling, the number of Ukrainian nationalists involved in the slaughter outnumbered the Germans by a factor of 4 to 1.

But it wasn’t just the Jews that the Ukrainian nationalists slaughtered. They also participated in massacres of Poles in the western Ukrainian region of Galicia from March 1943 until the end of 1944. Again, the main perpetrators were not Germans, but Ukrainians.

According to author Ryazard Szawlowksi, the Ukrainian nationalists first lulled the Poles into thinking they were their friends, then turned on them with a barbarity and ferocity that not even the Nazis could match, torturing their victims with saws and axes. The documentary places the number of dead at 36,750, but Szawlowski estimates it may be two or three times higher.

OUN members participated in these slaughters for the purpose of ethnic cleansing, wanting Ukraine to be preserved for what OUN regarded as native Ukrainians. They also expected Ukraine to be independent by the end of the war, free from both German and Russian domination. The two main leaders in OUN who participated in the Nazi collaboration were Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was a virulent anti-Semite, and Lebed was rabidly against the Poles, participating in their slaughter.

After the war, both Bandera and Lebed were protected by American intelligence, which spared them from the Nuremburg tribunals. The immediate antecedent of the CIA, Central Intelligence Group, wanted to use both men for information gathering and operations against the Soviet Union. England’s MI6 used Bandera even more than the CIA did, but the KGB eventually hunted down Bandera and assassinated him in Munich in 1959. Lebed was brought to America and addressed anti-communist Ukrainian organizations in the U.S. and Canada. The CIA protected him from immigration authorities who might otherwise have deported him as a war criminal.

The history of the Cold War was never too far in the background of Ukrainian politics, including within the diaspora that fled to the West after the Red Army defeated the Nazis and many of their Ukrainian collaborators emigrated to the United States and Canada. In the West, they formed a fierce anti-communist lobby that gained greater influence after Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.

Important History

This history is an important part of Dean’s prologue to the main body of Ukraine on Fire and is essential for anyone trying to understand what has happened there since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. For instance, the U.S.-backed candidate for president of Ukraine in 2004 — Viktor Yushchenko — decreed both Bandera and Lebed to be Ukrainian national heroes.

Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist and Nazi collaborator

Bandera, in particular, has become an icon for post-World War II Ukrainian nationalists. One of his followers was Dmytro Dontsov, who called for the birth of a “new man” who would mercilessly destroy Ukraine’s ethnic enemies.

Bandera’s movement was also kept alive by Yaroslav Stetsko, Bandera’s premier in exile. Stetsko fully endorsed Bandera’s anti-Semitism and also the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Stetsko, too, was used by the CIA during the Cold War and was honored by Yushchenko, who placed a plaque in his honor at the home where he died in Munich in 1986. Stetsko’s wife, Slava, returned to Ukraine in 1991 and ran for parliament in 2002 on the slate of Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party.

Stetsko’s book, entitled Two Revolutions, has become the ideological cornerstone for the modern Ukrainian political party Svoboda, founded by Oleh Tyahnybok, who is pictured in the film calling Jews “kikes” in public, which is one reason the Simon Wiesenthal Center has ranked him as one of the most dangerous anti-Semites in the world.

Another follower of Bandera is Dymytro Yarosh, who reputedly leads the paramilitary arm of an even more powerful political organization in Ukraine called Right Sektor. Yarosh once said he controls a paramilitary force of about 7,000 men who were reportedly used in both the overthrow of Yanukovych in Kiev in February 2014 and the suppression of the rebellion in Odessa a few months later, which are both fully depicted in the film.

This historical prelude and its merging with the current civil war is eye-opening background that has been largely hidden by the mainstream Western media, which has downplayed or ignored the troubling links between these racist Ukrainian nationalists and the U.S.-backed political forces that vied for power after Ukraine became independent in 1991.

The Rise of a Violent Right

That same year, Tyahnybok formed Svoboda. Three years later, Yarosh founded Trident, an offshoot of Svoboda that eventually evolved into Right Sektor. In other words, the followers of Bandera and Lebed began organizing themselves immediately after the Soviet collapse.

The neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol on a banner in Ukraine

In this time period, Ukraine had two Russian-oriented leaders who were elected in 1991 and 1994, Leonid Kravchuk, and Leonid Kuchma. But the hasty transition to a “free-market” economy didn’t go well for most Ukrainians or Russians as well-connected oligarchs seized much of the wealth and came to dominate the political process through massive corruption and purchase of news media outlets. However, for average citizens, living standards went down drastically, opening the door for the far-right parties and for foreign meddling.

In 2004, Viktor Yanukovych, whose political base was strongest among ethnic Russians in the east and south, won the presidential election by three percentage points over the U.S.-favored Viktor Yushchenko, whose base was mostly in the country’s west where the Ukrainian nationalists are strongest.

Immediately, Yushchenko’s backers claimed fraud citing exit polls that had been organized by a group of eight Western nations and four non-governmental organizations or NGOs, including the Renaissance Foundation founded by billionaire financial speculator George Soros. Dick Morris, former President Bill Clinton’s political adviser, clandestinely met with Yushchenko’s team and advised them that the exit polls would not just help in accusations of fraud, but would bring protesters out into the streets. (Cambridge Review of InternationalAffairs, Vol. 19, Number 1, p. 26)

Freedom House, another prominent NGO that receives substantial financing from the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), provided training to young activists who then rallied protesters in what became known as the Orange Revolution, one of the so-called “color revolutions” that the West’s mainstream media fell in love with. It forced an election rerun that Yushchenko won.

