Professional Scam Artists – part 60

Aung San Suu Kyi and Hungary’s far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orbán

“Burma’s Suu Kyi joins Hungary’s Orbán in promoting anti-Muslim chauvinism” by Peter Symonds (WSWS)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

The meeting last week between Burmese government leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Hungary’s far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is a devastating indictment of the media propagandists for “human rights” imperialism who promoted Suu Kyi as “an icon of democracy.”

It was truly a meeting of minds in Budapest. In an official statement released by the Hungarian government after their talks, the two leaders agreed that immigrants were “one of the greatest challenges for both countries” and expressed their mutual concern over “continuously growing Muslim populations.”

The main thing I’m looking at here is Aung San Suu Kyi’s hobnobbing with fascist Viktor Orbán. However much of Symond’s article is wrong (and I don’t know enough to be sure about what is right and wrong here), there is no doubt about Suu Kyi’s fakery. She is no democrat. These are the comments I attached to the above linked-to article on the WSWS website:

=== =
“She refuses to use the term “Rohingya,” as it would suggest, contrary to the Burmese Constitution, that they are a legitimate ethnic minority.” As far as I know, the Rohingya are ‘not’ an ethnic group. I am very frustrated about the lack of information we are getting from progressives about this. That the little I’ve found is contradictory doesn’t help. My first in depth look was via Gearóid Ó Colmáin’s articles. I thought he might continue to look into this, but he seems to have gone on to other things. I haven’t visited his website in some time, and deleted the bookmark when I saw nothing (and I don’t do Fluffbook) happening there at all, but I’ll check back.


Equating liberalism, or liberal philosophy (if that’s what is meant here) with the liberal media just confuses me. I have no problem with the simple idea, or philosophy, of liberalism, which is: ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’. That you have fascists who label themselves as liberals and a fascist liberal (others’ label, and, I assume, corporate media’s own label for itself, not mine) media, is not in doubt and a different subject in my view.
= ===

related: “China and Russia Urge Diplomatic and Media objectivity in Myanmar” by Gearóid Ó Colmáin (Gearóid Ó Colmáin)

“Democrats, Mexican president collaborate with Trump’s anti-immigrant crackdown” by Eric London (WSWS)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

The Friday agreement between the governments of the US and Mexico to lock down Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala is an illegal attack on the right to asylum and an effort by US imperialism to further militarize the Central American region.

Under the deal, the government of Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador will continue to collaborate with the Trump administration by forcing Central Americans caught crossing into the US to remain in Mexico while they await their US asylum hearings. Mexico will also deploy 6,000 National Guard members on Monday along the southern border with Guatemala, and it will block passage across the entire border as opposed to at points of entry only.

As a result of the deal, untold numbers of impoverished people from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador will be murdered, tortured and persecuted by the government or gangs operating with impunity…

There is practically no opposition to the deal or the Trump administration’s attack on immigrants among the factions of the ruling class in either the US or Mexico.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known by the acronym AMLO) held a rally in the northwest Mexican city of Tijuana Saturday alongside governors and leaders of the various business federations.

“I’m not raising a closed fist, rather an open and direct hand to President Donald Trump,” AMLO told the crowd during the rally for “national dignity.” During his nationally televised speech, AMLO repeatedly appealed for national unity and thanked “all the social classes” for supporting the Mexican nation.

In fact, masses of Mexican people, including millions with relatives living in the US under fear of persecution, are deeply opposed to transforming the newly formed Mexican National Guard into the foreign legion of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement…

While Democratic candidates and columnists denounce Trump for undermining imperialist foreign policy, hardly a word is spoken about the ongoing horrors being perpetrated by the US government in detention facilities and the desert no man’s land of the border region.

A day after reporting on plans for mass child detention, the Washington Post published an editorial board statement calling for renewed attacks on the rights of immigrants.

Swallowing whole the Trump administration’s fascistic claim that refugees fleeing violence are using their children as pawns, the Post wrote:

“A concatenation of court rulings, congressional inaction and administration failures has created a perverse incentive for migrants to cross the border with children. They claim asylum; a swamped court system postpones their case for years; the government does not have the facilities or the legal right to hold them; so they are ‘paroled’ into the United States for an extended period. Most of the asylum claims eventually are denied.”

“How the U.S. Weaponizes “Internet Freedom”” by Julianne Tveten (American Herald Tribune)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

Several weeks ago, Edward Snowden took to Twitter to weigh in on the recent coup attempt in Venezuela. “Big: Venezuela’s opposition leader just launched a coup,” he wrote. “Reports coming in that the government is now blocking access to social media in response. Any interference with the right of the people to communicate freely must be condemned.”

