Aletho News

Imperialism and the “Anti-Imperialism of the Fools”

By James Petras :: 12.30.2011

One of the great paradoxes of history are the claims of imperialist politicians to be engaged in a great humanitarian crusade designed to liberate nations and peoples, while practicing the most barbaric conquests, destructive wars and large scale bloodletting of conquered people in historical memory.

In the modern capitalist era, the ideologies of imperialist rulers vary over time, from the early appeals to “the right” to wealth, power, colonies and grandeur to later claims of a ‘civilizing mission’. More recently imperial rulers have propagated, many diverse justifications adapted to specific contexts, adversaries, circumstances and audiences.

This essay will concentrate on analyzing contemporary US imperial ideological arguments for legitimizing wars and sanctions to sustain dominance.

Contextualizing Imperial Ideology

Imperialist propaganda varies according to whether it is directed against a competitor for global power, or whether as a justification for applying sanctions, or engaging in open warfare against a local or regional socio-political adversary.

With regard to established imperial (Europe) or rising world economic competitors (China), US imperial propaganda varies over time. Early in the 19th century, Washington proclaimed the “Monroe Doctrine”, denouncing European efforts to colonize Latin America, privileging its own imperial designs in that region. In the 20th century when the US imperial policymakers were displacing Europe from prime resource based colonies in the Middle East and Africa, it played on several themes. It condemned ‘colonial forms of domination and promoted ‘neo-colonial’ transitions that ended European monopolies and facilitated US multi-national corporate penetration. This was clearly evident during and after World War 2, in the Middle East petrol-countries.

During the 1950s as the US assumed imperial primacy and radical anti-colonial nationalism came to the fore, Washington forged alliances with the declining colonial power to combat a common enemy and to prop up post-colonial powers. Even with the post World War 2 economic recovery, growth and unification of Europe, it still works in tandem and under US leadership in militarily repressing nationalist insurgencies and regimes. When conflicts and competition occur, between US and European regimes, banks and enterprises, the mass media of each region publish “investigatory findings” highlighting the frauds and malfeasance of its competitors ..and US regulatory agencies levy heavy fines on their European counterparts, overlooking similar practices by Wall Street financial firms.

In recent times the rising tide of militarist imperialism and colonial wars fueled by Israeli proxies in the US state has led to some serious divergences between US and European imperialism. With the exception of England, Europe made a minimum symbolic commitment to the US wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Germany and France concentrated on expanding their export markets and economic capacities; displacing the US in major markets and resource sites. The convergence of US and European empires led to the integration of financial institutions and the subsequent common crises and collapse but without any coordinated policy of recovery. US ideologists propagated the idea of a “declining and decaying European Union”, while the European ideologues emphasized the failures of Anglo-American de-regulated, ‘free markets’ and Wall Street swindles.

Imperial Ideology, Rising Economic Powers and Nationalist Challengers

There is a long history of imperialist “anti-imperialism”, officially sponsored condemnation, exposés and moral indignation directed exclusively against rival imperialists, emerging powers or simply competitors, who in some cases are simply following in the footsteps of the established imperial powers.

English imperialists in their heyday justified their world-wide plunder of three continents by perpetuating the “Black Legend”, of Spanish empire’s “exceptional cruelty” toward indigenous people of Latin America, while engaging in the biggest and most lucrative African slave trade. While the Spanish colonists enslaved the indigenous people, the Anglo-American settlers exterminated them…..

In the run-up to World War II, European and US imperial powers, while exploiting their Asian colonies condemned Japanese imperial powers’ invasion and colonization of China. Japan, in turn claimed it was leading Asia’s forces fighting against Western imperialism and projected a post-colonial “co-prosperity” sphere of equal Asian partners.

The imperialist use of “anti-imperialist” moral rhetoric was designed to weaken rivals and was directed to several audiences. In fact, at no point did the anti-imperialist rhetoric serve to “liberate” any of the colonized people.In almost all cases the victorious imperial power only substituted one form colonial or neo-colonial rule for another.

The “anti-imperialism” of the imperialists is directed at the nationalist movements of the colonized countries and at their domestic public. British imperialists fomented uprisings among the agro-mining elites in Latin America promising “free trade” against Spanish mercantilist rule; they backed the “self-determination” of the slave holding cotton plantation owners in the US South against the Union; they supported the territorial claims of the Iroquois tribal leaders against the US anti-colonial revolutionaries … exploiting legitimate grievances for imperial ends. During World War II, the Japanese imperialists supported a sector of the nationalist anti-colonial movement in India against the British Empire. The US condemned Spanish colonial rule in Cuba and the Philippines and went to war to “liberate” the oppressed peoples from tyranny….and remained to impose a reign of terror, exploitation and colonial rule…

The imperial powers sought to divide the anti-colonial movements and create future “client rulers” when and if they succeeded. The use of anti-imperialist rhetoric was designed to attract two sets of groups. A conservative group with common political and economic interests with the imperial power, which shared their hostility to revolutionary nationalists and which sought to accrue greater advantage by tying their fortunes to a rising imperial power. A radical sector of the movement tactically allied itself with the rising imperial power, with the idea of using the imperial power to secure resources (arms, propaganda, vehicles and financial aid) and, once securing power, to discard them. More often than not, in this game of mutual manipulation between empire and nationalists, the former won out … as is the case then and now.

The imperialist “anti-imperialist” rhetoric was equally directed at the domestic public, especially in countries like the US which prized its 18th anti-colonial heritage. The purpose was to broaden the base of empire building beyond the hard line empire loyalists, militarists and corporate beneficiaries. Their appeal sought to include liberals, humanitarians, progressive intellectuals, religious and secular moralists and other “opinion-makers” who had a certain cachet with the larger public, the ones who would have to pay with their lives and tax money for the inter-imperial and colonial wars.