But Yushchenko’s presidency failed to do much to improve the lot of the Ukrainian people and he grew increasingly unpopular. In 2010, Yushchenko failed to make it out of the first round of balloting and his rival Yanukovych was elected president in balloting that outside observers judged free and fair.

Big-Power Games

If this all had occurred due to indigenous factors within Ukraine, it could have been glossed over as a young nation going through some painful growing pains. But as the film points out, this was not the case. Ukraine continued to be a pawn in big-power games with many Western officials hoping to draw the country away from Russian influence and into the orbit of NATO and the European Union.

Ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych

In one of the interviews in Ukraine on Fire, journalist and author Robert Parry explains how the National Endowment for Democracy and many subsidized political NGOs emerged in the 1980s to replace or supplement what the CIA had traditionally done in terms of influencing the direction of targeted countries.

During the investigations of the Church Committee in the 1970s, the CIA’s “political action” apparatus for removing foreign leaders was exposed. So, to disguise these efforts, CIA Director William Casey, Reagan’s White House and allies in Congress created the NED to finance an array of political and media NGOs.

As Parry noted in the documentary, many traditional NGOs do valuable work in helping impoverished and developing countries, but this activist/propaganda breed of NGOs promoted U.S. geopolitical objectives abroad – and NED funded scores of such projects inside Ukraine in the run-up to the 2014 crisis.

Ukraine on Fire goes into high gear when it chronicles the events that occurred in 2014, resulting in the violent overthrow of President Yanukovych and sparking the civil war that still rages. In the 2010 election, when Yushchenko couldn’t even tally in the double-digits, Yanukovych faced off against and defeated Yulia Tymoshenko, a wealthy oligarch who had served as Yushchenko’s prime minister.

After his election, Yanukovych repealed Bandera’s title as a national hero. However, because of festering economic problems, the new president began to search for an economic partner who could provide a large loan. He first negotiated with the European Union, but these negotiations bogged down due to the usual draconian demands made by the International Monetary Fund.

So, in November 2013, Yanukovych began to negotiate with Russian President Putin who offered more generous terms. But Yanukovych’s decision to delay the association agreement with the E.U. provoked street protests in Kiev especially from the people of western Ukraine.

As Ukraine on Fire points out, other unusual occurrences also occurred, including the emergence of three new TV channels – Spilno TV, Espreso TV, and Hromadske TV – going on the air between Nov. 21 and 24, with partial funding from the U.S. Embassy and George Soros.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Pro-E.U. protests in the Maidan square in central Kiev also grew more violent as ultra-nationalist street fighters from Lviv and other western areas began to pour in and engage in provocations, many of which were sponsored by Yarosh’s Right Sektor. The attacks escalated from torch marches similar to Nazi days to hurling Molotov cocktails at police to driving large tractors into police lines – all visually depicted in the film. As Yanukovich tells Stone, when this escalation happened, it made it impossible for him to negotiate with the Maidan crowd.

One of the film’s most interesting interviews is with Vitaliy Zakharchenko, who was Minister of the Interior at the time responsible for law enforcement and the conduct of the police. He traces the escalation of the attacks from Nov. 24 to 30, culminating with a clash between police and protesters over the transport of a giant Christmas tree into the Maidan. Zakharchenko said he now believes this confrontation was secretly approved by Serhiy Lyovochkin, a close friend of U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, as a pretext to escalate the violence.

At this point, the film addresses the direct involvement of U.S. politicians and diplomats. Throughout the crisis, American politicians visited Maidan, as both Republicans and Democrats, such as Senators John McCain, R-Arizona, and Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut. stirred up the crowds. Yanukovych also said he was in phone contact with Vice President Joe Biden, who he claims was misleading him about how to handle the crisis.

The film points out that the real center of American influence in the Kiev demonstrations was with Ambassador Pyatt and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland. As Parry points out, although Nuland was serving under President Obama, her allegiances were really with the neoconservative movement, most associated with the Republican Party.

Her husband is Robert Kagan, who worked as a State Department propagandist on the Central American wars in the 1980s and was the co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the 1990s, the group that organized political and media pressure for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Kagan also was McCain’s foreign policy adviser in the 2008 presidential election (although he threw his support behind Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race).

Adept Manipulators

As Parry explained, the neoconservatives have become quite adept at disguising their true aims and have powerful allies in the mainstream press. This combination has allowed them to push the foreign policy debate to such extremes that, when anyone objects, they can be branded a Putin or Yanukovych “apologist.”

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

Thus, Pyatt’s frequent meetings with the demonstrators in the embassy and Nuland’s handing out cookies to protesters in the Maidan were not criticized as American interference in a sovereign state, but were praised as “promoting democracy” abroad. However, as the Maidan crisis escalated, Ukrainian ultra-nationalists moved to the front, intensifying their attacks on police. Many of these extremists were disciples of Bandera and Lebed. By February 2014, they were armed with shotguns and rapid-fire handguns.

