Monday, March 12, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
The Pill That Cures ‘Racism’
Press reports about a pill that cures racism will have no doubt fired the imagination of egalitarians across the Western world, from the Kapital-thumping theologian burrowed in the catacombs of university humanities departments to the orangutanaceous brick-throwing Marxist of balaclava and combat boots.
It appears that Propranolol, a drug normally prescribed for heart disease, has the unexpected side effect of suppressing implicit racial attitudes. Tests showed that subjects on the pill exhibited lower levels of subconsciously cautious attitudes towards members of another race than subjects on a placebo.
According to the Press Association report,
Experimental psychologist Dr Sylvia Terbeck, from Oxford University, who led the study published in the journal Psychopharmacology, said: “Our results offer new evidence about the processes in the brain that shape implicit racial bias.
“Implicit racial bias can occur even in people with a sincere belief in equality. Given the key role that such implicit attitudes appear to play in discrimination against other ethnic groups, and the widespread use of propranolol for medical purposes, our findings are also of considerable ethical interest.”
Two groups of 18 participants took part in the study. Each volunteer was asked to undertake a “racial Implicit Association Test” (IAT) one to two hours after taking propranolol or the placebo.
It appears that Propranolol, a drug normally prescribed for heart disease, has the unexpected side effect of suppressing implicit racial attitudes. Tests showed that subjects on the pill exhibited lower levels of subconsciously cautious attitudes towards members of another race than subjects on a placebo.
According to the Press Association report,
Experimental psychologist Dr Sylvia Terbeck, from Oxford University, who led the study published in the journal Psychopharmacology, said: “Our results offer new evidence about the processes in the brain that shape implicit racial bias.
“Implicit racial bias can occur even in people with a sincere belief in equality. Given the key role that such implicit attitudes appear to play in discrimination against other ethnic groups, and the widespread use of propranolol for medical purposes, our findings are also of considerable ethical interest.”
Two groups of 18 participants took part in the study. Each volunteer was asked to undertake a “racial Implicit Association Test” (IAT) one to two hours after taking propranolol or the placebo.
The U.S.A.'s Last Chance
The United States As a Credit System, Not a Monetarist One
Probably, for not less than three generations, the organization of human society should been foreseen as depending presently upon a system of respectively fully sovereign nation-states, united in intention through a common commitment to a true credit-system, rather than any form of continuation of a monetarist system.
Long before the time three generations will have lapsed, the progress of mankind's entry to the "colonization" of nearby Solar space, and somewhat beyond, should have reached a preliminary state of "colonization" of not only our Moon, but also Mars.
The human habitation might still, then, be essentially limited to pioneering on the Moon and Mars, but, the security of those colonies, and also Earth itself, will have come to depend on a vast system of dense deployments of units of instrumentation for protection of mankind's life within the inner range of the Solar planetary system. It is also clear in the views of the relevant specialists, that that will be a domain in which an increasingly extra-terrestrial mankind "mines" the sources of asteroids and such, rather than going back to dig such materials out of Earth. That will be within the range of realization of thermonuclear fusion.
Later, when systems of matter/anti-matter are being deployed as a resource for developing a protective screen of security objects, including galactic weather-forecasting, within the Solar system and nearby regions of the galaxy, we should have reached states of technological development virtually beyond the reach of our potential conceptions today; then, humanity should have reached the domain of man's matter/anti-matter travel to the rim of the Solar system and beyond.
There is a systematic approach to understanding the implications of those notions of the potential future of mankind within even the bounds of the remainder of the present century. The dark side of that issue, is that unless we accomplish such objectives, mankind might become extinct for lack of such progress. The continuation of the "zero technological growth" policy would probably lead toward the extinction of our species within the remainder of this century—already, within the course of the Twentieth Century, the "zero-growth" policies of the just-concluded century, such as the policies of the late Bertrand Russell, have already brought mankind to the brink of a beginning of a threat to the continued existence of the human species, a danger which inheres in what we are currently forbidding be done.
Probably, for not less than three generations, the organization of human society should been foreseen as depending presently upon a system of respectively fully sovereign nation-states, united in intention through a common commitment to a true credit-system, rather than any form of continuation of a monetarist system.
Long before the time three generations will have lapsed, the progress of mankind's entry to the "colonization" of nearby Solar space, and somewhat beyond, should have reached a preliminary state of "colonization" of not only our Moon, but also Mars.
The human habitation might still, then, be essentially limited to pioneering on the Moon and Mars, but, the security of those colonies, and also Earth itself, will have come to depend on a vast system of dense deployments of units of instrumentation for protection of mankind's life within the inner range of the Solar planetary system. It is also clear in the views of the relevant specialists, that that will be a domain in which an increasingly extra-terrestrial mankind "mines" the sources of asteroids and such, rather than going back to dig such materials out of Earth. That will be within the range of realization of thermonuclear fusion.
Later, when systems of matter/anti-matter are being deployed as a resource for developing a protective screen of security objects, including galactic weather-forecasting, within the Solar system and nearby regions of the galaxy, we should have reached states of technological development virtually beyond the reach of our potential conceptions today; then, humanity should have reached the domain of man's matter/anti-matter travel to the rim of the Solar system and beyond.
There is a systematic approach to understanding the implications of those notions of the potential future of mankind within even the bounds of the remainder of the present century. The dark side of that issue, is that unless we accomplish such objectives, mankind might become extinct for lack of such progress. The continuation of the "zero technological growth" policy would probably lead toward the extinction of our species within the remainder of this century—already, within the course of the Twentieth Century, the "zero-growth" policies of the just-concluded century, such as the policies of the late Bertrand Russell, have already brought mankind to the brink of a beginning of a threat to the continued existence of the human species, a danger which inheres in what we are currently forbidding be done.
‘Occupy AIPAC’ VS. AIPAC
Across the street from the annual policy planning convention held by the pro-Israeli lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a band of tireless grassroots activists staged their own counter-conference the weekend of March 2-4, which they dubbed “Occupy AIPAC,” like the story of David versus Goliath. The organizers of the event hosted speakers and informational seminars, took to the streets to protest and even infiltrated and disrupted AIPAC’s gathering as more than half of Congress, the U.S. president, the top GOP presidential candidates and a host of foreign dignitaries showed up to pay homage to the most powerful lobby in America.
According to Rae Abileah, the co-director of the group CODEPINK, at one point four Occupy AIPAC activists managed to infiltrate an AIPAC policy conference panel titled “Stopping Iran,” in which Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Israeli Ambassador Jeremy Issacharoff were speakers. CODEPINK is among several groups that organized the weekend counter-conference.
Right in the middle of Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s speech, the four stood up to interrupt—or “mic check” as they called it—the 10-term Cuban-American
congresswoman, shouting: “Ros-Lehtinen is pushing war based on lies,” “AIPAC supports endless war” and “Occupy Wall Street not Iran.”
As this was going on, another group unfurled a banner right inside the main hall hosting the AIPAC conference that read: “Don’t Bomb Iran.”
The activists videotaped AIPAC supporters’ violent reactions to the disruptions, posting the video to the Internet for the world to see. As this issue of AFP goes to press, the video has already received 15,000 viewings along with hundreds of comments denouncing AIPAC.
According to Rae Abileah, the co-director of the group CODEPINK, at one point four Occupy AIPAC activists managed to infiltrate an AIPAC policy conference panel titled “Stopping Iran,” in which Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Israeli Ambassador Jeremy Issacharoff were speakers. CODEPINK is among several groups that organized the weekend counter-conference.
Right in the middle of Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s speech, the four stood up to interrupt—or “mic check” as they called it—the 10-term Cuban-American
congresswoman, shouting: “Ros-Lehtinen is pushing war based on lies,” “AIPAC supports endless war” and “Occupy Wall Street not Iran.”
As this was going on, another group unfurled a banner right inside the main hall hosting the AIPAC conference that read: “Don’t Bomb Iran.”
The activists videotaped AIPAC supporters’ violent reactions to the disruptions, posting the video to the Internet for the world to see. As this issue of AFP goes to press, the video has already received 15,000 viewings along with hundreds of comments denouncing AIPAC.
Friday, March 9, 2012
YouTube Censors Anti-TSA Video
YouTube has once again engaged in censorship, this time on a video exposing the fraudulent claims of the Transportation Security Administration that their screening procedures are ensuring American safety. In the censored video, engineer Jon Corbett (left), a blogger from the popular anti-TSA website TSA Out of Our Pants!, demonstrates how the radiation firing body scanners utilized by the TSA can be easily bypassed.