The official spokespeople of empire publicize real and fabricated atrocities of their imperial rivals, and highlight the plight of the colonized victims. The corporate elite and the hardline militarists demand military action to protect property, or to seize strategic resources; the humanitarians and progressives denounce the “crimes against humanity” and echo the calls “to do something concrete” to save the victims from genocide. Sectors of the Left join the chorus, finding a sector of victims who fit in with their abstract ideology, and plead for the imperial powers to “arm the people to liberate themselves” (sic). By lending moral support and a veneer of respectability to the imperial war, by swallowing the propaganda of “war to save victims” the progressives become the prototype of the “anti-imperialism of the fools”. Having secured broad public support on the basis of “anti-imperialism”, the imperialist powers feel free to sacrifice citizens’ lives and the public treasury, to pursue war, fueled by the moral fervor of a righteous cause. As the butchery drags on and the casualties mount, and the public wearies of war and its cost, progressive and leftist enthusiasm turns to silence or worse, moral hypocrisy with claims that “the nature of the war changed” or “that this isn’t the kind of war that we had in mind …”. As if the war makers ever intended to consult the progressives and left on how and why they should engage in imperial wars.!

In the contemporary period the imperial “anti-imperialist wars” and aggression have been greatly aided and abetted by well-funded “grass roots” so-called “non-governmental organizations” which act to mobilize popular movements which can “invite” imperial aggression.

Over the past four decades US imperialism has fomented at least two dozen “grass roots” movements which have destroyed democratic governments, or decimated collectivist welfare states or provoked major damage to the economy of targeted countries.

In Chile throughout 1972-73 under the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende, the CIA financed and provided major support – via the AFL-CIO–to private truck owners to paralyze the flow of goods and services. They also funded a strike by a sector of the copper workers union (at the El Teniente mine) to undermine copper production and exports, in the lead up to the coup. After the military took power several “grass roots” Christian Democratic union officials participated in the purge of elected leftist union activists. Needless to say in short order the truck owners and copper workers ended the strike, dropped their demands and subsequently lost all bargaining rights!

In the 1980’s the CIA via Vatican channels transferred millions of dollars to sustain the “Solidarity Union” in Poland, making a hero of the Gdansk shipyards worker-leader Lech Walesa, who spearheaded the general strike to topple the Communist regime. With the overthrow of Communism so also went guaranteed employment, social security and trade union militancy: the neo-liberal regimes reduced the workforce at Gdansk by fifty percent and eventually closed it, giving the boot to the entire workforce. Walesa retired with a magnificent Presidential pension, while his former workmates walked the streets and the new “independent” Polish rulers provided NATO with military bases and mercenaries for imperial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2002 the White House, the CIA , the AFL-CIO and NGOs, backed a Venezuelan military-business – trade union bureaucrat led “grass roots” coup that overthrew democratically elected President Chavez. In 48 hours a million strong authentic grass roots mobilization of the urban poor backed by constitutionalist military forces defeated the US backed dictators and restored Chavez to power. Subsequently oil executives directed a lockout backed by several US financed NGOs. They were defeated by the workers’ takeover of the oil industry. The unsuccessful coup and lockout cost the Venezuelan economy billions of dollars in lost income and caused a double digit decline in GNP.

The US backed “grass roots” armed jihadists to liberate Bosnia and armed the“grass roots” terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army to break-up Yugoslavia. Almost the entire Western Left cheered as, the US bombed Belgrade, degraded the economy and claimed it was “responding to genocide”. Kosovo “free and independent” became a huge market for white slavers, housed the biggest US military base in Europe, with the highest per-capita out migration of any country in Europe.

The imperial “grass roots” strategy combines humanitarian, democratic and anti-imperialist rhetoric and paid and trained local NGO’s, with mass media blitzes to mobilize Western public opinion and especially “prestigious leftist moral critics” behind their power grabs.

The Consequence of Imperial Promoted “Anti-Imperialist” Movements: Who Wins and Who Loses?

The historic record of imperialist promoted “anti-imperialist” and “pro-democracy” “grass roots movements” is uniformly negative. Let us briefly summarize the results. In Chile ‘grass roots’ truck owners strike led to the brutal military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet and nearly two decades of torture, murder, jailing and forced exile of hundreds of thousands, the imposition of brutal “free market policies” and subordination to US imperial policies. In summary the US multi-national copper corporations and the Chilean oligarchy were the big winners and the mass of the working class and urban and rural poor the biggest losers. The US backed “grass roots uprisings” in Eastern Europe against Soviet domination, exchanged Russian for US domination; subordination to NATO instead of the Warsaw Pact; the massive transfer of national public enterprises, banks and media to Western multi-nationals. Privatization of national enterprises led to unprecedented levels of double-digit unemployment, skyrocketing rents and the growth of pensioner poverty. The crises induced the flight of millions of the most educated and skilled workers and the elimination of free public health, higher education and worker vacation resorts.

Throughout the now capitalist Eastern Europe and USSR highly organized criminal gangs developed large scale prostitution and drug rings; foreign and local gangster ‘entrepeneurs’ seized lucrative public enterprises and formed a new class of super-rich oligarchs Electoral party politicians, local business people and professionals linked to Western ‘partners’ were the socio-economic winners. Pensioners, workers, collective farmers, the unemployed youth were the big losers along with the formerly subsidized cultural artists. Military bases in Eastern Europe became the empire’s first line of military attack of Russia and the target of any counter-attack.

If we measure the consequences of the shift in imperial power, it is clear that the Eastern Europe countries have become even more subservient under the US and the EU than under Russia. Western induced financial crises have devastated their economies; Eastern European troops have served in more imperial wars under NATO than under Soviet rule; the cultural media are under Western commercial control. Most of all, the degree of imperial control over all economic sectors far exceeds anything that existed under the Soviets. The Eastern European ‘grass roots’ movement succeeded in deepening and extending the US Empire; the advocates of peace, social justice, national independence, a cultural renaissance and social welfare with democracy were the big losers.

Western liberals, progressives and leftists who fell in love with imperialist promoted “anti-imperialism” are also big losers. Their support for the NATO attack on Yugoslavia led to the break-up of a multi-national state and the creation of huge NATO military bases and a white slavers paradise in Kosovo. Their blind support for the imperial promoted “liberation” of Eastern Europe devastated the welfare state, eliminating the pressure on Western regimes’ need to compete in providing welfare provisions. The main beneficiaries of Western imperial advances via ‘grass roots’ uprisings were the multi-national corporations, the Pentagon and the right-wing free market neo-liberals. As the entire political spectrum moved to the right a sector of the left and progressives eventually jumped on the bandwagon. The Left moralists lost credibility and support, their peace movements dwindled, their “moral critiques” lost resonance. The left and progressives who tail-ended the imperial backed “grass roots movements”, whether in the name of “anti-Stalinism”, “pro-democracy” or “anti-imperialism” have never engaged in any critical reflection; no effort to analyze the long-term negative consequences of their positions in terms of the losses in social welfare, national independence or personal dignity.

The long history of imperialist manipulation of “anti-imperialist” narratives has found virulent expression in the present day. The New Cold War launched by Obama against China and Russia, the hot war brewing in the Gulf over Iran’s alleged military threat, the interventionist threat against Venezuela’s “drug-networks”,and Syria’s “bloodbath” are part and parcel of the use and abuse of “anti-imperialism” to prop up a declining empire. Hopefully, the progressive and leftist writers and scribes will learn from the ideological pitfalls of the past and resist the temptation to access the mass media by providing a ‘progressive cover’ to imperial dubbed “rebels”. It is time to distinguish between genuine anti-imperialism and pro-democracy movements and those promoted by Washington, NATO and the mass media.

December 31, 2011 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Whatever happened to Tom MacMaster, the “Gay Girl in Damascus” hoaxer?

By Benjamin Doherty – The Electronic Intifada – 12/29/2011

Tom MacMaster on a tour of Damascus, Syria in 2008.

Last June The Electronic Intifada exposed the identity of the person behind the “Gay Girl in Damascus” hoax. The perpetrator was Tom MacMaster a 40-year old American graduate student at the University of Edinburgh.

After a surge of media attention, MacMaster disappeared from the public eye. The University of Edinburgh promised to investigate. But what happened and was MacMaster ever held accountable for a hoax that many believe caused genuine harm?

Documents released by the University of Edinburgh under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, reveal that not only was MacMaster allowed to stay on as a student, but that the university sought as much as possible to gag him while never publishing any results of its investigation. The documents are highly redacted because the University is “subject data protection legislation which restricts the information [they] are allowed to disclose about [their] students” (page 1 of documents).

A hoax that could have put lives at risk

MacMaster’s blog, “Gay Girl in Damascus,” featured a character named Amina Arraf who was a US citizen, lesbian, literate and leftist. Tom had written Amina Arraf before, but this time his work would achieve international notoriety and similarly earn him international scorn.

The “Gay Girl in Damascus” was written to appeal directly to liberal, English-speaking readers. Moreover, Syria has been in a state of near media blackout especially since the breakout of revolts there in March.

In June before going on vacation to Turkey with his wife Britta Froelicher, MacMaster introduced a plot twist: Amina Arraf was mysteriously seized from the streets of Damascus. This led to genuine and global concern that a real person had been seized and faced imminent harm at a time when activists and bloggers were facing repression by Syrian authorities.

The subsequent disclosure that Amina was a fictional character led to concern that the plight of real activists would be discounted or ignored and thus real lives would be endangered by MacMaster’s deception.

Moreover, MacMaster had not only created the Amina character, but other fake identities, particularly Amina’s “cousin” Rania O. Ismail. It was “Rania” who announced Amina’s abduction.

The characters Rania Ismail and Amina Arraf had Facebook and other social media profiles that were linked to and engaged in conversations with Palestinian and other activists in the solidarity movement. When the Amina character was kidnapped before Tom went on vacation and doubts surfaced about the veracity of the story, members of this community became very suspicious and uncomfortable with this intricate attempt to infiltrate their networks.

MacMaster exploited vulnerable audiences and real communities to perpetrate his hoax.

The University of Edinburgh investigates

After the hoax was exposed by The Electronic Intifada, worldwide media attention focused on Tom MacMaster and also the University of Edinburgh where he was enrolled in a masters program in Medieval Studies. Many people wondered how the University would respond to MacMaster’s behavior, which many felt violated ethics and perhaps even the US law.

San Francisco activist and blogger Michael Petrelis obtained highly redacted documents related to the university’s two investigations of Tom MacMaster. From these documents, it is clear that Tom MacMaster was allowed to remain a student at The University on condition that he not continue to create deceptive, fictitious personas on the internet and that he not discuss his activities with the media or in public.

MacMaster may have continued to use sockpuppets after the hoax was exposed. On 24 June, someone posted defensive comments on Mondoweiss from the same IP address associated with “Amina Arraf.” MacMaster denied making the comments himself but concedes that he enlisted friends to defend his reputation online.

The first evidence of discipline is the University’s official statement on 13 June 2011, the day after the hoax was exposed.

The University will investigate whether the student has breached University computing regulations. The Principal has directed Vice Principal Knowledge Management and Chief Information Officer [CIO] Jeff Haywood to suspend the student’s computing privileges pending the outcome of the investigation.

Finally a letter written by Vice Principal for Equality and Diversity, Professor Lorraine Waterhouse and CIO Jeff Haywood (28 June 2011 on page 29) demands of MacMaster

You must give, in writing, an unequivocal assurance that you will not engage in any further actions of this kind whilst a student of this university.

MacMaster responded on 1 July 2011 in a letter (page 30) that says in part:

I will not engage in any further actions of this kind whilst a student of the university.

Another message to a third party (page 32) on 4 July 2011 suggests that the University has gagged Macmaster from talking about the hoax. CIO Jeff Haywood writes:

I have a written committment from Mr. MacMaster to refrain from any engagement in public with this subject.

Enormous press interest

The material also includes a list of press coverage from the University of Edinburgh’s Press Office (page 7) from 17 June 2011. The Tom MacMaster affair dominates the list with 40 international mentions. Several messages in the released material show inquiries from journalists asking basic questions about Tom MacMaster’s status at the University, the University’s plans to investigate or discipline him as a student. However, the University avoided making any comments, and administrators even tried to avoid confirming that MacMaster was even a student (page 22).

The University was uncomfortable with MacMaster’s activities

The University was clearly uncomfortable with the attention Tom MacMaster brought to them. In one message on 1 July 2011 (page 31), an unknown person writes to CIO Jeff Haywood. Most of the message is redacted, but another message dated 30 June 2011 is quoted where Mr. Haywood writes:

I hope you understand my reasons for not writing more fully. This is a sensitive issue for the University of Edinburgh.

And later on 4 July 2011 (page 32), Mr. Haywood replies to the same person and reiterates:

Let us hope that this unfortunate episode is close to an end.

The redacted material contains very little details about how the University conducted its investigation. Much of the emails contained in the released information are efforts to schedule phone calls to discuss the affair. These phone calls of course don’t leave a paper trail that can be requested with a freedom of information request.

A concerned third party

The unknown person who communicated by email (page 31-32) with Jeff Haywood appears to have provided information about Tom MacMaster to the University, and Mr. Haywood acknowledges

We are aware of some of what you have written below and will take that, plus the new information from you, alongside our own evidence, into account when reaching a decision as to how to proceed in Mr. Macmaster’s case.

Whatever the concerns were that were raised, the don’t appear to have had much impact on MacMaster. In the end, it seems that the University of Edinburgh’s main concern was to protect its reputation.

The 55 page document released by the University of Edinburgh can be accessed at the bottom of the page at the source link

The Electronic Intifada thanks Michael Petrelis for sharing this material he obtained.

December 29, 2011 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Spoiling for a Fight with Syria and Iran

By Stephen Lendman | December 28th, 2011

Syria remains the region’s only independent secular state. Washington aims to replace its regime with a client one.

Libya’s model was replicated. Months of externally generated violence followed. So far it’s short of war. For how long is uncertain. Obama can’t wait to wage another one to keep ravaging the world one country at a time.

Months of violence, sanctions and isolation have taken a toll. Deaths mount. No one knows how many. Western media reported numbers come from opposition forces, not independent observers. Nothing they say is reliable.

Assad’s government says 2,000 security forces have been killed. “Terrorist gangs” are blamed. Whatever the actual number, they’ve been many. Heavily armed insurgents are responsible. Conflict resolution isn’t imminent.

Syria’s economy deteriorates steadily. In 2011, its GDP collapsed 30% – from around $55 billion to $37 billion. Its currency also plunged from 47 to 62 to the dollar. Basic goods and services are in short supply. Heating and cooking oil are scarce. Electricity is on and off.

Assad’s regime is weakening. National institutions are eroding. Opposition forces are locally organized. Neighborhood committees and armed groups were formed. At issue is usurping state power despite divisions of strategy, especially over peaceful or violent conflict resolution and pro or con advocacy for outside intervention.

After months of turmoil, heightened fear prevails. On December 23, Syrian state television reported two suicide car bombings, the first ones in Damascus since conflict began. Kfar Sousa district was targeted. It’s where state security and intelligence facilities are located. Heavy gunfire followed. Syria reported 40 or more killed and 100 wounded.

The attacks came a day after 60 Arab League observers arrived. They’re an advance monitoring team with hundreds more to come. Whether they’ll help or hurt is uncertain. More on that below.

Their mission will last a month unless renewed. It wants all security forces withdrawn from urban areas and detainees released. Nothing is said about heavily armed insurgent terrorists doing much of the killing. Conflict resolution depends on stopping all of it equitably.

Of concern is that monitors are a step short of occupation. It’s reminiscent of events preceding NATO’s 1999 Serbia/Kosovo war. In March 1999, Slobodon Milosovic got an unacceptable ultimatum, the so-called Rambouillet Agreement. It was a take-it-or-leave it deal no responsible leader would accept.

It involved surrendering Serbia’s sovereignty to NATO occupation with unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), including its airspace and territorial waters. Moreover, NATO demanded use of areas and facilities therein for its mission, irrespective of FRY laws.

It also required Milosevic’s full cooperation. It was an offer designed to reject. War, mass destruction and slaughter followed. Serbia’s sovereign Kosovo territory was lost. It’s now Washington/NATO occupied territory, run by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, an unindicted drug trafficker with known organized crime ties.

Washington, Israel, and key NATO partners have similar designs on Syria. War’s perhaps planned. Pro-Western Arab League despots supported NATO’s Libya war, mass slaughter and destruction. At the same time, they ignore ongoing atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, elsewhere in the region, and internally.

Calls for military intervention are increasing. In late November on CNN’s State of the Union, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice accused Assad of “driving his country to the brink of civil war. (He’s) no friend of the United States.”

“Syria is the handmaiden of the Iranians throughout the region and so the fall of (Assad) would be a great thing not just for the Syrian people….but also for the policies of the United States and those who want a more peaceful Middle East.”

She also called for tough sanctions, isolation and intervention, adding that if Russia and China won’t agree, “then we (and allies) have to do it on our own.” Stopping short of suggesting war, the implication is striking.

A Syrian National Council (SNC) was established. It’s similar to Libya’s puppet Transitional National Council (TNC). Originally formed in 2005, it was revived on August 23, 2011 in Istanbul, Turkey. It represents Western-backed internal opposition elements against the rights and interests of most Syrians.

It called for a Libyan-style no-fly zone and foreign intervention. It supplies intelligence to Washington and other Western nations. If unconventional tactics fail, stepped up violence and war remain options.

Since early 2011, NATO countries used regional bases to provide anti-regime support. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon’s March 14 alliance, Turkey, Jordan and Israel are financing and arming insurgents.

So far, Russia and China blocked a Libyan-style “humanitarian intervention.” Washington, however, wants regime change. Huge challenges remain to stop it.

SNC members want the Security Council to establish “protected zone” cover in violent prone areas. Free Syrian Army (FSA) security force defectors and insurgents also want no-fly zone protection and foreign military involvement. Deferring so far from direct NATO action, Washington backs Turkey and Arab League partners intervening.

America’s Media War on Syria

A New York Times attack piece is typical. On December 22, its editorial headlined, “Get Tougher on Assad,” saying:

After months of conflict, Assad’s “still killing his people. And leaders in Russia, China and Arab states still haven’t done enough to pressure him to stop.” Claiming 5,000 unsubstantiated deaths, The Times blames “the brutal government crackdown in nine months of protests.”

Fact check

Unmentioned was Washington’s long planned regime change, replicating the Libya model, replacing an independent regime with a client one, and using heavily armed insurgents to destabilize Syria violently.

Assad’s willingness to dialogue with opposition elements “seems like another ploy to buy time as he tries to beat Syrians into submission.”

Fact check

Throughout the conflict, Assad made conciliatory offers. Opposition forces dismissed them out of hand, much like Libya’s TNC rejected Gaddafi’s overtures earlier.

On state television several times since last spring, Assad promised reforms. In June, he announced a 100-member panel to draft parliamentary election law changes, press freedoms, and a new constitution. He also said he’d prosecute those responsible for violence.

“There is little reason to believe Mr. Assad will allow (Arab League) observer(s) unrestricted access to all conflict areas (and be free to) make all of its findings public.”

“Meanwhile, Russia is still tying the… Security Council in knots and preventing it from doing what it should have done months ago (through) tough economic and trade sanctions,” condemnation, and more. Assad “left no doubt that he is willing to destroy his country to maintain his hold on power, which would be a disaster for the region.”

The Times stopped short of endorsing war. Expect it if NATO intervenes directly or indirectly. When Washington’s involved militarily, America’s media march supportively in lockstep without debate on who benefits and loses, rule of law issues, and other right and wrong considerations.

Throughout the AfPak, Iraq and Libyan conflicts, disputing their legitimacy was verboten.

Instead, Times and other major media opinion pieces suppress truths and manipulate public opinion to support Washington/NATO attacking nonbelligerent countries lawlessly. Perhaps Syria and Iran are next.

Target Iran

Matthew Kroenig titled his Foreign Affairs January/February 2012 article, “Time to Attack Iran.” Doing so let his advocacy pose as analysis.

Harvard International Affairs Professor Stephen Walt called his article “a textbook example of war-wongering disguised as analysis. It is a remarkably poor piece of advocacy… This is not fair-minded ‘analysis;’ it is simply a brief for war designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.”

In his article, Kroenig said waging war is “the least bad option. (For years), American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities.”

“Proponents (say) the only thing worse than military action (is) Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics” warn doing so won’t work and “would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis.

Fact check

Iran’s not aggressive or imperial. It poses no regional threat. It hasn’t attacked another nation in over 200 years. It maintains a strong military for self-defense. It’s vital given repeated Washington and Israeli threats.

No evidence whatever suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program. US intelligence assessments through March 2011 found none.

During his December 1, 1997 – November 30, 2009 tenure as IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei concurred. Current head, Yukiya Amano, politicized IAEA policy for Western interests, mainly America’s.

Washington manipulated his appointment. He was enlisted to lie. He hasn’t disappoint. Ahead of his report suggesting an Iranian nuclear weapons program, he visited Washington for instructions.

“….(S)keptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran poses to US interests in the Middle East and beyond… The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.”

Kroenig’s a former Secretary of Defense Office strategist. He’s also a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow. CFR is an influential US organization. From its 1921 beginnings, it’s advocated one-world government run by dominant financial interests.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it a “front organization (for) the heart of the American establishment.” It meets privately and publishes only what it wishes the public to know. Since 1922, Foreign Affairs has been its flagship publication.

Its members represent imperial Washington’s interests, including its longstanding objective for unchallenged global dominance. Achieving it depends on replacing independent regimes with client ones and eliminating all military and economic rivals.

War’s a frequently used option. Waging it against Iran could embroil the entire region and threaten general war, possibly with nuclear weapons.

In his rage to attack nonbelligerent Iran lawlessly, Kroenig omitted the possibility and said nothing about Israel being nuclear armed and dangerous.

He represents imperial America’s quest for world dominance, even if destroying it happens in the process.

-###-

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

December 28, 2011 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Wall Street Journal “Determines” Russian Election a “Fraud”

Admits “statistical studies can’t prove vote fraud” but US-funded Golos “data” corroborates  conclusion

By Tony Cartalucci | Activist Post | December 28, 2011

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), going to extraordinary lengths to prove a foreign election “fraudulent,” claims to have written a “computer program that downloaded 2,957 web pages posted on Russia’s Central Election Commission website.” They then claim they used another program to mine pages “for precinct-level data extracting outcomes for 95,228 precincts spread across 2,745 electoral commissions.” The Wall Street Journal then had “experts” in “election fraud and statistics” look at the data finding what they called, “the fingerprints of fraud.”

In Wall Street Journal’s article, “Russia’s Dubious Vote,” the authors admit that “the analysis doesn’t in itself prove fraud in Russia’s Dec. 4 parliamentary elections.” But the WSJ then cites “local and international observers,” that corroborate their findings of “fraud” with claims of ballot-box stuffing, vote falsification, and other violations. The only organization WSJ is able to cite by name, however, is US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded GOLOS.

In, “US Caught Meddling in Russian Elections,” GOLOS was noted as being the key “observer” cited across Western media in an attempt to portray the Russian elections as “stolen,” a similar ploy that has been used throughout color revolutions since the ’80s and in particular during the last year of US-backed destabilization also known as the “Arab Spring.” However, GOLOS owes its existence to the US government and in turn the banking oligarchs of Wall Street and London who have been trying in vain to dislodge Russia’s Vladimir Putin from power for years.

Indeed, something is “dubious” about Russia’s elections, namely the concerted, overeager campaign by the West to portray them as fraudulent, to lend ammunition to their stable of US-funded NGOs and opposition leaders now taking to the streets in Moscow, and the Wall Street Journal’s insistence that “local and international observers” back their recent “analysis” but failed to name any beyond a US-funded propaganda front, GOLOS.

That the WSJ disingenuously insisted that GOLOS was “Russia’s main independent election-monitoring group” despite receiving its funding from the US government — hardly independent by any stretch of the imagination — calls into question the alleged computer program they wrote to draw the conclusions they have presented.

A computer program can be written to render any result desired, as the recent “Climate Gate” hoax has proven. It is then only the integrity of those carrying out the analysis and presenting the results that determine the possible veracity of their conclusions. Since the Wall Street Journal makes such overt misrepresentations, such as GOLOS being “independent” when they are clearly, admittedly funded by the US government, indicates that the WSJ lacks such integrity. Instead, they are but the most recent corporate-media propaganda front to jump on the Wall Street-London battlewagon on its way to Moscow.

Wall Street Journal’s Conclusions are Fraudulent as are the Protest Leaders in Russia’s Streets

Meanwhile, Christmas Eve protests in Moscow were once again led by verified agents of Western sedition, namely Alexei Navalny, according to an AP report titled, “Alexei Navalny, Key Engine Behind Russian Protests.” Called a “corruption-fighting lawyer and popular blogger” by AP, who unlike Wall Street Journal, skipped feigned analysis and jumped right to labeling the elections as “shameless falsification,” Navalny is portrayed as a force of reform against a corrupt system.

And while Alexey Navalny is renowned for “exposing corruption,” at least when profitable, those researching his background begin unraveling his own insidious, compromised agenda. Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow, and in his profile it states:

Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector.

The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is indeed a National Endowment for Democracy fund recipient, meaning that Alexey Navalny is an agent of US-funded sedition and willfully hiding it from his followers. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list “youth movements” operating in Russia:

DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection.”

Alexey was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government, and to this day has the very people who funded DA! defending him throughout Western media. (For more information, please see, “Wall Street Vs. Russia.”)

It becomes clear then, that the AP report has misidentified the real “engine” behind the Russian protests. It is not Navalny, but rather Wall Street and London via organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy. It is safe to say that yet again we are watching unfold a “revolution” created from whole cloth not by the aspirations of the Russian people, but by the disingenuous “democracy promoting” forces of Wall Street and London bent on destabilizing Russia, undermining the Kremlin, and either extracting concessions from Russia, especially regarding Syria, or even going as far as replacing entirely the Russian government for one more servile like that of Yelsin’s and the corrupt oligarchs that succeeded him.

December 28, 2011 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

The Los Angeles Times Selling Old Canned News

Moon of Alabama | December 27, 2011

The Los Angeles Times is selling an old story as news.

Syria refugees find sanctuary in Libya
By Ruth Sherlock, Los Angeles Times
December 26, 2011

Reporting from Benghazi, Libya— Even as it recovers from its recent civil war, Libya is fast becoming a place of sanctuary for thousands of refugees fleeing the bloodshed in Syria.Buses from Damascus, crammed with Syrian families, are arriving daily in the eastern city of Benghazi, the cradle of the effort to oust the late Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi.

“Up to 4,000 Syrian families have sought refuge in Libya in the last weeks, and the numbers are increasing every day,” said Mohammed Jammal, a Syrian community leader in the city. “The buses arrive full and go back empty. There used to be two a week, but now there are two a day.”
…

That story is somewhat familiar to me. Where did I read it before?

[search, search]

The Daily Telegraph:
By Ruth Sherlock in Benghazi
9:00PM GMT 09 Dec 2011

Buses from Damascus, crammed with Syrian families, are arriving daily into the east Libyan city of Benghazi.”Up to 4,000 Syrian families have sought refuge in Libya in the last weeks, and the numbers are increasing every day” said Dr Mohammed Jammal, a Syrian community leader in the city. “The buses arrive full and go back empty. There used to be two a week, but now there are two a day.”
…

Except for a bit of editing the story in the LA Times and the Telegraph are identical but were published seventeen days apart. The writer, Ruth Sherlock, is: “a freelance journalist and an intern for Haaretz.com” or whatever.

The LA Times seems to believe that such news deserves publishing even weeks beyond it sales date. The editors probably kept it canned so they could publish something over the holidays without having to leave their homes.

The story itself is, by the way, fishy. It is clearly written to hype the success in Libya and to plant grueling tales about Syria.

But the reality is something else. Further down into it we find that the whole issue is likely less about Syrians fleeing to Libya but about Syrian expats, who worked in Libya and fled from there when the civil war broke out, returning to their workplaces. The December 26 LA Times version:

Before the Libyan civil war, thousands of Syrians worked in the country. The Libyan Red Crescent Society estimates they numbered about 12,000 when the war began.”Many left, but now they are returning and bringing their families with them,” said Ziad Dresi, a refugee coordinator for the Libyan Red Crescent Society.

The December 9 Telegraph version:

Prior to the Libyan civil war thousands of Syrians had worked in the country. The Libyan Red Crescent estimates that 12,000 Syrians were in the country at the start of the Libyan uprising. “Many left but now they are returning, and bringing their families with them, ” said Ziad al Dresi, a refugee coordinator for the Libyan Red Crescent.