On Feb. 20, 2014, a mysterious sniper, apparently firing from a building controlled by the Right Sektor, shot both police and protesters, touching off a day of violence that left about 14 police and some 70 protesters dead.

With Kiev slipping out of control, Yanukovich was forced to negotiate with representatives from France, Poland and Germany. On Feb. 21, he agreed to schedule early elections and to accept reduced powers. At the urging of Vice President Biden, Yanukovych also pulled back the police.

But the agreement – though guaranteed by the European nations – was quickly negated by renewed attacks from the Right Sektor and its street fighters who seized government buildings. Russian intelligence services got word that an assassination plot was in the works against Yanukovych, who fled for his life.

On Feb. 24, Yanukovych asked permission to enter Russia for his safety and the Ukrainian parliament (or Rada), effectively under the control of the armed extremists, voted to remove Yanukovych from office in an unconstitutional manner because the courts were not involved and the vote to impeach him did not reach the mandatory threshold. Despite these irregularities, the U.S. and its European allies quickly recognized the new government as “legitimate.”

Calling a Coup a Coup

But the ouster of Yanukovych had all the earmarks of a coup. An intercepted phone call, apparently in early February, between Nuland and Pyatt revealed that they were directly involved in displacing Yanukovych and choosing his successor. The pair reviewed the field of candidates with Nuland favoring Arseniy Yatsenyuk, declaring “Yats is the guy” and discussing with Pyatt how to “glue this thing.” Pyatt wondered about how to “midwife this thing.” They sounded like Gilded Age millionaires in New York deciding who should become the next U.S. president. On Feb. 27, Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko shakes hands with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin in Kyiv, Ukraine, on July 7, 2016.[State Department Photo)

Not everyone in Ukraine agreed with the new regime, however. Crimea, which had voted heavily for Yanukovych, decided to hold a referendum on whether to split from Ukraine and become a part of Russia. The results of the referendum were overwhelming. Some 96 percent of Crimeans voted to unite with Russia. Russian troops – previously stationed in Crimea under the Sevastopol naval base agreement – provided security against Right Sektor and other Ukrainian forces moving against the Crimean secession, but there was no evidence of Russian troops intimidating voters or controlling the elections. The Russian government then accepted the reunification with Crimea, which had historically been part of Russia dating back hundreds of years.

Two eastern provinces, Donetsk and Lugansk, also wanted to split off from Ukraine and also conducted a referendum in support of that move. But Putin would not agree to the request from the two provinces, which instead declared their own independence, a move that the new government in Kiev denounced as illegal. The Kiev regime also deemed the insurgents “terrorists” and launched an “anti-terrorism operation” to crush the resistance. Ultra-nationalist and even neo-Nazi militias, such as the Azov Battalion, took the lead in the bloody fighting.

Anti-coup demonstrations also broke out in the city of Odessa to the south. Ukrainian nationalist leader Andrei Parubiy went to Odessa, and two days later, on May 2, 2014, his street fighters attacked the demonstrators, driving them into the Trade Union building, which was then set on fire. Forty-two people were killed, some of whom jumped to their deaths.

‘Other Side of the Story’

If the film just got across this “other side of the story,” it would provide a valuable contribution since most of this information has been ignored or distorted by the West’s mainstream media, which simply blames the Ukraine crisis on Vladimir Putin. But in addition to the fine work by scenarist Vanessa Dean, the direction by Igor Lopatonok and the editing by Alexis Chavez are extraordinarily skillful and supple.

Screen shot of the fatal fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014. (From RT video)

The 15-minute prologue, where the information about the Nazi collaboration by Bandera and Lebed is introduced, is an exceptional piece of filmmaking. It moves at a quick pace, utilizing rapid cutting and also split screens to depict photographs and statistics simultaneously. Lopatonok also uses interactive graphics throughout to transmit information in a visual and demonstrative manner.

Stone’s interviews with Putin and Yanukovych are also quite newsworthy, presenting a side of these demonized foreign leaders that has been absent in the propagandistic Western media.

Though about two hours long, the picture has a headlong tempo to it. If anything, it needed to slow down at points since such a large amount of information is being communicated. On the other hand, it’s a pleasure to watch a documentary that is so intelligently written, and yet so remarkably well made.

When the film ends, the enduring message is similar to those posed by the American interventions in Vietnam and Iraq. How could the State Department know so little about what it was about to unleash, given Ukraine’s deep historical divisions and the risk of an escalating conflict with nuclear-armed Russia?

In Vietnam, Americans knew little about the country’s decades-long struggle of the peasantry to be free from French and Japanese colonialism. Somehow, America was going to win their hearts and minds and create a Western-style “democracy” when many Vietnamese simply saw the extension of foreign imperialism.

In Iraq, President George W. Bush and his coterie of neocons was going to oust Saddam Hussein and create a Western-style democracy in the Middle East, except that Bush didn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Moslems and how Iraq was likely to split over sectarian rivalries and screw up his expectations.

Similarly, the message of Ukraine on Fire is that short-sighted, ambitious and ideological officials – unchecked by their superiors – created something even worse than what existed. While high-level corruption persists today in Ukraine and may be even worse than before, the conditions of average Ukrainians have deteriorated.