He said, 'Here are several images produced by TSA nude body scanners. You'll see that the search victim is drawn with light colors and placed on a black background in both images.”
“In these samples, the individuals are concealing metallic objects that you can see as a black shape on their light figure. Again that’s light figure, black background, and black threat items,” he continued.
The video then shows Jon Corbett carrying through the scanner a metal case that is away from his body in his side pocket. In the video, Corbett explains that the metallic objects appear as black on the image produced by the scanners, and therefore, the machines are unable to detect such objects if they are obscured by the background, which is black as well.
Corbett explained, “Yes that’s right, if you have a metallic object on your side, it will be the same colour as the background and therefore completely invisible to both visual and automated inspection.”
“It can’t possibly be that easy to beat the TSA’s billion dollar fleet of nude body scanners, right? The TSA can’t be that stupid, can they? Unfortunately, they can, and they are.”
He said, 'Here are several images produced by TSA nude body scanners. You'll see that the search victim is drawn with light colors and placed on a black background in both images.”
“In these samples, the individuals are concealing metallic objects that you can see as a black shape on their light figure. Again that’s light figure, black background, and black threat items,” he continued.
The video then shows Jon Corbett carrying through the scanner a metal case that is away from his body in his side pocket. In the video, Corbett explains that the metallic objects appear as black on the image produced by the scanners, and therefore, the machines are unable to detect such objects if they are obscured by the background, which is black as well.
Corbett explained, “Yes that’s right, if you have a metallic object on your side, it will be the same colour as the background and therefore completely invisible to both visual and automated inspection.”
“It can’t possibly be that easy to beat the TSA’s billion dollar fleet of nude body scanners, right? The TSA can’t be that stupid, can they? Unfortunately, they can, and they are.”
Why Putin is driving Washington nuts
Forget the past (Saddam, Osama, Gaddafi) and the present (Assad, Ahmadinejad). A bet can be made over a bottle of Petrus 1989 (the problem is waiting the next six years to collect); for the foreseeable future, Washington's top bogeyman - and also for its rogue North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners and assorted media shills - will be none other than back-to-the-future Russian President Vladimir Putin.
And make no mistake; Vlad the Putinator will relish it. He's back exactly where he wants to be; as Russia's commander-in-chief, in charge of the military, foreign policy and all national security matters.
Anglo-American elites still squirm at the mention of his now
legendary Munich 2007 speech, when he blasted the then George W Bush administration for its obsessively unipolar imperial agenda "through a system which has nothing to do with democracy" and non-stop overstepping of its "national borders in almost all spheres"."
So Washington and its minions have been warned. Before last Sunday's election, Putin even advertised his road map The essentials; no war on Syria; no war on Iran; no "humanitarian bombing" or fomenting "color revolutions" - all bundled into a new concept, "illegal instruments of soft power". For Putin, a Washington-engineered New World Order is a no-go. What rules is "the time-honored principle of state sovereignty".
No wonder. When Putin looks at Libya, he sees the graphic, regressive consequences of NATO's "liberation" through "humanitarian bombing"; a fragmented country controlled by al-Qaeda-linked militias; backward Cyrenaica splitting from more developed Tripolitania; and a relative of the last king brought in to rule the new "emirate" - to the delight of those model democrats of the House of Saud.
And make no mistake; Vlad the Putinator will relish it. He's back exactly where he wants to be; as Russia's commander-in-chief, in charge of the military, foreign policy and all national security matters.
Anglo-American elites still squirm at the mention of his now
legendary Munich 2007 speech, when he blasted the then George W Bush administration for its obsessively unipolar imperial agenda "through a system which has nothing to do with democracy" and non-stop overstepping of its "national borders in almost all spheres"."
So Washington and its minions have been warned. Before last Sunday's election, Putin even advertised his road map The essentials; no war on Syria; no war on Iran; no "humanitarian bombing" or fomenting "color revolutions" - all bundled into a new concept, "illegal instruments of soft power". For Putin, a Washington-engineered New World Order is a no-go. What rules is "the time-honored principle of state sovereignty".
No wonder. When Putin looks at Libya, he sees the graphic, regressive consequences of NATO's "liberation" through "humanitarian bombing"; a fragmented country controlled by al-Qaeda-linked militias; backward Cyrenaica splitting from more developed Tripolitania; and a relative of the last king brought in to rule the new "emirate" - to the delight of those model democrats of the House of Saud.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Why should America burn?
On Wednesday, last week, Jeff Rense hosted the author to very interesting but very sensitive issues that were discussed in his program that only covered Iran but also other countries like Pakistan, Syria etc. in the region. Based on that radio talk, this paper has been written for the benefit of the listeners and readers.
The technologies that is available to America like EMP (electromagnetic pulse) that can be exploded from 50,000 feet or above can virtually knock out every computer or computer assisted system thus rendering Iran very vulnerable and helpless before America. This is a wrong attitude and a wrong approach; it’s based on arrogance and ego. In such a scenario, free flight weapons would remain quite effective.
However as time moves on, war clouds are looming large over Iran; the main threats are coming from Washington but equally strong if not more are from Tel Aviv. America is already engaged in a dozen wars in the Muslim World, Iran front would be would be a nightmare for the US. Its not just Iran but Syria is also being engaged simultaneously.
Obama said “They understand that the world community means business. To resolve the issue Iran will have to come to the table" and prove that "the intentions of their nuclear program is peaceful." Such threats do not solve rather complicate the situation. America is not understanding Iran, Iran has a history of thousands of years where as America has history of over 200 years. Compared to thousands of years, a couple of centuries are like droplets in the ocean. History determines the temperament of the nations, Iran has stood to its past and it would do so in future also. Like in Afghanistan, where the empires have fallen, Iran too would be no different.
In Afghanistan, the British were humiliated twice, the big bear, Soviet Union evaporated into thin air now America is licking dust before it falls down. With this background, America would be well advised not to attack Iran just to appease Zionist State of Israel.
The technologies that is available to America like EMP (electromagnetic pulse) that can be exploded from 50,000 feet or above can virtually knock out every computer or computer assisted system thus rendering Iran very vulnerable and helpless before America. This is a wrong attitude and a wrong approach; it’s based on arrogance and ego. In such a scenario, free flight weapons would remain quite effective.
However as time moves on, war clouds are looming large over Iran; the main threats are coming from Washington but equally strong if not more are from Tel Aviv. America is already engaged in a dozen wars in the Muslim World, Iran front would be would be a nightmare for the US. Its not just Iran but Syria is also being engaged simultaneously.
Obama said “They understand that the world community means business. To resolve the issue Iran will have to come to the table" and prove that "the intentions of their nuclear program is peaceful." Such threats do not solve rather complicate the situation. America is not understanding Iran, Iran has a history of thousands of years where as America has history of over 200 years. Compared to thousands of years, a couple of centuries are like droplets in the ocean. History determines the temperament of the nations, Iran has stood to its past and it would do so in future also. Like in Afghanistan, where the empires have fallen, Iran too would be no different.
In Afghanistan, the British were humiliated twice, the big bear, Soviet Union evaporated into thin air now America is licking dust before it falls down. With this background, America would be well advised not to attack Iran just to appease Zionist State of Israel.
How our Understanding of History is Manipulated
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that in order for us, the general
population, to understand the deeper issues of the current geopolitical situation, it is imperative for us to understand the relevant history.
This may sound somewhat obvious, but I would argue that this is a fundamental sticking-point when discussing such matters, as it is difficult to link individuals to the antisocial and unethical actions they perpetrate [1:2] without a historically accurate point of reference.
For example, when discussing matters such as the proposal that 9/11 may have been initiated by our ‘leaders’ [3], I find that people quite often respond with the simple question 'why?', as it seems absurd to think that our 'leaders' would do something quite so inhuman and immoral for some sort of political gain. I will not attempt here to go into what their motives were, but rather into why it is that we, the general public, rarely remember the lessons of the past and continue to be misled about the circumstances leading to each and every conflict.
At this juncture I would suggest that the reader check out an article by John Pilger entitled 'Our children are learning lies' in which he clearly sets out several examples of how we are taught about an historic event at school and how this information will in turn have a direct effect on the formation of our future perceptions of the world [4]
Unfortunately, this information can all too often bear little or no relation to the actual event (Pilger uses Vietnam as a prime illustration of this), because the language and information used to teach us essentially pre-programs our comprehension of future warfare, automatically predisposing us to whichever side has been identified as the 'goodies' while creating a vested dislike or even hatred of the 'baddies'.
population, to understand the deeper issues of the current geopolitical situation, it is imperative for us to understand the relevant history.
This may sound somewhat obvious, but I would argue that this is a fundamental sticking-point when discussing such matters, as it is difficult to link individuals to the antisocial and unethical actions they perpetrate [1:2] without a historically accurate point of reference.
For example, when discussing matters such as the proposal that 9/11 may have been initiated by our ‘leaders’ [3], I find that people quite often respond with the simple question 'why?', as it seems absurd to think that our 'leaders' would do something quite so inhuman and immoral for some sort of political gain. I will not attempt here to go into what their motives were, but rather into why it is that we, the general public, rarely remember the lessons of the past and continue to be misled about the circumstances leading to each and every conflict.
At this juncture I would suggest that the reader check out an article by John Pilger entitled 'Our children are learning lies' in which he clearly sets out several examples of how we are taught about an historic event at school and how this information will in turn have a direct effect on the formation of our future perceptions of the world [4]
Unfortunately, this information can all too often bear little or no relation to the actual event (Pilger uses Vietnam as a prime illustration of this), because the language and information used to teach us essentially pre-programs our comprehension of future warfare, automatically predisposing us to whichever side has been identified as the 'goodies' while creating a vested dislike or even hatred of the 'baddies'.
Obama's Kill Doctrine
What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. If the president can kill a citizen, there are a host of other powers that fall short of killing that the president might claim, including indefinite detention of citizens -- another recent controversy. Thus, by asserting the right to kill citizens without charge or judicial review, Holder has effectively made all of the Constitution's individual protections of accused persons matters of presidential discretion. These rights will be faithfully observed up to the point that the president concludes that they interfere with his view of how best to protect the country -- or his willingness to wait for "justice" to be done. And if Awlaki's fate is any indication, there will be no opportunity for much objection.
Already, the administration has successfully blocked efforts of citizens to gain review of such national security powers or orders. Not only is the list of citizens targeted with death kept secret, but the administration has insisted that courts do not play a role in the creation of or basis for such a list. Even when Awlaki's family tried to challenge Obama's kill order, the federal court declared that the cleric would have to file for himself -- a difficult task when you are on a presidential hit list. Moreover, any attorney working with Awlaki would have risked being charged with aiding a terrorist.
When the applause died down after Holder's speech, we were left with a bizarre notion of government. We have this elaborate system of courts and rights governing the prosecution and punishment of citizens. However, that entire system can be circumvented at the whim or will of the president. The president then becomes effectively the lawgiver or lifetaker for all citizens. The rest becomes a mere pretense of the rule of law.
Holder was describing the very model of government the Framers denounced in crafting both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison in particular warned that citizens should not rely on the good graces and good intentions of their leaders. He noted, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The administration appears to have taken the quote literally as an invitation for unlimited authority for angels.
Of course, even those who hold an angelic view of Obama today may come to find the next president less divine. In the end, those guardian angels will continue to claim to be acting in the best interests of every citizen -- with the exception, of course, of those citizens killed by them.
Already, the administration has successfully blocked efforts of citizens to gain review of such national security powers or orders. Not only is the list of citizens targeted with death kept secret, but the administration has insisted that courts do not play a role in the creation of or basis for such a list. Even when Awlaki's family tried to challenge Obama's kill order, the federal court declared that the cleric would have to file for himself -- a difficult task when you are on a presidential hit list. Moreover, any attorney working with Awlaki would have risked being charged with aiding a terrorist.
When the applause died down after Holder's speech, we were left with a bizarre notion of government. We have this elaborate system of courts and rights governing the prosecution and punishment of citizens. However, that entire system can be circumvented at the whim or will of the president. The president then becomes effectively the lawgiver or lifetaker for all citizens. The rest becomes a mere pretense of the rule of law.
Holder was describing the very model of government the Framers denounced in crafting both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison in particular warned that citizens should not rely on the good graces and good intentions of their leaders. He noted, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The administration appears to have taken the quote literally as an invitation for unlimited authority for angels.
Of course, even those who hold an angelic view of Obama today may come to find the next president less divine. In the end, those guardian angels will continue to claim to be acting in the best interests of every citizen -- with the exception, of course, of those citizens killed by them.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Stratfor Leaks: NATO Commandos in Illegal Special Ops in Syria
Undercover NATO troops are already in Syria despite denials from their parent governments, according to a leaked brief from a highly-placed analyst.
The information comes from a hacked email from leading private US intelligence agency Stratfor, whose correspondence has been released by Wikileaks since February 27. The email appears to be written from the address of Reva Bhalla (bhalla@stratfor.com), the company’s director of analysis, for internal use, and details a confidential Pentagon meeting in December. The consultation is alleged to have been attended by senior analysts from the US Air Force, and representatives from its chief allies, France and the United Kingdom.
Western powers have categorically denied military involvement in Syria’s internal conflict, for which they have no international mandate. But if the information contained in the letter is reliable, a radically different picture of Western activity in Syria emerges.
The author of the letter claims that US officials “said without saying that SOF [special operation forces] teams (presumably from the US, UK, France, Jordan and Turkey) are already on the ground, focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces.” A little later the US army experts expand on the role of the undercover commandos: “the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.”
Alawites are a minority Islamic sect, to which Syrian President Bashar Assad and his support base belong. For the past year he has battled an insurrection that has united a range of opponents, from pro-democracy activists to radical Sunni Muslims.
The information comes from a hacked email from leading private US intelligence agency Stratfor, whose correspondence has been released by Wikileaks since February 27. The email appears to be written from the address of Reva Bhalla (bhalla@stratfor.com), the company’s director of analysis, for internal use, and details a confidential Pentagon meeting in December. The consultation is alleged to have been attended by senior analysts from the US Air Force, and representatives from its chief allies, France and the United Kingdom.
Western powers have categorically denied military involvement in Syria’s internal conflict, for which they have no international mandate. But if the information contained in the letter is reliable, a radically different picture of Western activity in Syria emerges.
The author of the letter claims that US officials “said without saying that SOF [special operation forces] teams (presumably from the US, UK, France, Jordan and Turkey) are already on the ground, focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces.” A little later the US army experts expand on the role of the undercover commandos: “the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.”
Alawites are a minority Islamic sect, to which Syrian President Bashar Assad and his support base belong. For the past year he has battled an insurrection that has united a range of opponents, from pro-democracy activists to radical Sunni Muslims.
Western Hypocrisy and the Russian Election
Vladimir Putin wasn’t the only one with tears in his eyes as he exulted in his presidential election victory and shouted “Glory to Russia!” The entire American punditocracy, to say nothing of the Brits, responded as one with accusations the election had been fixed, confidently predicting a “crackdown” on “dissent” as the Russian leader resumed the office he had never really left.
Yet there is very little to these claims of fraud. Of course, in every election ever held anywhere there have been “irregularities,” such as are commonplace in our very own Chicago. There is some evidence the Russian parliamentary elections were somewhat less than honest – the 99 percent pro-Putin vote in Chechnya, of all places, was particularly suspect – although no one has gone so far as to say Putin’s United Russia party actually lost.
The reality is that Putin is immensely popular in Russia, a fact the English-speaking media only admits with great reluctance. The “dissidents,” who are fawned over by Western journalists, are viewed by Russia’s vast-albeit-silent majority as a tiny faction of professional discontents with dubious motives. Putin has characterized them as professionals in the pay of Washington and London, a charge given credence by some hilarious video of a British diplomat and Russian “democracy activists” who wound up between a rock and a hard place.
As the US and Britain move against Iran, setting up Tehran for a round of “shock and awe,” the Russians aren’t sitting still for it: they’re sending arms to Iran’s ally, Syria, and calling for mediation with the mullahs. Western leaders are especially nonplussed at Putin’s blunt denunciations of US policy: “They want to control everything,” he told student interlocutors in Tomsk, “sometimes I have the impression the United States doesn’t need allies, it needs vassals.”
Truer words were never spoken. The last thing Western NGOs – and their governmental paymasters – want is a strong, united, and relatively free Russia. They much prefer the corruption and chaos of the Yeltsin years, when a perpetually intoxicated “leader” and his Rasputin-like cronies helped the West and the former communist elite seize the country’s “privatized” assets, and let the nation crumble around them. Putin saved Russia from dissolution, and those who were hoping to pick up the pieces were not at all pleased. This is the reason for years of relentless anti-Russian cold war era propaganda, the charges of “authoritarianism” leveled against a nation emerging from a 70-year-long nightmare, and the revived hype about a Russian “threat.”
Yet there is very little to these claims of fraud. Of course, in every election ever held anywhere there have been “irregularities,” such as are commonplace in our very own Chicago. There is some evidence the Russian parliamentary elections were somewhat less than honest – the 99 percent pro-Putin vote in Chechnya, of all places, was particularly suspect – although no one has gone so far as to say Putin’s United Russia party actually lost.
The reality is that Putin is immensely popular in Russia, a fact the English-speaking media only admits with great reluctance. The “dissidents,” who are fawned over by Western journalists, are viewed by Russia’s vast-albeit-silent majority as a tiny faction of professional discontents with dubious motives. Putin has characterized them as professionals in the pay of Washington and London, a charge given credence by some hilarious video of a British diplomat and Russian “democracy activists” who wound up between a rock and a hard place.
As the US and Britain move against Iran, setting up Tehran for a round of “shock and awe,” the Russians aren’t sitting still for it: they’re sending arms to Iran’s ally, Syria, and calling for mediation with the mullahs. Western leaders are especially nonplussed at Putin’s blunt denunciations of US policy: “They want to control everything,” he told student interlocutors in Tomsk, “sometimes I have the impression the United States doesn’t need allies, it needs vassals.”
Truer words were never spoken. The last thing Western NGOs – and their governmental paymasters – want is a strong, united, and relatively free Russia. They much prefer the corruption and chaos of the Yeltsin years, when a perpetually intoxicated “leader” and his Rasputin-like cronies helped the West and the former communist elite seize the country’s “privatized” assets, and let the nation crumble around them. Putin saved Russia from dissolution, and those who were hoping to pick up the pieces were not at all pleased. This is the reason for years of relentless anti-Russian cold war era propaganda, the charges of “authoritarianism” leveled against a nation emerging from a 70-year-long nightmare, and the revived hype about a Russian “threat.”
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Geopolitics and The Russian Elections: Putin Wins...
Washington's Manipulative Dirty Hands
National Endowment-funded Golos (a so-called independent NGO election monitor) alleged over 2,000 irregularities, including 900 in Moscow. Executive director Grigory Melkonyants claimed "massive serious violations." He's well paid to say it.
NED, its National Democratic Institute (NDI) arm, the International Republican Institute (IRI), and similar organizations function as destabilizing US foreign policy tools.
They support pro-Western and/or regime change initiatives in over 90 countries. They operate like CIA alter egos, more openly than covertly by funding opposition groups. In Russia, they're actively anti-Putin.
Claiming it's a “private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world" masks NED's true agenda. It actively participated in US orchestrated "color revolutions" in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. It also manipulated so-called "Arab Spring" rebellions to create illusions of change.
It represents US imperial interests. Taking NED or other foreign funding violates Russian law. Making baseless accusations exacerbates the crime. In America, prosecutions would result. Golos operates freely in Russia.
Whatever irregularities occurred were minor. Polls showed Putin heavily favored to win. He did slightly better than expected.
As a result, Washington, its rogue NATO partners, and complicit media scoundrels have Putin to kick around for the next six years. Expect them to take full advantage.
National Endowment-funded Golos (a so-called independent NGO election monitor) alleged over 2,000 irregularities, including 900 in Moscow. Executive director Grigory Melkonyants claimed "massive serious violations." He's well paid to say it.
NED, its National Democratic Institute (NDI) arm, the International Republican Institute (IRI), and similar organizations function as destabilizing US foreign policy tools.
They support pro-Western and/or regime change initiatives in over 90 countries. They operate like CIA alter egos, more openly than covertly by funding opposition groups. In Russia, they're actively anti-Putin.
Claiming it's a “private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world" masks NED's true agenda. It actively participated in US orchestrated "color revolutions" in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. It also manipulated so-called "Arab Spring" rebellions to create illusions of change.
It represents US imperial interests. Taking NED or other foreign funding violates Russian law. Making baseless accusations exacerbates the crime. In America, prosecutions would result. Golos operates freely in Russia.
Whatever irregularities occurred were minor. Polls showed Putin heavily favored to win. He did slightly better than expected.
As a result, Washington, its rogue NATO partners, and complicit media scoundrels have Putin to kick around for the next six years. Expect them to take full advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)