Back to the LA Times. It is supposed to be a daily newspaper. How long does it expect their customers to continue paying when they find out that it is selling stale propaganda pieces as news?

December 27, 2011 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Hezbollah: US Claims of Money Laundering Aim to Tarnish Resistance’s Image

Hezbollah Media Relations | December 22, 2011

Hezbollah said Thursday that the US accusations to the party of financing its activities illegally are merely new attempts to target the resistance in Lebanon morally, tarnish its image and cover up its national achievements.

“Hezbollah categorically denies the false accusations about his involvement, directly or indirectly, in money laundering or drug trafficking or any bank transactions as stated in The New York Times,” it said in a statement.

These accusations come after the US security failure in our country as its CIA spy mission was uncovered, the statement indicated. “It aims at blinding on the intelligence criminal networks recruited by the United States to work against Lebanon, for Israel’s sake, and to conceal the defeats of the US policy in the region,” it added.

U.S. federal authorities last week alleged that Lebanese financial institutions wired more than $300 million to the United States in a laundering scheme they said used the U.S. financial system to benefit Hezbollah. A Dec. 14 report by The New York Times said the Lebanese-Canadian Bank was the hub of international money-laundering operations used to fund the group.

Prosecutors said the $300 million was wired from Lebanon to the United States and used to buy used cars and ship them to West Africa. They said Hezbollah money-laundering channels were used to ship proceeds from the car sales and narcotics trafficking back to Lebanon.

December 22, 2011 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Tom Friedman Not Sucking It on Iraq War

By Peter Hart | FAIR | December 21, 2011

Today New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (12/21/11) gives readers a sense of what the Iraq War was all about:

Iraq was always a war of choice. As I never bought the argument that Saddam had nukes that had to be taken out, the decision to go to war stemmed, for me, from a different choice: Could we collaborate with the people of Iraq to change the political trajectory of this pivotal state in the heart of the Arab world and help tilt it and the region onto a democratizing track?

Huh. A collaborative effort with the people of Iraq? Friedman goes on:

But was it a wise choice?

My answer is twofold: “No” and “Maybe, sort of, we’ll see.”

Hmm.

Others remember a different Tom Friedman, interviewed by Charlie Rose on May 30, 2003.

“Now that the war is over,” Rose began his question–a conclusion widely jumped to in the early days of the war. When asked if invading Iraq was worth it, Friedman responded that it was “unquestionably worth doing.”

The war, back then, was an attack on the “terrorist bubble,” which in Friedman’s mind meant that “we needed to go over there and take out a very big stick… and there was only one way to do it.”

He went on:

What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying: “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand? You don’t think, you know we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna to let it grow? Well, suck. On. This.” That, Charlie, is what this war is about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia; it was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

The house-to-house, “suck on this” democracy campaign. That’s how it’s normally done.

I guess one great thing about being a Times columnist is that you not only  get to write about the present–you can also re-write your own past.

Related articles

• Tom Friedman pushed Iraq war as ‘radical liberal revolution’ (alethonews.wordpress.com)
• McJournalism: The Unbearable Lightness of Thomas Friedman (alethonews.wordpress.com)

Thomas Friedman sums up the Iraq war… (5/29/2003)

December 21, 2011 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

McJournalism: The Unbearable Lightness of Thomas Friedman

By Cyril Mychalejko | Dissident Voice | December 16th, 2011

One year ago, Foreign Policy magazine placed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman at number 33 on their list the Top 100 Global Thinkers, noting that he “doesn’t just report on events; he helps shape them.”

Friedman, who commands a $75,000 speaking fee (more than most Americans make in a year), wrote in his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree that when he did his first column as the New York Times’ chief diplomatic correspondent in 1989:

I certainly did not know anything about most of the issues the senators were quizzing [Secretary of State James] Baker about, such as the START treaty, the Contras, Angola, the CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe) arms control negotiations and NATO…I couldn’t keep straight whether the Contras were our guys or their guys, and I thought the CFE was a typo and was actually ‘cafe’ without the ‘a’.

One could only hope that over the 20 years that followed, the foreign affairs columnist who once referred to himself as the newspaper’s paid “tourist with an attitude” and boasted of eating 14 Big Macs in 14 countries as one of the perks of his job, has acquired more intellectual depth.

It turns out, in Friedman’s case, that hoping for intellectual growth amounts to wishful thinking.

Fast forward a decade-and-a-half to July 2006. In an interview with the late Tim Russert on CNBC (watch video clip), Friedman not only revealed this not to be the case, but boasted, yet again, of not even knowing what he writes about or supports politically:

We got this free market, and I admit, I was speaking out in Minnesota—my hometown, in fact—and guy stood up in the audience, said, ‘Mr. Friedman, is there any free trade agreement you’d oppose?’ I said, ‘No, absolutely not.’ I said, ‘You know what, sir? I wrote a column supporting the CAFTA, the Caribbean Free Trade Initiative [sic]. I didn’t even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade.

While honesty is an admirable quality in any journalist, Friedman’s bravado combined with his intellectual incompetence and hostility towards the use of facts unveils an enormous amount of hubris. Friedman, despite admitting “he did not know anything about” most political issues of national and global importance, and not being able to recall the name of or knowing the contents of the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), still believes he belongs in such a prominent perch covering these issues at “the paper of record.” To make matters worse, it has been reported that President Barack Obama has sought out Friedman for foreign policy advice concerning the Arab Spring.

The fact that this three-time Pulitzer Prize winner’s writing qualifies as serious, award-winning journalism and punditry is why Belén Fernandez latest book, The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work is such an important read.

Fernandez writes that the point of her book “is to demonstrate the defectiveness in form and in substance of [Friedman’s] disjointed discourse, and in doing so offer a testament to the degenerate state of the mainstream media in the United States.”

Fernandez analyzes and critiques Friedman’s journalism and punditry using his columns from 1995 to the present, and his five books, with some additional material gleaned from select interviews and public appearances.

The Imperial Messenger is divided into three sections: America, the Arab/Muslim World, and The Special Relationship [U.S.-Israel]. The book’s conclusion compares the work of Friedman to Dr. Adrienne Pine, an anthropologist at American University in Washington D.C., who blogs at www.quotha.net and whose writing and opinion has appeared in a number of alternative media outlets.

Friedman, who Fernandez concludes relies on “clichéd feel good nationalism” and the “reduction of complex international phenomena to simplistic rhetoric and theorems that rarely withstand the test of reality” serves as the perfect vehicle for making such an indictment of the American mainstream media.

McJournalism

In The Imperial Messenger, Fernandez deftly reviews some of Friedman’s signature theories and policy prescriptions from past years, and evaluates how they’ve stood the test of time.

Take for instance his “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention” highlighted in The Lexus and the Olive Tree — a theory which Friedman stumbled upon as he “Quater-Poundered [his] way around the world”: no two countries that both had McDonald’s had fought a war against each other. Sure, it’s got a certain ring to it, but never mind the facts: as Fernandez points out, Israel’s occupation and bombing of Lebanon, or NATO’s war against the former Yugoslavia. All of these states, together with the host of NATO members, are graced with the Golden Arches.

Freidman’s “Flat World Theory,” which he floated in his 2005 bestseller The World is Flat, was developed in collaboration with the vice president of corporate strategy at IBM. Friedman, who compares himself to Christopher Columbus for making this “discovery,” argues simplistically that globalization has leveled the playing field among people, countries and companies around the globe. The World is Flat was awarded the first annual £30,000 Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award.

“The process of mutual aggrandizement in this case is straightforward,” writes Fenandez. “Friedman writes a book about globalization under the guidance of corporate executives, corporate executives hail book as blueprint for world, accolades propel Friedman’s fame to further reinforce elite power structures,” she writes. Friedman attributes his motivations to his professed desire to see “large numbers of people escape poverty”, evidence be damned.

Fernandez also notes that the same year when Friedman was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for “clarity of vision…in commenting on the worldwide impact of the terrorist threat,” he wrote a column called “ Crazier than thou,” in which he noted “No, the axis of evil idea isn’t thought through—but that’s what I like about it.”

“Crazier than thou” was a response to criticism from Chris Patten, the European Union’s Commissioner for External Relations at the time, of the Bush Administration’s “absolutist and simplistic” and “not thought through” lumping of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an allied existential threat to world peace. Friedman goes on to suggest that Bush introduce these countries to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who’s “even crazier than you.” His assessment of Rumsfeld’s mental faculties is one of the few reasonable things he’s written. Friedman goes so far as to dismiss European and Arab concerns of civilian casualties in Afghanistan as “nonsense,” because according to him, Afghans would rather be blown up by our B-52′s than continue to live under Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

In 2009, Friedman compared Afghanistan to a “special needs baby” that the U.S., an unemployed couple, has decided to adopt. This “is merely one manifestation of a tradition of unabashed Orientalism that discredits Arabs and Muslims as agents capable of managing their own destinies and sets up a power scheme in which the United States and its military simultaneously occupy the positions of killer/torturer, liberator, educator, and parent/babysitter,” writes Fernandez.

Even when it seems it can’t get worse, it does. Friedman suggested that the Bush Administration should make Iraqis “ Suck. On. This” as compensation for 9/11 (which Iraq had nothing to do with). “We can only assume that haughty refrains of sexual-military domination find resonance among audiences seeking to defy feelings of individual and/or national inadequacy,” writes Fernandez. “It is meanwhile not clear why Friedman subsequently purports to be scandalized by the sexual military goings-on at Abu Ghraib.”

Friedman also once suggested that if the Serbs don’t acquiesce to NATO demands the population should be pulverized with a “ less than surgical” bombing campaign, and if necessary, militarily-“pulverize” the country back into the 1300s. It can be assumed that Friedman either never bothered to read the Geneva Conventions, or shares the Bush Administration’s view that they are irrelevant.

Friedman often has a penchant for contradicting himself. One strong example of his contradictory positions can be gleaned from two columns on Indonesia, written just a year apart.

In a May 1998 column, Friedman describes Suharto’s regime in Indonesia as “possibly the most corrupt regime in the world today,” an analysis that bordered on accurate, though is still a little euphemistic, especially in light of the US-backed dictator’s genocide against the Timorese. But a year later, in another column, Friedman chastised the US Congress for blocking the sale of fighter jets and US-training to Indonesia’s military because the country is “too complex to be a pariah.”

Other examples of Friedman’s pearls of journalistic and political skills pointed out by Fernandez include suggesting that Washington recruit the Russian mafia in the fight against Osama bin Laden, flooding Iraq with counterfeit money, or reducing his benign criticisms of Israel, a country he noted “had me at hello,” solely to its continued illegal settlement building.

“Friedman’s accumulation of influence is a direct result of his service as mouthpiece for empire and capital, i.e., as resident apologist for military excess and punishing economic policies,” writes Fernandez. This comes through in the following quote from The Lexus and the Olive Tree:

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U. S. Air Force F-15, and the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Fernandez’s The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work is a meticulously researched book, written with wry wit and an unrelenting critical eye, that should be read by both Friedman’s fans and critics alike; not just for what it reveals about his journalism or the New York Times, but for what it says about the state of American journalism as a whole. In short, if New York’s “paper of record” wanted to start rectifying its own journalistic deficiencies, it would do well to start by replacing Friedman with Fernandez.

Cyril Mychalejko is an editor at UpsideDownWorld.org. He can be reached at Cyril@upsidedownworld.org.

December 16, 2011 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment