dandelionsalad on From Rat Gatekeepers To Prime… Arrby on From Rat Gatekeepers To Prime… dandelionsalad on From Rat Gatekeepers To Prime… dandelionsalad on Ex Human Arrby on Ex Human
Click on a word and all posts tagged dealing with that subject will show.Al Jazeera Amy Goodman Barack Obama beans betrayal Bill Clinton Canada capitalism Carol Goar CBC censored CETA Chicago School China Chomsky Chris Hedges Common Dreams corporate-owned media corporatocracy Dalton McGuinty darkness deficit terrorism democracy Democracy Now disaster capitalism Edward Snowden Egyptian Revolution eros fascism free trade gatekeepers Gaza Glenn Greenwald God Google Haiti Honduras imperialism Israel Julian Assange Justin Trudeau law & order government Libyan Revolution Linda McQuaig mafia capitalism Maude Barlow media mining Naomi Klein NDP neoliberal neoliberal capitalism Noam Chomsky NSA Obama Occupy Wall Street Oshawa Palestine propaganda riches for the strongest Rob Ford special interests status quo Stephen Harper tax havens terrorism Toronto Toronto Star torture TPP Ukraine UN WikiLeaks William Greider Zelaya
May 2016 S M T W T F S « Apr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
An excerpt from the sickening above linked-to article by someone in Maclean’s follows:
It’s Lorne Michaels who explains why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shows up on Time’s list of The 100 Most Influential People.
“In many ways Canada is no longer the country I grew up in, but when I hear Justin Trudeau talk, it sounds like my Canada again,” the Saturday Night Live creator tells Time readers. “Bold, clear as a bell and progressive.”…
Writes Michaels: “In politics as in show business, there are three things you need to be successful: talent, discipline and luck. Trudeau clearly has the first two. I wish him luck. I believe he will be a force for good.”
My online response to the above sickening Maclean’s article follows:
====== === =
Some say that Lucifer was a beautiful angel. Beauty, then, isn’t automatically righteousness. Or anything good.
“Meet Andriy Parubiy, the Former Neo-Nazi Leader Turned Speaker of Ukraine’s Parliament” by Jon Hellevig (http://bit.ly/1prleqV)
“Liberal cabinet ministers’ notorious selfies with war criminals” by Tony Seed (http://bit.ly/1YMa7oD)
“Apologize to Victims of Kissinger’s Torture, War and Genocide” by Matthew Behrens (http://chn.ge/1SWbn3X)
“Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, then the love of the Father is not in him.” – 1John 2:15
= === ======
The false prophet of Revelation (in the Christian Bible) is depicted, for obvious reasons, as a wild beast that ascends out of the earth. It has two horns like an inoffensive lamb but it’s mouth speaks as a dragon. And since you can’t be both… The US, rules the world, much of whose leadership, like in Canada, is okay with that. The wild beast of corporatocracy, which includes the wild beast of Revelation (of which there are 3 having the same basic form), which includes the false prophet, likes to pretend to be progressive while in reality it’s only Naziism writ large.
“Netanyahu’s Vision: A World Without the ICC” by Dr Binoy Kampmark
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Dr Kampmark follows:
The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman led the charge. Liberman released a statement to the press on Friday finding it repugnant that Israel should be the subject of any “probe”.
“The same court which after more than 200,000 deaths didn’t see fit to intervene in what was taking place in Syria or in Libya or in other places now finds it worthwhile to ‘examine’ the most moral army in the world” (Jerusalem Post, Jan 16).
The importance of Israel’s statement lies precisely in its own assessment about the role of international institutions, which it deems inadequate before superior domestic experiments. Otherwise, any international entity is only useful as long as the rules are appropriately adjusted.
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Barak Ravid follows:
Defense Minister Ehud Barak joined Olmert in pledging support for the soldiers. Calling the IDF “the most moral army in the world,” Barak said troops would receive governmental backing against accusations from abroad and “self-flagellation” from within Israel.
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Marcy Wheeler follows:
However, there are good reasons to doubt that this was just an email server hack. While Mossack Fonseca’s emails appear not to have been encrypted, there is far more to the leak than emails. It includes scanned passports and some database excerpts, suggesting that, however the files were obtained, it went beyond what got sent via email. Moreover, multiple outlets have identified outdated code and other configuration problems in Mossack Fonseca’s public website. So it seems probable that the firm’s trove of customer data has been exposed far more than MF wants to admit.