And, the Ukraine conflict has reignited the Cold War by moving Western geopolitical forces onto Russia’s most sensitive frontier, which, as scholar Joshua Shifrinson has noted, violates a pledge made by Secretary of State James Baker in February 1990 as the Soviet Union peacefully accepted the collapse of its military influence in East Germany and eastern Europe. (Los Angeles Times, 5/30/ 2016)

This film also reminds us that what happened in Ukraine was a bipartisan effort. It was begun under George W. Bush and completed under Barack Obama. As Oliver Stone noted in the discussion that followed the film’s premiere in Los Angeles, the U.S. painfully needs some new leadership reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, people who understand how America’s geopolitical ambitions must be tempered by on-the-ground realities and the broader needs of humanity to be freed from the dangers of all-out war.

President Trump: Nationalist Capitalism, An Alternative to Globalization?

Global Research, January 28, 2017
CIA-trump

During his inaugural speech, President Trump clearly and forcefully outlined the strategic political-economic policies he will pursue over the next four years.  Anti-Trump journalist, editorialists, academics and experts, who appear in the Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have repeatedly distorted and lied about the President’s program as well as his critique of existing and past policies.

We will begin by seriously discussing President Trump’s critique of the contemporary political economy and proceed to elaborate on his alternatives and its weaknesses.

President Trump’s Critique of the Ruling Class

The centerpiece of Trump’s critique of the current ruling elite is the negative impact of its form of globalization on US production, trade and fiscal imbalances and on the labor market.  Trump cites the fact that US industrial capitalism has drastically shifted the locus of its investments, innovations and profits overseas as an example of globalization’s negative effects.  For two decades many politicians and pundits have bemoaned the loss of well-paid jobs and stable local industries as part of their campaign rhetoric or in public meetings, but none have taken any effective action against these most harmful aspects of globalization.  Trump denounced them as “all talk and no action” while promising to end the empty speeches and implement major changes.

President Trump targeted importers who bring in cheap products from overseas manufacturers for the American market undermining US producers and workers.  His economic strategy of prioritizing US industries is an implicit critique of the shift from productive capital to financial and speculative capital under the previous four administrations.  His inaugural address attacking the elites who abandon the ‘rust belt’ for Wall Street is matched by his promise to the working class: “Hear these words!  You will never be ignored again.” Trump’s own words portray the ruling class ‘as pigs at the trough’ (Financial Times, 1/23/2017, p. 11)

Trump’s Political-Economic Critique

President Trump emphasizes market negotiations with overseas partners and adversaries.  He has repeatedly criticized the mass media and politicians’ mindless promotion of free markets and aggressive militarism as undermining the nation’s capacity to negotiate profitable deals.

President Trump’s immigration policy is closely related to his strategic ‘America First’ labor policy.  Massive inflows of immigrant labor have been used to undermine US workers’ wages, labor rights and stable employment.  This was first documented in the meat packing industry, followed by textile, poultry and construction industries.  Trump’s proposal is to limit immigration to allow US workers to shift the balance of power between capital and labor and strengthen the power of organized labor to negotiate wages, conditions and benefits.  Trump’s critique of mass immigration is based on the fact that skilled American workers have been available for employment in the same sectors if wages were raised and work conditions were improved to permit dignified, stable living standards for their families.

President Trump’s Political Critique

Trump points to trade agreements, which have led to huge deficits, and concludes that US negotiators have been failures.  He argues that previous US presidents have signed multi-lateral agreements, to secure military alliances and bases, at the expense of negotiating job-creating economic pacts.  His presidency promises to change the equation:  He wants to tear up or renegotiate unfavorable economic treaties while reducing US overseas military commitments and demands NATO allies shoulder more of their own defense budgets.  Immediately upon taking office Trump canceled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and convoked a meeting with Canada and Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA.

Trump’s agenda has featured plans for hundred-billion dollar infrastructure projects, including building controversial oil and gas pipelines from Canada to the US Gulf.  It is clear that these pipelines violate existing treaties with indigenous people and threaten ecological mayhem.  However, by prioritizing the use of American-made construction material and insisting on hiring only US workers, his controversial policies will form the basis for developing well-paid American jobs.

The emphasis on investment and jobs in the US is a complete break with the previous Administration, where President Obama focused on waging multiple wars in the Middle East , increasing public debt and the trade deficit.

Trump’s inaugural address issued a stern promise: “The American carnage stops right now and stops right here!”  This resonated with a huge sector of the working class and was spoken before an assemblage of the very architects of four decades of job-destroying globalization.  ‘Carnage’ carried a double meaning:  Widespread carnage resulted from Obama and other administrations’ destruction of domestic jobs resulting in decay and bankruptcy of rural, small town and urban communities.  This domestic carnage was the other side of the coin of their policies of conducting endless overseas wars spreading carnage to three continents.  The last fifteen years of political leadership spread domestic carnage by allowing the epidemic of drug addiction (mostly related to uncontrolled synthetic opiate prescriptions) to kill hundreds of thousands of mostly young American’s and destroy the lives of millions.  Trump promised to finally address this ‘carnage’ of wasted lives.   Unfortunately, he did not hold ‘Big Pharma’ and the medical community responsible for its role in spreading drug addiction into the deepest corners of the economically devastated rural America .  Trump criticized previous elected officials for authorizing huge military subsidies to ‘allies’ while making it clear that his critique did not include US military procurement policies and would not contradict his promise to ‘reinforce old alliances’ (NATO).