Snowden, of course, was referring to the U.S.-backed attempt to oust the elected Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and install right-wing opposition party member Juan Guaidó. Yet Snowden’s concerns didn’t revolve around the damages visited upon Venezuela. Instead, as his critics observed, his focus on Internet access revealed a decidedly libertarian set of values: Sure, a potential (albeit failing) coup was in progress, hurling the Venezuelan people into the throes of imperialist upheaval—but wouldn’t someone think of the Internet access?…

By various accounts, the notion of “Internet freedom” entered U.S. policy during the Clinton Administration, in the early stages of the Internet’s commercialization. In 1997, then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore argued that “governments must adopt a non-regulatory, market-oriented approach to electronic commerce” and warned against those that “will impose extensive regulations on the Internet and electronic commerce.”…

Hillary Clinton cemented this concept in a 2010 speech, insisting that the United States would confront governments that implemented online “censorship,” including, but not limited to, China, Iran, and North Korea—countries, like Venezuela, that have worked to develop infrastructures and economies independent of the U.S.’s capitalist framework. Clinton also touted the role of the private sector in such an effort. Advocating for an Internet defined by “free expression” and, most important, free markets, she lauded the Global Network Initiative, an “anti-censorship” collaboration among tech firms like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and various NGOs.

The Clintons’ Internet-policy postures have persisted into the present day. The U.S. nonprofit and Global Network Initiative member NetBlocks, for example, regularly issues reports warning of limited Internet access throughout the world. Among its most commonly cited countries, by far, is Venezuela. Over the course of the attempted Venezuelan coup, which began in January, NetBlocks has published dozens of reports of restrictions to access of various U.S. web services, including YouTube, Google, and Bing. Instead of offering geopolitical context to explain why a country might be forced to limit access, these reports offer an alternative narrative: A beleaguered country’s temporary (if exaggerated) shutdowns of a few websites, rather than a U.S.-led coup, are the real problem.

The war-making State, when it does censorship, exclaims “National security!!!” But when a State targetted for regime change by the lawless, violent US takes step to block the color revolution’s communications, that’s evil. I’ve watched in alarm as the US regime change program made inroads against sovereign States using corrupt rightwing media of those targetted States, in the process putting the lie to the idea that the State’s leader is a dictator who doesn’t allow freedom of the press. So, Indeed, media can be used to undermine a nation’s sovereignty. Therefore, any State that is target of the US very much needs to take that into consideration. I’ve never advocated that a State completely censor its rightwing media (which will be found to be funded by foreign, especially US, interests). But I do say that if that targetted State doesn’t take some, limited, measures to deal with rightwing propaganda spewed from media within its borders, then it’s asking to be undermined. Any State should have at least the same amount of State media as there is private media.

I was beginning to wonder about Edward Snowden before I read Yasha Levine’s book, “Surveillance Valley,” in which he looks at the weaponization of the privacy movement. He has a few very revealing things to say about Snowden. Edward Snowden pushes the very bogus idea that Silicon Valley is our friend and will save us from Big Brother. (He, along with Wikileaks and the EFF and other so-called progressives, push the privacy browser, designed and funded by the war-making State.) What an idiot! Silicon Valley, together with the rest of the world’s elite, including CEOs and high level investors and corporations collectively, ‘are’ Big Brother! Snowden could do worse than to read John Perkins’s “Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man.” John popularized the very apt term “Corporatocracy.” Corporatocracy is our global government, still developing, but here. That system includes official governments, but those official governments are essentially fronts for corporations, including those selling weapons.

related: “Tor? Exercise Caution!”

Gulf of Oman Tanker Attack

“Pompeo Gulf of Oman Narrative Torpedoed by Vessel’s Japanese Owner” by Alexander Rubinstein (Mint Press News)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

WASHINGTON — Just a day before the Trump administration blamed Iran for an attack on two oil tankers connected to Japan in the Gulf of Oman, without offering a shred of evidence, members of Congress revealed that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had privately briefed them on possible justifications for a war on Iran.

The two oil tankers were targeted as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was in Iran, the first time a Japanese leader had gone to the country since its revolution 40 years ago. Abe was to act as a mediator between Washington and Tehran…

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted that “suspicious doesn’t begin to describe what likely transpired this morning.”

His U.S. counterpart, Pompeo, held a four-minute briefing on Friday about the incident, refusing to take any questions. It was just the latest pie-in-the-sky narrative from the former CIA director, who recently admitted that during his time at the agency, “We lied, we cheated, we stole.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. government’s contention that the oil tankers were attacked with mines appears to be falling apart just one day later. The owner of one of the tankers said on Friday that “flying objects” were observed just before the fire broke out. The U.S., meanwhile, released video on Friday which they say shows Iranian vessels removing an unexploded mine.

Yet the owner of the vessel maintains that there were no mines — or torpedos — involved, denying that such could have been the case because the damage to the ship was above the waterline. He went so far as to call the whole notion of mines being responsible “false.”

Iranian vessels, it should be noted, rescued the crewmen on Thursday…

Given the post-truth playing field Trump likes to play ball on, compounded with the extreme hawkishness of his lackeys John Bolton and Pompeo, the threat of war with Iran has never been higher, and it appears the administration is bent on circumventing congressional approval.

A protester bleeds from his face as he tries to stop a group of taxi drivers from trying to remove the barricades which are blocking off main roads, near a line of riot police at an occupied area, in the Mong Kok district of Hong Kong, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014. Hong Kong student leaders and government officials talked but agreed on little Tuesday as the city’s Beijing-backed leader reaffirmed his unwillingness to compromise on the key demand of activists camped in the streets now for a fourth week. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

“American Gov’t, NGOs Fuel and Fund Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Protests” by Alexander Rubinstein (Mint Press News)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

HONG KONG — Protesters in Hong Kong attempted to storm the parliament on Tuesday in opposition to an amendment to the autonomous territory’s extradition law with mainland China. The protest’s messaging and the groups associated with it, however, raise a number of questions about just how organic the movement is.

Some of the groups involved receive significant funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA soft-power cutout that has played a critical role in innumerable U.S. regime-change operations.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi weighed in on the bill, which is being considered in Hong Kong’s parliament, arguing that, should it pass, Congress would have to “no choice but to reassess whether Hong Kong is ‘sufficiently autonomous’ under the ‘one country, two systems’ framework.”

The Canadian and British foreign ministries have also thrown their weight behind those opposing the bill…

The amendment to the extradition law would “allow Hong Kong to surrender fugitives on a case-by-case basis to jurisdictions that do not have long-term rendition agreements with the city.” Among those jurisdictions are mainland China and Taiwan. Ian Goodrum, an American journalist who works in China for the government-owned China Daily newspaper, told MintPress News:

“It’s unfortunate there’s been all this hullabaloo over what is a fairly routine and reasonable adjustment to the law. As the law reads right now, there’s no legal way to prevent criminals in other parts of China from escaping charges by fleeing to Hong Kong. It would be like Louisiana — which, you’ll remember, has a unique justice system — refusing to send fugitives to Texas or California for crimes committed in those states.

“Honestly, this is something that should have been part of the agreement made in advance of the 1997 handover. Back then bad actors used irrational fear of the mainland to kick the can down the road and we’re seeing the consequences today.”

Like the U.S. government, the NGO-industrial complex appears to be wholly on-board…

Ironically, the issue of autonomy is not just of importance to Hong Kongers, but to the United States government as well. And it’s not all just harshly worded statements: the U.S. government is pumping up some of the organizers with loads of cash via the NED.

related: “Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy” by William Blum (William Blum)

From Mondoweiss:
U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman being gifted with an altered image of the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount with the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock replaced with a Jewish temple, May 2018. (Photo: Israel Cohen/Kikar HaShabbat)

“J Street — and Bernie Sanders — are loyal to the ‘democratic and Jewish homeland’ contradiction” by Abba Solomon (Mondoweiss)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

Before Israeli statehood, it was necessary to describe the planned Jewish homeland as a liberal democracy in the period of gaining American Jewish support for the Zionist project…

In 1942, Manhattan lawyer and AJC Executive Committee member James N. Rosenberg angrily objected to the formula being developed for AJC cooperation with the Zionist plans to make Palestine a Jewish state. He noticed what supporters of a Jewish homeland in Palestine were willing to avert their eyes from: that the fate and rights of non-Jews were unimportant in Zionist planning, even before the Nakba…

Even Bernie Sanders, in his latest admirable advocacy for Palestinian rights, is “someone who believes absolutely and unequivocally in Israel’s right to exist in peace and security.” Support for Palestinian rights to exist is progress, but his stance seems to include support for the survival of political Jewish primacy in Israel/Palestine that non-Jews must work around…

In this case, Israeli identity is predicated on perpetual Jewish domination, or at best custody, of Palestinian lives.

These are thoughts in a different dimension from the American political stage in which Sanders is performing. It’d be too much to expect Sanders to mention the idea of negating the partition and allowing Palestine to be a democratic multi-ethnic state.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Feel free to comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.