Which then raises the question: Do security vulnerabilities on Mossack Fonseca’s systems explain why it, and not another of the even bigger law firms serving tax haven customers, got exposed in this hack? Or is there another explanation? Did the hacker — if that is where these documents came from — single out Mossack Fonseca because it had already been exposed as a firm serving dubious clients, or did the source just target an easy mark, given MF’s security problems?
My online response to the above linked-to article follows:
Indeed. I’ve been wondering about the provenance of the leak too. And reading around. I formed a theory about the leak, or reveal. I believe it’s a black op. The most suggestive facts in that regard are the clownish attempt to smear Putin and the employment of, as Craig Murray explains, actors who are amenable to US imperial foreign policy and are directed (George Soros, USAID) to act accordingly, as the ICIJ is. But if this has been a black op, and information that I’ve picked up from other writers presents serious circumstantial evidence for that, then the goal is not just the smearing of Putin, but it is also the simple, base desire to show off. That’s because the attempt to smear Putin has actually managed to make him look good, if we’re paying attention. In other words, the powerful people – very busy hands in the Devil’s workshop – who are behind all of this don’t care all that much about making an ‘airtight’ case against Putin. They just want to show off their psyop weaponry and their power. Do they really need to? But I am glad to see that it’s not just rivers of hot blood that they want to shove God’s face into.
As Marcy notes, and others have pointed out (David Dayen at Salon and Pepe Escobar at OpEd.com), there are other companies helping tax evaders do their nasty business. Pepe clues us into the fact that Panama is actually not a place where shysters in the know would seek to hide their money and information. My theory that this reveal is a black op is one that Pepe holds strongly. He refers, correctly, to hybrid war and uses the term psyop, which is appropriate. Natylie Baldwin and Kermit Heartsong, in their recent book, “Ukraine – Zbig’s Grand Chessboard & How The West Was Checkmated” reminds us of the kind of (dishonorable) warfare that fine people like Gene Sharp and Colonel Reuven are teaching marauding imperialists, aided by orgs like the RAND Corporation, the Albert Einstein Institute, USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, Freedom House and the International Centre for Non-Violent Conflict. Their descrition of the tactics used by the 1%’s imperial forces and agents is chilling. There’s the hardcore propaganda targetted at regular people who then become a swarm, with key ones directed in real time by handlers and social media stitching the mob together. (pgs 154-158)
‘If’ this was a black, or psy, op, then What company would be targetted, once the play of hacking a secrecy business or enlisting an employee in one who would reveal was decided on? Wouldn’t that be one that’s known to be poorly run?
“Absolutely nothing of real substance happens in Panama without a green light by the United States government. Or, as an international tax lawyer told me, “you have to be an idiot to stash money in Panama. You cannot flush a toilet there without the Americans knowing about it.”” – Pepe Escobar (http://bit.ly/1N23Xjm)
I’ve learned that those who steal the means of survival – mainly money; money means ‘life’ in a money system – from others, like them to know it. No, They don’t want to go to jail for it and if they think that they might, then they’ll live with complete anonymity. But the powerful, as we’ve seen, can often flaunt their crimes with impunity. Remember David Petraeus? Remember Barack Obama and his murderous drone/terror operation? This dark world’s paradigm, or operating principle, is ‘riches for the strongest’. Even victims, sadly, play it, not realizing that that game, in which there has to be losers, is the problem. So the powerful, who have no principled attachment to the rule of law, steal the means of survival from others and those others can’t help but notice. That attention equals glory. Glory that is unseen isn’t glory. And that glory is something, along with security and freedom, that powerful, perverted law-breakers crave. Unfortunately. We are all living with the consequences.
Or Craig Murray could be right. He thinks that rather than this being a psyop, it’s an honest to goodness leak, but the leaker “has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results.”
“Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him, because everything in the world – the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life – does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is it’s desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.” -1John 2:15-17
The desire of the flesh and the eyes can only mean a desire that does not come from a spirit influenced by God, for humans are human. We desire to feel good, physically (flesh) and mentally (eyes) and there is nothing in that itself that is wrong. It ‘can’ be wrong.
Here’s a smattering of some articles from the alternative media dealing with the Panama Papers:
“The Panama Papers Problem” by Margaret Kimberley
“Eggs Fly in Iceland as Panama Papers Spark Populist Anger in the Streets” by Lauren McCauley
“Dance to the Panama Papers “Limited Hangout” Leak” by Pepe Escobar
“‘Corruption’ as a Propaganda Weapon” by Robert Parry
This is my second post since my mild stroke of March 6, 2016. I’m just happy that I can still do this. You won’t see it, but my performance took a hit. I type and write slower. And I have to work a little harder to speak. My fear is that there is a mental degradation corresponding to my physical degradation, perhaps one that’s subtle enough that I can’t really discern it. Even so. I’m lucky. Some people have bigger strokes the first time and can’t function normally at all as a result. I’ll endeavor to make the best use of the power I still I have. For me that means learning and blogging. Thanks for reading!
*edit, March 29, 2016 – I added, at the bottom of the post, a quote from John Dinges, whose interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman I just now watched. I will also add in a couple links to books about Condor, including one by John Dinges.
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Deirdre Fulton follows:
As Argentina marks the 40th anniversary of the military coup that “disappeared” and imprisoned tens of thousands of people, President Barack Obama has promised to declassify and release secret files concerning the U.S. role in the country’s so-called “Dirty War.”…
But for some, the “gesture” is not enough to make up for the timing of Obama’s visit, and what it represents.
“His presence here [in Buenos Aires] on March 24th is a provocation,” one Argentinian woman told the Washington Post. “I can’t believe Plaza de Mayo, which is the symbol of our fight, has American flags all over, next to Argentine flags. It’s a provocation.”
“Military coups around Latin America were backed by the United States,” she added. “It’s shameful that now this man is here [in the capital] on such an important and symbolic date…
Of the soon-to-be-declassified military, intelligence, and law enforcement records, Nora Cortiñas of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo scoffed: “I don’t believe there will be anything in those documents—they always black out the names and the important parts.”
The evil government leaders and top officials involved in the incredible international terrorist operation called Condor:
My typo-corrected online response to the above linked-to article follows. I turned article titles into links for your convenience:
============ ==== =
Human Rights First CEO [Elisa Massimino] offers some very fine words about the US-backed terror in Argentina in the ’60s and 70′, which wasn’t that long ago. It would be very fine [if] she had added that the release of the documents is a good thing “if” they aren’t redacted to the point of uselessness.
Condor has always horrified me and fascinated me. Here’s an example of sheep in wolves clothing, of the violent, dark, terrifying character of the wild beast of Revelation chapter 13. There are 3 wild beasts having the same basic form presented in the Christian Bible. In chapter 13, the second wild beast (7 heads, 10 horns and crowns upon it’s horns) gets it’s authority from the first, which look[s] similar, although it’s crowns are upon it’s heads, since it’s the source of this dark world’s authority. The third beast with 7 heads and 10 horns possesses no crowns for it is an image of the second beast, representing the nations since the first dominant world power of note in the Bible, namely Egypt. That image is the United Nations.
In chapter 13, the US comes in for special attention. It’s especially violent. In one place, this last (and soon to be destroyed) dominant world power (7th), is depicted separately as a wild beast that ascends out of the ‘earth’. The other dominant world powers came about during a more turbulent time in humankind’s history. Nations were in formation and boundaries were more in flux. That is why the second wild beast came out of the ‘sea’. This ‘false prophet’ (Rev chaps 16, 19, 20) is depicted as a creature having horns (representing power and in this case having power alongside a socio-political system that it presents as democratic, godly and inoffensive) “like a lamb.” But it has a mouth “like a dragon.” It says that it’s godly and democratic and announces that it intends to ensure that others recognize that and that it will act to shape a world that is democratic the way ‘it’ [defines] democracy. You’re free, but not really. You’re only free to worship this beast, to get it’s mark, and to therefore worship the person/beast from whom this second beast gets it’s power.
“Orwell at the UN: Obama Re-defines Democracy as a Country That Supports US Policy” by Michael Hudson (http://bit.ly/1KVVtDL). An excerpt follows:
“In his Orwellian September 28, 2015 speech to the United Nations, President Obama said that if democracy had existed in Syria, there never would have been a revolt against Assad. By that, he meant ISIL. Where there is democracy, he said, there is no violence or revolution.
“This was his threat to promote revolution, coups and violence against any country not deemed a “democracy.” In making this hardly-veiled threat, he redefined the word in the vocabulary of international politics. Democracy is the CIA’s overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran to install the Shah. Democracy is the overthrow of Afghanistan’s secular government by the Taliban against Russia. Democracy is the Ukrainian coup behind Yats and Poroshenko. Democracy is Pinochet. It is “our bastards,” as Lyndon Johnson said, with regard to the Latin American dictators installed by U.S. foreign policy.”
This morning, the New York Times has a very lengthy and detailed article about President Obama’s counter-Terrorism policies based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers.” I’m writing separately about the numerous revelations contained in that article, but want specifically to highlight this one vital passage about how the Obama administration determines who is a “militant.” The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:
Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.
This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.
But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.
“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”
The world, largely owing to the domination (‘leadership’ if someone like Obama is talking about it) of this false American prophet, is violent and scary. That’s because so many have been willing to sell their souls. Soulless ones play the great game of ‘riches for the strongest’. The winners, sadly, in that game are those who are willing to break rules (and include politicians who, perversely, [p]reside over ‘law & order’ governments). First they huddle with us and decide, democratically, on the rules (such as the UN and the US Constitution for example) that will enable civilization to operate. Then they set about strategically breaking those rules, which allows them to vault past others and come into positions of authority over others. As Jesus noted (Luke chapter 22), they (the politicians among the rule-breakers) want to be called Benefactors. That’s true in every state. But it’s taken to the extreme in the US, where state worship is very entrenched and America (the 1% and it’s tools) holds itself up as exceptional and the world’s foremost champion of democracy, while it has overthrown or attempted to overthrow over 50 countries. But Jesus also told his close followers that they were not to be that way.
“Overthrowing other people’s governments – the Master List” by William Blum (http://bit.ly/1CGTzsg)
With the entrenchment of corporatocracy, and the focus of corporatocracy states on militarization and security over democracy, you have, very much, the elements of the terrifying Plan (or Operation) Condor in place over many countries. The law & order works ‘against’ the people, not for them.
From “The Secure And The Dispossessed – How The Military And Corporations Are Shaping A Climate-Changed World” edited by Nick Buxton and Ben Hayes, the following:
“Inevitably, the highly lucrative security-industry complex holds a strong vested interest in the intensification and expansion of border securitisation and in a ‘paradigm shift’ towards militarising borders. Within this context, researchers have only just started to map the rapidly emerging industry which seeks to profit from every aspect of migration management, including surveillance, interdiction, detention and deportation. The Transnational Institute (TNI)’s NeoConOpticon report in 2009 was an early attempt to get a handle on the reframing of border-security architecture now emerging and the significance of ‘inter-operability’ in creating flexible systems of security capability sets. TNI’s follow-up report, Eurodrones Inc., showed how drone manufacturers had captured the EU policy development process. In each report, the ‘primes’ are shown to be setting the security researcy and development agenda, securing generous research subsidies and then pushing for policies that depend on the procurement of their wares.” -pg 128
= ==== ============
John Dinges, in his conversation with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (“Operation Condor Trial Tackles Coordinated Campaign by Latin American Dictatorships to Kill Leftists” – March 7, 2013, Democracy Now!), said the following:
“The current discussion about drones, I think, is very frightening, because I’m having a hard time distinguishing between what they did with Operation Condor, low-tech, and what a drone does, because a drone is basically going into somebody else’s country, even with the permission of that country – of course, that’s what Operation Condor did, in most cases: You track somebody down, and you kill them. Now, the justification is: “Well, they were a criminal. They were a combatant.” Well, that may or may not be true, but nobody is determining that except the person that’s pulling the trigger.
“I just think that this has to be something that we discuss. And maybe trials like this, going back to the ’70s, people say, “Well, that was the dictatorships of the 1970s.” But the tendency of a state to feel that they can move against their enemies in the most effective way possible is still there, and it is certainly not limited to dictatorships.”
“Predatory States: Operation Condor And Covert War In Latin American” by J. Patrice McSherry
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by RT News follows:
The head of Russia’s Investigative Committee, Aleksandr Bastrykin, has called for the creation of an international coalition of states to fight the “dictatorship” imposed by the US on the rest of the world, and to reject the use the US dollar as a reserve currency.
Speaking at a roundtable in Moscow, Bastrykin said that the world urgently needed a new system of checks and balances that would allow equal representation of all nations on the international political arena.
He said an alliance of countries was needed which could act in concert as “a feasible pole to counter the dictatorship imposed by the Americans together with their Western allies,” according to the minutes of the roundtable published on the Investigative Committee’s website.
My online response to the above linked-to article follows:
It’s total common sense for Russian officials to think like this. The US (not alone however) is absolutely not interested in law and order in any meaningful way. You have to be brain dead to not know that. It’s interested in domination, which losers like Obama and Hillary Clinton (and all of the American ruling class) refer to euphemistically as ‘leadership’. Well, The mafia godfather is interested in leadership too, and you’d better understand what that means.
William Greider wrote “One World, Ready Or Not” many years ago. It’s a great read. He interviews quite a few people for the book, including some Boeing officials. He was discussing the GATT rules with one and, once they had established as a talking point that, yes, the rules were violated all the time, the official allowed that the rules were not there because corporations have some principled position on law and order, but because it kept the whole corrupt, rickety mafia capitalist system from falling on everyone’s head. In other words, It wasn’t ‘everyone’ he is concerned about, since if that were to happen, the important people would suffer to. Capitalists (the mutated variety) are macho, suicidal, destructive and pathological, but they can often be clever. I’ll never say wise. That’s different.
I remember Michael Hudson (economist) musing about the possibility of (Nazi) Ukraine not paying it’s bill with Russia for energy now that it’s happily being used by the US to destabilize Ukraine and blame Putin for it (Cold War II). I thought “Yep. That’s how it works. You come to dominate by breaking the rules – financial in this case – that all have agreed to beforehand. The ‘more’ law abiding you are, in the US-dominated world, the more danger you are in. And sure enough, Ukraine said it wouldn’t pay. I don’t know how that ended and whether or not Ukraine backed down from that position.
Do I believe that the world will divide into a US-dominated system and an independent Russian-dominated system, or something like that? It could happen if the world had enough time for it, I suppose. I don’t believe that that’s the case. Nor do I believe that a coalition of independent countries able to protect itself from a hyper violent, hyper lawless US would be a righteous congregation. That’s another thing altogether. This dark world’s paradigm is ‘riches for the strongest’. Being a loser in a game that you shouldn’t play doesn’t automatically make you righteous.
Fix your garbage commenting system RT.
An excerpt from the article, “The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia,” by Michael Hudson follows:
==== == = –
Imagine the following scenario five years from now. China will have spent half a decade building high-speed railroads, ports, power systems and other construction for Asian and African countries, enabling them to grow and export more. These exports will be coming online to repay the infrastructure loans. Also, suppose that Russia has been supplying the oil and gas energy for these projects on credit.
To avert this prospect, suppose an American diplomat makes the following proposal to the leaders of countries in debt to China, Russia and the AIIB: “Now that you’ve got your increased production in place, why repay? We’ll make you rich if you stiff our adversaries and turn back to the West. We and our European allies will support your assigning your nations’ public infrastructure to yourselves and your supporters at insider prices, and then give these assets market value by selling shares in New York and London. Then, you can keep the money and spend it in the West.”
How can China or Russia collect in such a situation? They can sue. But what court in the West will accept their jurisdiction?
That is the kind of scenario U.S. State Department and Treasury officials have been discussing for more than a year. Implementing it became more pressing in light of Ukraine’s $3 billion debt to Russia falling due by December 20, 2015. Ukraine’s U.S.-backed regime has announced its intention to default. To support their position, the IMF has just changed its rules to remove a critical lever on which Russia and other governments have long relied to ensure payment of their loans.
– = == ====
See also Michael Hudson’s article titled “Orwell at the UN: Obama re-defines democracy as a country that supports U.S. policy.” Here’s an excerpt:
“In his Orwellian September 28, 2015 speech to the United Nations, President Obama said that if democracy had existed in Syria, there never would have been a revolt against Assad. By that, he meant ISIL. Where there is democracy, he said, there is no violence or revolution. This was his threat to promote revolution, coups and violence against any country not deemed a ‘democracy’. In making this hardly-veiled threat, he redefined the word in the vocabulary of international politics. Democracy is the CIA’s overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran to install the Shah. Democracy is the overthrow of Afghanistan’s secular government by the Taliban against Russia. Democracy is the Ukrainian coup behind Yats and Poroshenko. Democracy is Pinochet. It is “our bastards”, as Lyndon Johnson said, with regard to the Latin American dictators installed by U.S. foreign policy.
“A century ago, the word “democracy” referred to a nation whose policies were formed by elected representatives. Ever since ancient Athens, democracy was contrasted to oligarchy and aristocracy. But since the Cold War and its aftermath, that is not how U.S. politicians have used the term. When an American president uses the word “democracy”, he means a pro-American country following U.S. neoliberal policies, no matter if the country is a military dictatorship or its government was brought in by a coup (euphemized as a Color Revolution) as in Georgia or Ukraine…”