Truth and Lies: Garbage Journalists and Arm Chair Militarists

Among the most outrageous example of the mass media’s hysteria about Trump’s New Economy is the systematic and vitriolic series of fabrications designed to obscure the grim national reality that Trump has promised to address.  We will discuss and compare the accounts published by ‘garbage journalists (GJ’s)’ and present a more accurate version of the situation.

The respectable garbage journalists of the Financial Timesclaim that Trump wants to ‘destroy world trade’.  In fact, Trumps has repeatedly stated his intention to increase international trade.  What Trump proposes is to increase US world trade from the inside, rather than from overseas.  He seeks to re-negotiate the terms of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements to secure greater reciprocity with trading partners.  Under Obama, the US was more aggressive in imposing trade tariffs that any other country in the OECD.

Garbage journalists label Trump as a ‘protectionist’,confusing his policies to re-industrialize the economy with autarky.  Trump will promote exports and imports, retain an open economy, while increasing the role of the US as a producer and exporter.. The US will become more selective in its imports.  Trump will favor the growth of manufacturing exporters and increase imports of primary commodities and advanced technology while reducing the import of automobiles, steel and household consumer products.

Trump’s opposition to ‘globalization’ has been conflated by the garbage journalists of the Washington Post as a dire threat to the ‘the post-Second World War economic order’.  In fact, vast changes have already rendered the old order obsolete and attempts to retain it have led to crises, wars and more decay.  Trump has recognized the obsolete nature of the old economic order and stated that change is necessary.

The Obsolete Old Order and the Dubious New Economy

At the end of the Second World War, most of Western Europe and Japan resorted to highly restrictive ‘protectionist’ industrial and monetary policies to rebuild their economies.  Only after a period of prolonged recovery did Germany and Japan carefully and selectively liberalize their economic policies.

In recent decades, Russia was drastically transformed from a powerful collectivist economy to a capitalist vassal-gangster oligarchy and more recently to a reconstituted mixed economy and strong central state.  China has been transformed from a collectivist economy, isolated from world trade, into the world’s second most powerful economy, displacing the US as Asia and Latin America ’s largest trading partner.

Once controlling 50% of world trade, the US share is now less than 20%.  This decline is partly due to the dismantling of its industrial economy when its manufacturers moved their factories abroad.

Despite the transformation of the world order, recent US presidents have failed to recognize the need to re-organize the American political economy.  Instead of recognizing, adapting and accepting shifts in power and market relations, they sought to intensify previous patterns of dominance through war, military intervention and bloody destructive ‘regime changes’ – thus devastating, rather than creating markets for US goods. Instead of recognizing China’s immense economic power and seek to re-negotiate trade and co-operative agreements, they have stupidly excluded China from regional and international trade pacts, to the extent of crudely bullying their junior Asian trade partners, and launching a policy of military encirclement and provocation in the South China Seas.  While Trump recognized these changes and the need to renegotiate economic ties, his cabinet appointees seek to extend Obama’s militarist policies of confrontation.

Under the previous administrations, Washington ignored Russia ’s resurrection, recovery and growth as a regional and world power.  When reality finally took root, previous US administrations increased their meddling among the Soviet Union’s former allies and set up military bases and war exercises on Russia ’s borders.  Instead of deepening trade and investment with Russia , Washington spent billions on sanctions and military spending – especially fomenting the violent putchist regime in Ukraine .  Obama’s policies promoting the violent seizure of power in Ukraine, Syria and Libya were motivated by his desire to overthrow governments friendly to Russia – devastating those countries and ultimately strengthening Russia’s will to consolidate and defend its borders and to form new strategic alliances.

Early in his campaign, Trump recognized the new world realities and proposed to change the substance, symbols, rhetoric and relations with adversaries and allies – adding up to a New Economy.

First and foremost, Trump looked at the disastrous wars in the Middle East and recognized the limits of US military power:  The US could not engage in multiple, open-ended wars of conquest and occupation in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia without paying major domestic costs.

Secondly, Trump recognized that Russia was not a strategic military threat to the United States .  Furthermore, the Russian government under Vladimir Putin was willing to cooperate with the US to defeat a mutual enemy – ISIS and its terrorist networks.  Russia was also keen to re-open its markets to the US investors, who were also anxious to return after years of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry imposed sanctions.  Trump, the realist, proposes to end sanctions and restore favorable market relations.

Thirdly, it is clear to Trump that the US wars in the Middle East imposed enormous costs with minimal benefits for the US economy.  He wants to increase market relations with the regional economic and military powers, like Turkey , Israel and the Gulf monarchies.

Trump is not interested in Palestine , Yemen , Syria or the Kurds – which do not offer much investment and trade opportunities.  He ignores the enormous regional economic and military power of Iran ,  Nevertheless Trump has proposed to re-negotiate the recent six-nation agreement with Iran in order to improve the US side of the bargain.  His hostile campaign rhetoricagainst Tehran may have been designed to placate Israel and its powerful domestic ‘Israel-Firsters’ fifth column.  This certainly came into conflict with his ‘America First’ pronouncements.  It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will retain a ‘show’ of submission to the Zionist project of an expansionist Israel while proceeding to include Iran as a part of his regional market agenda.

The Garbage Journalists claim that Trump has adopted a new bellicose stance toward China and threatens to launch a ‘protectionist agenda’, which will ultimately push the trans-Pacific countries closer to Beijing .  On the contrary, Trump appears intent on renegotiating and increasing trade via bilateral agreements.

Trump will most probably maintain, but not expand, Obama’s military encirclement of China ’s maritime boundaries which threaten its vital shipping routes.  Nevertheless, unlike Obama, Trump will re-negotiate economic and trade relations with Beijing – viewing China as a major economic power and not a developing nation intent on protecting its ‘infant industries’.  Trump’s realism reflect the new economic order:  China is a mature, highly competitive, world economic power, which has been out-competing the US , in part by retaining its own state subsidies and incentives from its earlier economic phase.  This has led to significant imbalances.  Trump, the realist, recognizes that China offers great opportunities for trade and investment if the US can secure reciprocal agreements, which lead to a more favorable balance of trade.

Trump does not want to launch a ‘trade war’ with China , but he needs to restore the US as a major ‘exporter’ nation in order to implement his domestic economic agenda.  The negotiations with the Chinese will be very difficult because the US importer-elite are against the Trump agenda and side with the Beijing ’s formidable export-oriented ruling class.

Moreover, because Wall Street’s banking elite is pleading with Beijing to enter China ’s financial markets, the financial sector is an unwilling and unstable ally to Trump’s pro-industrial policies.

Conclusion

Trump is not a ‘protectionist’, nor is he opposed to ‘free-trade’.  These charges by the garbage journalists are baseless.  Trump does not oppose US economic imperialist policies abroad.  However, Trump is a market realist who recognizes that military conquest is costly and, in the contemporary world context, a losing economic proposition for the US .  He recognizes that the US must turn from a predominant finance and import economy to a manufacturing and export economy.

Trump views Russia as a potential economic partner and military ally in ending the wars in Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan and Ukraine , and especially in defeating the terrorist threat of ISIS .  He sees China as a powerful economic competitor, which has been taking advantage of outmoded trade privileges and wants to re-negotiate trade pacts in line with the current balance of economic power.

Trump is a capitalist-nationalist, a market-imperialist and political realist, who is willing to trample on women’s rights, climate change legislation, indigenous treaties and immigrant rights.  His cabinet appointments and his Republican colleagues in Congress are motivated by a militarist ideology closer to the Obama-Clinton doctrine than to Trumps new ‘America First’ agenda.  He has surrounded his Cabinet with military imperialists, territorial expansionists and delusional fanatics.

Who will win out in the short or long term remains to be seen.  What is clear is that the liberals, Democratic Party hacks and advocates of Little Mussolini black shirted street thugs will be on the side of the imperialists and will find plenty of allies among and around the Trump regime.

 

Idiots react to Trump’s inauguration

January 21, 2017

Lenin comes to the White House

The Saker

November 28, 2016

Lenin comes to the White House

by Pepe Escobar for Sputnik International

Donald Trump, commenting on the passing of Fidel Castro, branded him a mere “dictator”. Whatever the long-lasting results (and mistakes) of the Cuban experiment, History has already de facto recognized Fidel as one of the great revolutionary leaders of the modern – and post-modern – era.

Trump – historical irony obliges – also has all but christened the groundswell of anger that delivered him the White House as a “revolution” – led by, and in the name of, white, non-college educated, blue collar US masses.

Yet old habits die hard. A self-appointed “leader of the free world”, true to conventional script, could never pay tribute in public to a “communist” who escaped over 600 CIA assassination cum regime change attempts – which is quite a heavy load to bear for so-called US “intel”. In the end, it was nature’s clock – not a magic bullet – that took Fidel away.

With the Cuban revolution now history, the focus switches to the current American “revolution” – which might turn out to be quite the regime change special the CIA dreams of (for others). If Fidel was The Prince as well as Machiavelli rolled into one, in gringoland the storyline may be largely about Steve Bannon, the blue collar-meets-Goldman Sachs Machiavelli to Prince Trump.

White House chief strategist Bannon has been vilified, over the top, all across the spectrum, as neo-fascist, white nationalist, racist, sexist and anti-Semite. So far, this has been the most detailed explanation of the Bannon agenda – in his own words. One underestimates him at one’s own peril.

State and revolution

Bannon in the past billed himself as a Leninist. What a shame Fidel was not paying attention.

In his highly complex and immensely engaging Apres Nous, Le Deluge (French translation recently published by Payot), master German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk explores how Lenin, in a few months in a cabin in Finland, laid out the theoretical premises of what should happen after the revolution; how the former State, under Marxist analysis, was just an instrument allowing economic exploitation and the misleading resolution of “irreconcilable” oppositions between classes (sounds quite like the current Washington set up).

For the revolutionary apparatus, it was not enough to take over the apparatus of the Ancien Regime – as social democrats would have it. That would have to be totally smashed, the ruins reassembled in new combinations until the long-term communist goal – the agony of the State – would be achieved.

Now imagine Leninist Bannon trying to package this agenda to viscerally indoctrinated “communists eat babies for breakfast” US public opinion. So he resorted to pop culture – stressing the inspirational models as Darth Vader, his incarnation Dick Cheney, and the dark side as a whole.

Smashing the State (or the establishment) was rephrased as “drain the swamp”. And to polish it all up, when talking to the establishment, Bannon added the indispensable English credibility touch as his top role model; Thomas Cromwell, the dark side behind Henry VIII, instead of Lenin. No wonder the deep state is totally freaking out.

Lenin, in trying to accomplish his revolution, as Sloterdijk observes, relied on “a double psycho-political strategy”; massive intimidation of the non-convinced (something Bannon obviously cannot deploy in contemporary America), as well as mobilization of the impoverished and enthusiastic masses attracted by the promises of the new power (Trump’s overwhelming twitter machine and Breitbart News will be in charge of this department).

In Lenin’s revolution, the faculty of political judgment was exercised by an elite that Lenin conceived as the proletariat; they became the elite via the dictatorship of the Party. All other strata, especially the rural categories, were no more than a reactionary plebe – to become useful only long term via revolutionary education.

One century after Lenin, Bannon’s proletariat “elite” will be supplied by blue collar alienation spread out across Virginia, Florida, Ohio, the Rust Belt. A special place is reserved for Reagan Democrats and Reagan Democrats 2.0 (working class minorities) as well as for all and sundry rejectionists of that good ol’ Marxist bogeyman – rigged-to-the-hilt “bourgeois democracy”.

Bannon’s early incarnation of his ideal Leninist Prince was obnoxious Mamma Grizly Sarah Palin. She could see Russia from her house – but that was about it. Trump, on the other hand, is the perfect vessel; billionaire builder/doer; a product of reality TV; the “New York New York” factor; vetted by the Masters of the Universe; no need to court donors; and a natural foe of an uppity East Coast establishment which does despise his glitter and his brashness.

Fascism and global war

To describe Trump’s “deplorables” (their definition by the establishment, via Hillary) as a fascist army, as US corporate media shills insist, totally misses the point. Marxist theory, during the 1920s and 1930s, turned fascism upside down, conceptualizing how fascism essentially crystallizes the power of finance capital (that’s something Bannon can easily sell at home). Fascism also terrorizes the working class as well as the revolutionary peasantry – thus the popular appeal of “drain the swamp”.

Mussolini defined fascism as “the horror inspired by a comfortable life”, thus leading Sloterdijk to characterize fascism as a militant-ism of street politics; total mobilization. Let’s rewind to a century ago; after 1917 and 1918, to the Left as well as to the Right, the zeitgeist dictated there was no “post-war”; in fact, the sentiment was that a global war was going on, and that had been so since times immemorial (today, under neoliberalism, global war is even more radicalized, pitting the 0.0001% against the rest.)

Under Lenin in Russia a century ago, the conflict took the form of civil war of an active minority against an impotent majority. Under the Leninist White House, the conflict may take the form of war by a very active minority (those roughly 25% of the US electorate who voted Trump) against another, infinitesimal – but very powerful – minority (the East Coast establishment, the incarnation of the Ancien Regime), with the whole saga watched ringside by a transfixed, passive majority.

“America First”; but for whom? The key question is who will end up defining America’s real national interest; true nationalists embedded in Team Trump, plus the proletariat “elite”, or the usual – globalist – suspects able to infect and corrupt any notion of nationalism.

Goodbye Fidel Castro, welcome Prince Trump (with Leninist Machiavelli attached). Brace for impact. Politics is war – what else? And “revolution” is still the biggest show in town.

Paul Craig Roberts on the Hypocrisy of Trump’s Opponents

trprotest2

[ Ed. note – In the article below, Paul Craig Roberts, using language a bit stronger than he normally employs, points out the hypocrisy of anti-Trump protesters, and particularly of those who are instigating the protests. And indeed, hypocrisy has pretty much become a trademark of today’s America.

Chief among the instigators of the street demonstrations seems to be the Soros-funded MoveOn organization, but the mainstream media certainly seem to be helping things along. The media, which almost wholly ignored protests leading up to Bush Junior’s Iraq invasion 13 years ago, now is providing blanket saturation coverage of the protests against Trump. And some school officials in Los Angeles seem to be doing their part as well. On Monday, as high school students walked out of classes, L.A. School Superintendent Michelle King issued a public statement–and one media outlet’s report on her comments left the impression she was endorsing the protests.

“Although it has been nearly a week since the presidential election, many students remain concerned about the outcome and want their voices to be heard,” King said, as quoted by USA Today.  “These are important conversations that need to take place. We want our students to know they are not alone.”

The quote supplied by USA Today seems to have King, in effect, praising students for skipping classes to protest Trump. However, if you visit the website of the Los Angeles Unified School District, you will see there is a little more to the statement than what was included in the USA Today report:

Although it has been nearly a week since the presidential election, many students remain concerned about the outcome and want their voices to be heard.

Nov. 14, 2016

These are important conversations that need to take place. We want our students to know they are not alone. However, it is critical that students not allow their sentiments to derail their education or for their actions to place them in danger. Students should limit their activities to non-instructional time and — for their own safety and to follow the law — they should remain on campus.

We believe the best place to discuss concerns is in school with caring teachers and staff. Our schools are utilizing assemblies, classroom dialogues, speaking activities and our restorative justice programs to provide a secure forum for our students.

In addition, our Office of Human Relations, Diversity and Equity has made resources available at lausd.net to support meaningful conversations around these very sensitive issues.

At L.A. Unified, the safety of students and staff remains our highest priority.

As you will note in the graphic below, the USA Today article attributes the truncated King quote to KTLA, a Los Angeles TV station. However the report on the station’s own website includes the quote in full. For some reason, USA Today seems to be trying to leave the impression that the school superintendent was encouraging students to join the protests.

usatodayAccording to USA Today, the L.A. chapter of United Teachers, the teachers union, also issued a statement saying it “stands proudly” with truant students. I could not verify whether the quote is accurate.

It has often been said that one of the great failures of the US education system is the failure to teach students to think critically or to question things. And I think what we are seeing now are the results of that. Were students and other young protesters thinking critically they might have paused to consider what the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes “did to millions of slaughtered and displaced peoples in 7 countries,” as Roberts puts it. A few “love trumps hate” signs, for instance, might have been apropos at some time over the past five years as the US and its allies were funding terrorist head choppers in Syria. Unfortunately, we didn’t see many. ]

***

Trump’s Opponents See Normal Americans as Deplorables

By Paul Craig Roberts

I guess we have all noticed that the holier-than-thou groups who whined that Trump wasn’t going to accept the outcome of the election refuse to accept it themselves.

Because I was critical of the George W. Bush regime, the liberal-progressive-leftwing and homosexual/transgendered rights groups have me on their mailing lists.

And it is unbelievable. The entirety of “the other America” refuses to accept the people’s decision. They think that their concerns are more important than the concerns of the American people, who they regard as nothing but a collection of racist homophobic rednecks.

Unless they provoke him beyond reason, Trump is not going to bother any of these people.

Trump wants to bring middle class jobs back to Americans, including for all those paid to protest him.

In order to avoide nuclear war, Trump wants to restore normal relations between the major nuclear powers.

When there are no jobs for Americans that pay enough to support an independent existence, Trump doesn’t see the point of massive legal and illegal immigration.

This is only common sense.

Yet “the threatened people” see it as fascism.

Who are “the threatened people?” As always, the most powerful.

Tell me, what lobby is more powerful than the Israel Lobby? You can’t. But the Jewish Lobby, J Street, has sent me a hysterical email at 5:11pm on 14 November. Unless “we all come together and oppose Trump’s appointment of Breitbart editor Stephan Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor” a “wave of hate will sweep across the land,” consuming “Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, LGBT peoople (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered), immigrants, Hispanics, women and other groups.”

Really now! So is Trump’s chief strategist, whatever position that is, going to attack the Jews and those with unusual sexual impulses with drones and cluster bombs, like the zionist neoconservatives who controlled the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes did to millions of slaughtered and displaced peoples in 7 countries, and like Israel does to Palestinians? Or is the former Breitbart editor going to round them all up and torture them in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo like Bush and Obama did. And like Netanyahu does in Israel?

Or will Trump simply shoot them down in the streets like Netanyahu does to the Palestinian women and children.

How come J Street and the Oligarchy-funded fronts are only concerned with nonexistent threats and ignore all of the real threats?

According to J Street, the main concern is that Trump has appointed an “Alt-Right” person to advise him. Dangerous tensions between nuclear powers? A collapsing American middle class?
These concerns, if present, are in the peripheral vision of the “threatened people.”

According to the front group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center, Trump’s election by fly-over America has resulted in “over 250 reports of hate crimes around the country.” Is the Southern Poverty Law Center including the brutal beating of a white man by a gang of blacks? How many innocents has Trump slaughtered and put into concentration camps? How many countries has he invaded? The corrupt American media and oligarchic front groups have created “the new Hitler” before he is even inaugerated.

The Klingon Clintons and neoconed Bush/Cheney and Obama killing regimes have murdered more people and invaded more countries than Hitler, and the holier-than-thou group doesn’t care. Yet, the all-powerful Israeli Lobby thinks a Breibart editor is going to target the Jews, immigrants, the transgendered and homosexuals, women, Muslims, Hispanics, “and other groups.” What a change this will be. Only non-immigrant, white, heterosexual males will be in the protected group known as the “preferred minority.”

We must hope that Donald Trump understands the state of moral, cultural, legal, and political collapse that America is in. Two years ago at the Valdai International Discussion Club, Russian President Vladimir Putin said:

“Many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities, national, cultural, religious, and even secular. They are implementing policies that equate families with same-sex partnerships, worship of God with worship of Satan. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.”

Ordinary Americans know what he means. They are forced to accept blasphemous films about Jesus Christ and shameless newspaper caricatures of the Virgin Mary, but if one of them calls a homosexual a pervert, he has committed a hate crime.

America is a country without an honest media. A country without an honest judiciary. Without an honest government. Without an honest legislature. Without honest schools and universities. A country whose morals are confused by propaganda. A country whose elites believe that they are entitled to all the income and wealth and that normal American people are the “deplorables,” to use Hillary’s term for ordinary Americans.

%d bloggers like this: