A brief and crucial history of the United States

Class War Films
February 23, 2012

Nightmare and insanity are akin: mysterious and involuntary states that skew and distort objective reality. One wakens from nightmare; from insanity there is no awakening.

Whether Americans live in the one state or the other is the paramount question of this era.

For two hundred years Americans have been indoctrinated with a mythology created, imposed and sustained by a manipulating cabal: the financial elite that built its absolute control on the muscle and blood, good will, ignorance and credulity, of its citizenry.

America began with the invasion of a populated continent and the genocide of its native people. Once solidly established, it grafted enslavement of another race onto that base.

With those two pillars of state firmly in place it declared itself an independent nation in a document that nobly proclaimed the equality of all mankind.

In that act of monumental hypocrisy America's myth had its beginning.

* * *

A Constitution was written that came to be regarded as American Holy Writ. Its central purposes were to defend private property and suppress mass democracy. It has fulfilled both those mandates beyond the wildest dreams of its creators.

Once the existing oligarchy was secure in law and native people largely exterminated, the ruling class increased its wealth and power fantastically in the 19th century, using the government as its enabler, exploiting to the limit the device of chartered corporations.

With its phenomenal money power, the financial elite began to use the military to expand its sway beyond the continent. Regions, territories, islands, and whole countries were annexed, invaded, and possessed outright, their peoples crushed, suppressed, and ruled.

Because ordinary Americans, like any people, need to believe that whatever the ruling elite undertakes in their nation's name must be essentially benevolent, noble in purpose and justified in fact, the myth had to be radically modified for imperial expansion.

The foundational story was that Americans had come to a howling wilderness teeming with godless savages and, through invincible strength of character and purity of purpose, had tamed the land and honorably earned the right to possess their bountiful home.

In the era of extra-territorial expansion that version was polished to justify and ennoble imperialism. The new corollary was that America could not ignore colonialist brutality but was obliged, by the Manifest Destiny that led us to civilize our own continent, to carry our mission into barbaric darkness wherever tyranny created abuse and suffering.

A national myth that absolutely binds the loyalty of a people to its government must be a subtle and powerful elixir that elevates and aggrandizes that people's self-regard. National policy will then appear to be an extension of its superior citizenry's inchoate will, and the basis for a justified arrogance toward the lesser world.

The simple, powerful myth of America's altruistic and heroic benevolence, shaped and maintained by the financial/political power elite, infused Americans with a deep and outrageously hubristic sense of racial superiority that, mobilized behind various imperial enterprises, has given all such adventures the character of a quasi-religious crusade. In this way insatiable imperialism acquires the apparent moral perfection of a syllogism.

* * *

With WWII, the world was reconfigured. American Capitalism emerged supreme from the horror that had virtually wrecked its capitalist partners. The Soviet Union, though, having absorbed by far the greatest devastation from Nazi Germany, had astonishingly risen above its ruin to become the leading challenger to America as a world power.

This challenge was not competitive, it was systemic: Soviet Communism was a direct threat to American hegemony in that it categorically refuted the philosophical basis of Predatory Capitalism. Grounded in Marx and Lenin, it attacked Capitalism's inherent evils, monstrous inequities and flagrant injustices that, exacerbated by speculation, exploitation and fraud, would destroy it. And it promoted world revolution to that end.

This face-off of giants in the Cold War necessitated further refinement of the American myth. Now, instead of simply intervening in situations where despotism or tyranny required America to forcefully implant our just and ethical democracy, America had to become the shield and bulwark of the sacred capitalist system in which "free enterprise" was magically and increasingly identified with democracy and equally to be defended.

This version prevailed through many surrogate confrontations around the globe in the era of Mutually Assured Destruction and survived even the debacle of Vietnam, lasting until the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the propaganda stream became ever more intense and pervasive. On radio and television Americans were subjected to an unrelenting barrage of hyper-patriotism in which American moral superiority was a given, and America's self-touted courage, generosity and decency were its unchallengeable proofs.

The implosion of the Soviet Union left America, in its own terminology, the "Sole Superpower in a Unipolar World." This, however, did not result in diminution of the myth. The practical effect of having no doomsday enemy -- China couldn't plausibly be cast in that role then -- was to supercharge it by increasing its element of pure, hubristic ego. America was no longer just called upon to defend the "Free World" from monstrous heresy; it was now, by virtue of its universally acknowledged, beatific "exceptionalism," required to oversee and police it in the interests, and for the benefit, of lesser nations.

* * *

"Power corrupts," said Lord Mahan, "and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

When the only rival and counterweight to American power disintegrated there was a sense within the American power elite that the opportunity existed, for the first time in history, for one country to absolutely dominate and effectively control the entire world.

This consensus was expressed in a policy statement composed by a cadre of major right-wing political players representing massive corporate capitalist interests called the Project for a New American Century. This triumphalist manifesto laid out a plan for absolute American access and control of essential resources and raw materials worldwide, to be guaranteed by the military which would enforce Full Spectrum Dominance.

The American Myth, which had seemed to have lost momentum and its animating principle in the totally unexpected so-called Cold War "victory," was now re-energized with a less defensive and reactive essence, and given the glowing radiance and patina of a true and, for the first time, self-professed and articulated, imperial mission.

The attack on the Towers, an unimaginable provocation, was the trigger mechanism for the explosive launch of the effort to impose that imperial model in practice on the world.

* * *

It has been without question the most spectacular failure in the history of American misadventure. After a decade marked by the waste of trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives, the stunning bankruptcy of our internally burglarized nation, and a consequent recession more fundamentally damaging than the Great One, Imperial America has nothing to show for the botched folly of its arrogant overreach but unequivocal disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, with no end of madness in sight.

An impartial observer would have to say that the hypnotic hold of the American Myth on the loyalty of the people has led only to disgrace and disaster, and set a direct course to inevitable imperial decline and ruin. That would be inarguable on any rational basis, but it entirely mistakes the motive for, and the purpose of, the myth. The American Myth was never intended to serve the interests either of our country or of our people: it was created solely to buttress, shield, and exalt the ruling financial class. It has done that with astonishing and unbroken success that staggers the imagination from our earliest days.

The massive looting of Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan war funding to enrich the Corporate Tyranny -- for that is what it has become -- is on a unique scale of its own, without anything remotely comparable to its flagrant obscenity in the whole long history of war.

Neither the Pentagon nor any branch of the U.S. government can give any accounting whatever of the many billions of tax-generated dollars that have vanished, evaporated. There is no doubt but that beyond the outrageously inflated, no-bid contracts handed to giant corporate favorites with their preposterous guaranteed profits, much of the money was simply stolen in bulk by, through, or in spite of the military, and distributed among thieves and accomplices, some of it on huge pallets...for convenience, presumably.

* * *

While this wholesale robbery was going on under the oversight of the military abroad, the Corporate Tyranny had evolved a whole set of impenetrably complex devices for the generation of money without any economically productive source or result at home.

The sole driving force and purpose of Capitalism is the realization of profit. According to that calculus, reducing production costs increases profit margin. This leads to the obvious conclusion that as production costs near zero, profit is maximized.

There is no provision for social good in Capitalist theory. Corporations, created to optimize business opportunity through efficient specialization, were originally required to operate for public benefit but that provision was quickly finessed and forgotten.

American law courts have always favored corporate concentrations of wealth since they, like the Congress, exist to serve the moneyed interests. The American Myth was created to provide cover for the financial oligarchy to exploit the country and the citizenry, and the judiciary has consistently cooperated in ruling for corporations against the people.

Indeed, without ever considering the question in law, the Supreme Court long ago endowed corporations with "personhood," that is with all rights of human beings under our Constitution. The way this travesty occurred -- the slipshod by-product of an obliquely related case -- shows that the court preferred to incorporate this perversion of the plain intent of the 14th amendment as an unexamined assumption rather than risk an eventual test which would unquestionably have created violent public outrage.

Given the collusion of Congress and the courts in securing legal invulnerability for the Corporate Tyranny and the principle that the only duty of corporations is maximization of profit, it was not surprising that megabanks, huge brokerage houses, giant insurance conglomerates, gilded hedge funds and the credit agencies pretending to certify their work, all engaged in massive and systemic fraud and deception for just that purpose. The result was the crash of '08, the recession, and the stunning and unprecedented rescue and bailout of the biggest banks, investment houses, and insurance and credit conglomerates with taxpayer dollars. So much for the hallowed Invisible Hand of the Free Market....

* * *

The last decades have seen two related mega-trends in American geopolitical mechanics, both with dire effects on the power of the American Myth. First, what belief the world at large had in it has been shattered by a catastrophic series of imbecile and irretrievable military failures and disasters, which has caused erosion of its efficacy at home. Second, in response to this, the State has made increasingly crude efforts to boost the Myth's waning power by the imposition of totalitarian methods of surveillance, intimidation and coercion on the American people to a degree unprecedented in scope and scale.

The whole clanking, medieval apparatus of Homeland Security that has sprouted like an enormous poison fungus since 9/11 with its brutal police state mindset; the odious Patriot Act with its flagrant subversions of the Bill of Rights; the endless, fantasy-based terror-peddling of the prostitute corporate media with its clowns and harpies churning irrational fear and anger in the uninformed: all this grim, repressive endeavor is a concerted attempt to distract Americans from the real causes of their injury, abuse, and oppression.

And yet, even with the American Myth now totally and irreparably blown full of holes and exposed demonstrably for the tissue of lies, deceptions and frauds that it has always been, it somehow keeps its phenomenal hold on the great mass of the American people. The tragic reality is that, for the majority, their own identities have been so deeply and thoroughly infused with the myth that to disbelieve it is to disbelieve in themselves.

* * *

So the American Myth is dead, and yet it lives on in its deadness, horribly masking our crapshot economy, our bankrupt debtors' prison of a society, our Ghost Dance charade of kabuki democracy, while typhoons of impending social, economic and ecological disaster build their enormous, lightning-charged thunderheads above the dark future before us.

And what is it that the dead Myth still imperfectly obscures for Americans? What is outside and beyond the opaque wall of faltering, failing dishonesty and deception? What is the horror that the shoddy, tattered Myth has so long and so effectively concealed?

It is the world that has suffered unrelieved exploitation by the violence of our imperialist mania. It is the many wrecked and pillaged economies financially looted by our imposed predatory capitalist austerity regimes. It is the teeming hundreds of millions of starved, deprived and dying children sacrificed to Wall Street commodities gaming. It is the multitudes of humble, innocent, ignorant people, barely surviving in absolutist and dictatorial regimes propped up in their barbaric cruelty by our military while our banks siphon off the profits left after arming their brutal police and armies and bribing their ruling Kings, Sheikhs or Generals. It is the millions of dead and maimed in the raped populations of simple tribal people whom our indiscriminately murderous juggernaut has left in its bloody wake in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It is the appalling legacy of hate and repulsion, disdain and fear, that America has earned with its appalling hegemonist villainy in every corner of the world.

And at home, what is it we Americans have been so complicit in hiding from ourselves in our devotion to the perverse legend that has come to inhabit our souls like a succubus?

It is the millions of us with no work and no hope in middle age whose jobs and homes have been devoured by the heartless fraud machine of Wall Street. It is the trashed and demolished weed-lots of our major cities eroding in crumbling, fire-gutted ruin. It is the many towns and cities with industries shut down and factories deserted or dismantled and shipped overseas. It is our decaying, disintegrating public schools, our bankrupt states and counties, our overtaxed, antiquated public transportation systems, our obsolete, dissolving infrastructure, our bloated, irrational prisons complex, our punishing and inadequate health care disaster, and over it all, the repressive mechanism of our police state, armed and empowered, ready for use against the American people themselves.

* * *

This is where we are. The great question now is whether we as a nation can awaken from this long historic nightmare and face the terrifying and exhilarating prospect of living in the full light of reality without the false props and dishonest constructs of a hoodwinked, herded and dishonored people or, whether we have internalized the falsity and disease to such an extent that it has become an organic, overmastering form of insanity?

In 1846, Henry David Thoreau, offended to his soul by the injustice of the American government's invasion of Mexico, protested it and went to jail for his convictions. Later, in his essay On Civil Disobedience, he said this:

    "If injustice is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine."

To attempt to break the hold of the American Myth will be a titanic, daunting challenge. To even begin to openly rebel against the might of the National Security State will require the courage to face much more than official disapproval and denunciation. Imperial America will not respond to even the most peaceful and orderly protest with anything less than hard police repression and the level of punishment will rise in relation to the scope and seriousness of the action undertaken.

Small protests will have no effect and will be meaningless. Organized mass events, when they occur, will draw the whole fiercely and brutally motivated National Security State apparatus down upon themselves. Americans, excepting those of our underclass who have felt it, have no experience with violent police or military repression. Those who commit peaceful civil disobedience -- a first and innocent tactic of serious protest -- will swiftly find out to their cost how it works. In a National Security State that has excised and eradicated all defensive laws and regulations intended to prevent abuse of the public, whatever the State does is legal. To such a pass have we in America come as a result of our long historic indoctrination in serving our financial elite, our Ruling Class.

To achieve any redemption for Americans, to make possible any more just, humane and life-honoring society, will require complete abandonment of the system of Predatory Capitalism. If offers no prospect of reform or improvement and we have all been witness to the idiocy of the so-called "democratic process" in action for generations now.

America is nearing the greatest crisis point in its history and the terrific cataclysm, when it happens, will determine the future our country is to have. If we cannot, in dominating numbers, rise to reject the heartless, mindless, soul-less machine of Imperial Predatory Capitalism, we will be condemned to a fascistic command and control horror in which human beings are mere possessions of the State, units of production or service, and then perhaps not even that, as excess population in that brave, new world nay be eliminated.

That end is not inevitable. We are not lost. We are not even defeated because to this moment we have not engaged. We have not honored our responsibility as human beings. We have not risen to defend our humanity. We have let ourselves be ruled.

All around the world the thunder of vast and immeasurable discontent can be heard and felt. In Egypt and Spain, Jordan and Greece, Iraq and Sudan, Afghanistan and Ireland, Latin America, the Far East and Africa, the legitimate anger of humanity is expressing itself against the dead and killing hand of Predatory Capitalism and its agencies of violence. And here, in America, so long trapped and encapsulated, frozen like a fly in amber in a false religion of state idolatry, the anger is deep, widespread, and growing.

It is up to those who know and care to lead. As Thomas Paine said, "These are the times that try men's souls." Nothing is guaranteed us. That can't matter. We cannot be concerned with odds or outcomes. We cannot let the Machine of Injustice grind on. We must oppose it with all the moral force we own. We must act with quiet courage to confront a vicious tyrannical system that is destroying the earth, its life, and its people. We must put our lives on the line to oppose it.

The Nightmare Machine of rapacious exploitation has overthrown humanity's decency and reason and its bloody inhuman treason flourishes over us. This must be ended.

Let your life be a friction now to stop the Machine. 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Let-Your-Life-Be-a-Frictio-by-Press-Release-1...

The Butchering of Gaddafi Is America's Crime

By Glen Ford
October 31, 2011 - blackagendareport.com

"Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared like ghoulish despots at a Roman Coliseum, reveling in their Libyan gladiators' butchery."

Last week the whole world saw, and every decent soul recoiled, at the true face of NATO's answer to the Arab Spring. An elderly, helpless prisoner struggled to maintain his dignity in a screaming swirl of savages, one of whom thrusts a knife up his rectum. These are Europe and America's jihadis in the flesh. In a few minutes of joyously recorded bestiality, the rabid pack undid every carefully packaged image of NATO's "humanitarian" project in North Africa – a horror and revelation indelibly imprinted on the global consciousness by the brutes' own cell phones.

Nearly eight months of incessant bombing by the air forces of nations that account for 70 percent of the world's weapons spending, all culminating in the gang-bang slaughter of Moammar Gaddafi, his son Mutassim and his military chief of staff, outside Sirte. The NATO-armed bands then displayed the battered corpses for days in Misurata – the city that had earlier made good on its vow to "purge Black skin" through the massacre and dispersal of 30,000 darker residents of nearby Tawurgha – before disposing of the bodies in an unknown location.

The saner sections of America's psychological operations machinery – including their collaborators in the corporate media – were doubtless as horrified as anyone at the Libyan jihadis' insistence on revealing so graphically to the entire planet the barbaric character of the "revolution." The months of gushing, ad nauseam press reports of near-universal jubilation in Tripoli and elsewhere at rebel "victories" – always under cover of NATO bombs – now made great sense. Who but those in search of instant martyrdom would voice displeasure at the NATO-jihadi triumph, with murderous fiends such as this roaming the streets?

"In a few minutes of joyously recorded bestiality, the rabid pack undid every carefully packaged image of NATO's 'humanitarian' project in North Africa."

The United Nations Human Rights Office and Amnesty International found themselves compelled to ask for investigations into Gaddafi's death – as if the immediate circumstances were not excruciatingly apparent to anyone with eyes and ears. Although the same U.S. domination of the UN that enabled NATO's regime-change operation will ensure that the neocolonial powers escape legal liability for the results, the world still sees the executioners, correctly, as monsters in league with Washington, Paris, London and Riyadh. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who gave a snarling thumbs down to Gaddafi just days before his death, appeared like ghoulish despots at a Roman Coliseum, reveling in their Libyan gladiators' butchery. Their hands and gums ooze blood – a lasting impression on decent world opinion.

The assault on Libya began as a desperate bid by the West and Persian Gulf royalty to bludgeon their way into the dangerous (for them) dynamic of the Arab Spring. The "rebels" (now, ludicrously, the "revolutionary" government) are their guys, just as the Afghan "mujahidin" were the foot soldiers of the Saudis and Washington from 1979 through the Eighties and (for the Saudis) beyond. Here lies the certainty of catastrophic "blowback." As Trinity College political scientist Vijay Prashad points out, Tripoli may soon resemble 1996 Kabul, a place of mass carnage between rival warlords.

"The world still sees the executioners, correctly, as monsters in league with Washington, Paris, London and Riyadh."

The Libyan jihadis are far more Saudi Arabia's and Qatar's brethren, than the West's. The Arab Spring has both emboldened and frightened the wealthy Persian Gulf despots, who have their own agendas in the Arab world that are not necessarily consonant with the U.S. and Europe (the same applies in Pakistan and elsewhere in the region). All reactionaries are not alike. The oil-rich monarchs are fighting to preserve legitimacy in their own, Muslim milieu, not for Western-based corporate hegemony, and will cause at least as much problems for Washington as the accommodating Gaddafi they set out to depose at the beginning of the Arab Spring.

But that is secondary. As always, U.S. imperialists cannot resist the temptation to overreach. John Pilger writes, "With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent is under way." It is by no means certain that Libya will remain "secure" or under American sway. And President Obama's all-out offensive to the south – now centered in East and Central Africa, but soon to become generalized – takes place with the cell phone imagery of Gaddafi's demise fresh in the minds of tens of millions of Africans. Obama may believe the pictures send the message that resistance is futile, but it is likely to have the opposite effect. As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said, of the Americans, "The most lamentable thing is that in their determination to dominate the world…they are setting it alight."

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Source: blackagendareport.com

by Paul Craig Roberts      
Global Research, August 24, 2011      

In a few days it will be the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001.  How well has the US government’s official account of the event held up over the decade?

Not very well.  The chairman, vice chairman, and senior legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission wrote books partially disassociating themselves from the commission’s report.  They said that the Bush administration put obstacles in their path, that information was withheld from them, that President Bush agreed to testify only if he was chaperoned by Vice President Cheney and neither were put under oath, that Pentagon and FAA officials lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for investigation for obstruction of justice.

In their book, the chairman and vice chairman, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail.” Senior counsel John Farmer, Jr., wrote
that the US government made “a decision not to tell the truth about what happened,” and that the NORAD “tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public.” Kean said, “We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth.”

Most of the questions from the 9/11 families were not answered. Important witnesses were not called. The commission only heard from those who supported the government’s account. The commission was a controlled political operation, not an investigation of events and evidence. Its membership consisted of former politicians. No knowledgeable experts were appointed to the commission.

One member of the 9/11 Commission, former Senator Max Cleland, responded to the constraints placed on the commission by the White House:  “If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised.”  Cleland resigned rather than have his integrity compromised.

To be clear, neither Cleland nor members of the commission suggested that 9/11 was an inside job to advance a war agenda.  Nevertheless, neither Congress nor the media wondered, at least not out loud, why President Bush was unwilling to appear before the commission under oath or without Cheney, why Pentagon and FAA officials lied to the commission or, if the officials did not lie, why the commission believed they lied, or why the White House resisted for so long any kind of commission being formed, even one under its control.

One would think that if a handful of Arabs managed to outwit not merely the CIA and FBI but all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of our allies including Mossad, the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times on one morning, air traffic control, etc., the President, Congress, and the media would be demanding to know how such an improbable event could occur.  Instead, the White House put up a wall of resistance to finding out, and Congress and the media showed little interest.

During the decade that has passed, numerous 9/11 Truth organizations have formed.
There are Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Remember Building 7.org, and a New York group which includes 9/11 families. These groups call for a real investigation.

David Ray Griffen has written 10 carefully researched books documenting problems in the government’s account. Scientists have pointed out that the government has no explanation for the molten steel.  NIST has been forced to admit that WTC 7 was in free  fall for part of its descent, and a scientific team led by a professor of nano-chemistry at the University of Copenhagen has reported finding nano-thermite in the dust from the buildings.

Larry Silverstein, who had the lease on the World Trade Center buildings, said in a PBS broadcast that the decision was made “to pull” Building 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11.  Chief fire marshals have said that no forensic investigation was made of the buildings’ destruction and that the absence of investigation was a violation of law.

Some efforts have been made to explain away some of the evidence that is contrary to the official account, but most of the contrary evidence is simply ignored. The fact remains that the skepticism of a large number of knowledgeable experts has had no effect on the government’s position other than a member of the Obama administration suggesting that the government infiltrate the 9/11 truth organizations in order to discredit them.

The practice has been to brand experts not convinced by the government’s case “conspiracy theorists.”  But of course the government’s own theory is a conspiracy theory, an even less likely one once a person realizes its full implication of intelligence and operational failures.  The implied failures are extraordinarily large; yet,
no one was ever held accountable.

Moreover, what do 1,500 architects and engineers have to gain from being ridiculed as conspiracy theorists?  They certainly will never receive another government contract, and many surely lost business as a result of their “anti-American” stance. Their competitors must have made hay out of their “unpatriotic doubts.”  Indeed, my reward for reporting on how matters stand a decade after the event will be mail telling me that as I hate America so much I should move to Cuba.

Scientists have even less incentive to express any doubts, which probably explains why there are not 1,500 Physicists for 9/11 Truth.  Few physicists have careers independent of government grants or contracts.  It was a high school physics teacher who forced NIST to abandon its account of Building 7’s demise.  Physicist Stephen Jones, who first reported finding evidence of explosives, had his tenure bought out by BYU, which no doubt found itself under government pressure.

We can explain away contrary evidence as coincidences and mistakes and conclude that only the government got it all correct, the same government that got everything else wrong. 

In fact, the government has not explained anything.  The NIST report is merely a simulation of what might have caused the towers to fail if NIST’s assumptions programed into the computer model are correct.  But NIST supplies no evidence that its assumptions are correct.

Building 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, and many Americans are still unaware that three buildings came down on 9/11.

Let me be clear about my point.  I am not saying that some black op group in the neoconservative Bush administration blew up the buildings in order to advance the neoconservative agenda of war in the Middle East.  If there is evidence of a coverup, it could be the government covering up its incompetence and not its complicity in the event. Even if there were definite proof of government complicity, it is uncertain that Americans could accept it.  Architects, engineers, and scientists live in a fact-based community, but for most people facts are no match for emotions. 

My point is how uninquisitive the executive branch including the security agencies, Congress, the media, and much of the population are about the defining event of our time.

There is no doubt that 9/11 is the determinant event. It has led to a decade of ever expanding wars, to the shredding of the Constitution, and to a police state.  On August 22 Justin Raimondo reported that he and his website, Antiwar.com, are being monitored by the FBI’s Electronic Communication Analysis Unit to determine if Antiwar.com is “a threat to National Security” working “on behalf of a foreign power.”

Francis A. Boyle, an internationally known professor and attorney of international law, has reported that when he refused a joint FBI-CIA request to violate the attorney/client privilege and become an informant on his Arab-American clients, he was placed on the US government’s terrorist watch list.

Boyle has been critical of the US government’s approach to the Muslim world, but Raimondo has never raised, nor permitted any contributor to raise, any suspicion about US government complicity in 9/11.  Raimondo merely opposes war, and that is enough for the FBI to conclude that he needs watching as a possible threat to national security.

The US government’s account of 9/11 is the foundation of the open-ended wars that are exhausting America’s resources and destroying its reputation, and it is the foundation of the domestic police state that ultimately will shut down all opposition to the wars. Americans  are bound to the story of the 9/11 Muslim terrorist attack, because it is what justifies the slaughter of civilian populations in several Muslim countries, and it justifies a domestic police state as the only means of securing safety from terrorists, who already have morphed into “domestic extremists” such as environmentalists, animal rights groups, and antiwar activists. 

Today Americans are unsafe, not because of terrorists and domestic extremists, but because they have lost their civil liberties and have no protection from unaccountable government power. One would think that how this came about would be worthy of public debate and congressional hearings.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was appointed by President Reagan Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury and confirmed by the US Senate. He was Associate Editor and columnist with the Wall Street Journal, and he served on the personal staffs of Representative Jack Kemp and Senator Orrin Hatch. He was staff associate of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, staff associate of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, and Chief Economist, Republican Staff, House Budget Committee. He wrote the Kemp-Roth tax rate reduction bill, and was a leader in the supply-side revolution. He was professor of economics in six universities, and is the author of numerous books and scholarly contributions. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28935.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26174

The US debt deal -- The president caved in

http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/572340--the-president-caved-in

By Gwynne Dyer
August 3, 2011

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman nailed it right away: "Basically the Republicans (said) we'll blow up the world economy unless you give us exactly what we want, and the president said, ok. That's what happened."

The fine print of the last-minute deal between US President Barack Obama and the speaker of the US House of Representatives, Republican majority leader John Boehner, hardly matters. There will be cuts in government spending, or rather in the rate at which government spending was projected to rise, but the big thing is: there will be no tax increase.

That is pretty bizarre in a country with a huge budget deficit and the lowest tax rate in 50 years. The normal response would be to cut spending and raise taxes. Even the Conservative-led coalition government in the United Kingdom, the poster boy for savage budget-cutting, has done that. But not the United States.

True, the deal has averted the imminent prospect of a default on the US government's debts, which was allegedly going to happen this week unless Congress voted to raise the legal limit on government borrowing (currently US$14.3 trillion). On the other hand, the main anticipated penalty for a default, the loss of the US government's AAA credit rating, may happen anyway, with a consequent rise in the interest rates paid by all Americans.

One could go on like this, discussing how the spending cuts will slow the already faltering US recovery from the recession and keep the unemployment rate very high (over nine per cent), but that is not really the point. It is that the Republicans have discovered a weapon, never envisaged by the constitution, that enables them to force the executive branch to submit on any issue whatever. Just refuse to raise the debt limit.

The weapon has been lying around since 1940, when the original law requiring Congressional authorisation for any increase in the national debt was passed, but it has never before been used as a weapon. Some clever politicians must have seen its potential in every decade since, but in more responsible times it was seen as illegitimate to employ such a threat to force the executive branch to submit.

Indeed, Congress has voted to raise the debt limit 106 times since 1940, without ever trying to use it as a lever to bring the presidency to heel on other issues. But it is an immensely powerful weapon, particularly as the user does not even need to control both Houses of Congress. Since both Houses must approve the legislation, only one can block it.

It's not clear whether the radical Tea Party faction in the Republican Party originally came up with the idea of refusing to raise the debt limit until the White House accepted its terms, but they certainly made the running after the Republican Congressional caucus adopted the strategy.

It was the Tea Party that forced John Boehner to drop the idea of agreeing to some tax increases alongside massive cuts in spending in order to bring the budget deficit under control. He is a fiscal conservative, but a sensible politician who understands that in any negotiation there has to be some give and take. The Tea Partiers just wanted take and no give, and they forced him to shift his position.

Then they got greedier, and several times made Boehner demand even more concessions from the White House, presumably in the hope of making the deal so unpalatable that Obama would reject it and allow the country to default. They were certainly ready to accept a default as the lesser evil, since they believed that the immense economic damage it caused would ultimately be blamed on Obama, and cause him to lose the 2012 election.

It must be acknowledged that Obama played his hand extraordinarily badly in all this. As one blogger put it, "Just let me get into a no-limits poker game with him. I'll walk away a millionaire.''

It should also be recognised that Boehner was quite happy to let the ideological loonies on the far right of his party serve as an excuse for his obdurate stance in the negotiations with Obama. It worked a treat, and Obama basically gave him what he wanted. Or, to be more precise, everything that the mainstream Republicans wanted, although not everything that the Tea Partiers were demanding.

The implications were quite clear in the House vote on the debt limit deal on Monday. One hundred and seventy four Republicans voted for the deal, while only 66 (almost all from the Tea Party) opposed it. But the Democrats, outraged by how the cuts that Obama has agreed to (with no new taxes on the rich) will hurt poorer Americans, split right down the middle: 95 for the deal, and 95 against it.

It begins to look possible that Obama could lose the 2012 election. He may even face a battle to be re-nominated.

• Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries

http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/572340--the-president-caved-in

Freedom Rider: White Terror in Norway

http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-white-terror-norway

by Margaret Kimberley



“Once the false reports of Muslim involvement ended, and the identification of a white Norwegian as the suspect was made, the word terrorist suddenly disappeared from reporting.”

If a white man commits what is indisputably an act of terror, the “t” word is stricken from the record. Only Muslims whom western interests don’t like are ever referred to as terrorists.

On Friday, July 22, 2011, a bomb rocked central Oslo, Norway, killing seven people. A short time later more than 80 young people were shot to death at a labor party youth camp near that city. Anders Behring Breivik, a white Norwegian national, was apprehended and confessed to committing the bomb attacks and the shooting deaths.

Breivik is a self-described right wing Christian nationalist, who regularly railed against Islam and the immigration of people of color to Norway. Breivik was a fan of anti-Islam websites and he was a member of his country’s anti-immigration political party.

As events unfolded on July 22, the worldwide corporate media did what it does best, misinforming millions of people around the world. Instead of stating the truth, that the assailant or assailants were as yet unknown to authorities, they began to conjecture, that is to say lie outright, about the identity of the perpetrator.

So-called terrorism experts immediately appeared in print, online and on the air, and depending upon their favorite choice of words, made claims of radical, Islamist, or jihadi involvement. In the worst such example of the day, a group which may not even exist, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, was erroneously credited with having claimed responsibility for the killings.

“The worldwide corporate media began to conjecture, that is to say lie outright, about the identity of the perpetrator.”

The full gamut of obeisance to government interests and to racist beliefs in the superiority of white people, were on full display. Once the false reports of Muslim involvement ended, and the identification of a white Norwegian as the suspect was made, the word terrorist suddenly disappeared from reporting. Apparently there is a tacit understanding that white people are never to be referred to as terrorists, even when they detonate bombs and shoot nearly one hundred people to death in a well planned and deliberate act.

The word terrorism has been rendered both useless and meaningless because it is used to let one group of people off the hook, no matter how awful their actions. There is some twisted logic going on here. If Breivik were to be called a terrorist, then the actions of the United States and other governments could potentially be labeled terrorist as well.

Starvation in Somalia is the direct result of United States intervention and use of Ethiopia as a proxy to destroy that nation. Drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan have killed thousands of people. These acts can rightly be called terror attacks, but language is twisted to meet the needs of an agenda which serves one powerful group of people. Torture isn’t torture if committed by the United States government. “Harsh interrogation techniques” is the term that the New York Times and other media outlets use instead.

Breivik is not only not referred to as a terrorist, as he clearly ought to be, but his whiteness is always a part of the story too. There are endless references to his blond hair and his green eyes, in short to his whiteness. Breivik’s race is an issue for him, in a country with a white native population now bringing in many immigrants of color, but the corporate media are joining him, awe struck by the appearance of the Nordic mass murderer.

“There are endless references to his blond hair and his green eyes, in short to his whiteness.”

There will, it seems, always be an unhappy white man some where on the planet who gets fed up and starts killing people because of some sort of grievance, whether real or imagined. He may be upset with the government in the United States and blow up a federal building, or crash a plane into an IRS office, or be angry because his government permits too many brown skinned people to occupy what he thinks should be an all white enclave.

That man will always be described as a lone nut with no ties, no connection to his society. His actions will be called an aberration. Of course, people of color get no such consideration. They are seen as part of pathologies, dysfunctions and political agendas which are directly blamed for their misdeeds.

Breivik is condemned for doing what governments do all the time. Obviously he should be condemned, but so should the presidents and prime ministers who make war and kill thousands of people. Breivik is a terrorist and so are the many of the leaders who expressed shock and horror about his actions. Yes, the blond and green eyed can be terrorists too, whether they act alone or in concert with other heads of governments.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgandaReport.com.

By Brandon Smith
July 08, 2011

There is nothing worse in this world than an enslaved man who naively believes himself free, except, perhaps, trying to explain to that same man his predicament. You can lay truth after truth before his feet. You can qualify your every position with cold hard irrefutable data. You can plead and scream and raise veritable hell, but before he will ever listen, he must first become aware of his own dire circumstances. As long as he views himself as "safe and secure", as long as he imagines his chains to be wings, he will see no reason to question the validity of the world around him, and he will certainly never invest himself into changing his own deluded destiny.

Unfortunately, there are many such men crawling and scraping about here in what was once a land graced with a self sufficient and independently minded public majority. The great lie that has been perpetuated in this country over the past several decades is that we can defer our responsibilities of vigilance and place our well being and our futures into the hands of others for the sake of "collective efficiency", or leisure. We have been conditioned to live in a state of constant indifference, a society which prizes compromise over principle and steadfast resolve. Those who refuse to compromise that which is honorable for the sake of ease and comfort are indicted as "extremist" or even criminal. The idea of personal revolution is treated with discomfort, and all we claim to stand for becomes muddled in a fog of inaction and cynicism. As Americans, we have forgotten what it means to earn and protect our own freedoms. We have forgotten that in liberty, there are standards that must be defended.

This, however, does not mean we cannot yet again remember ourselves. The desire for freedom is as inborn and natural as our own heartbeat, as our own breath. It is instinct. It cannot be erased from within, only oppressed from without. The tide has always been against tyranny, always, though we may find that hard to believe. If liberty was not ingrained into our very DNA, humanity would have succumbed to bondage and self destructed long ago. This is not the case. Stretching under the surface of our superficial force-fed mainstream culture are the roots of something real, and honest. Simmering beneath our so called "civilized" veneer, many Americans are finally rediscovering their wild and defiant origins. In the recent past we have been taught to feel ashamed of our rebelliousness. Now, we are learning to hold it quite dear.

For those of us who are awake, and for those who are on the verge of understanding, certain rules come into play that strengthen our stance and shield us from folly. Liberty is not a self perpetuating social condition. It requires guidelines, and effort, and sacrifice. Liberty will not survive without our willingness to maintain it. If you are not ready and willing to fight for your own independence, then you are not truly free.

Let's examine some of the inherent laws and guidelines of free will and free action that will allow us to not only win back our self determination, but to keep it for generations to come. You want liberty? This is what it takes…

Rule #1: Never Take Anything For Granted

A lot of people today seem to have serious issues with expectation and assumption; what we in the alternative media often refer to as "normalcy bias". We have grown used to the idea of abundance and relative safety. So much so, that we fail to notice when our abundance and safety begin to disappear. We assume that the condition of the world today will be the condition of the world tomorrow, and for all time. In the U.S., we have even come to expect not only that our prosperity and our freedom are inevitable, but that they will also increase exponentially with each passing generation. This is a relatively new and narrow cultural mindset likely caused by the explosion in industrial growth after WWII which seemed to erase all memory of the Great Depression in our society, leaving us with the belief that surely, our circumstances would never become so desperate again.

Those who are truly independent realize that nations, no matter how affluent, can self destruct at a moment's notice, especially when they fail to recognize their own weaknesses and confront their own demons. Never suppose that that which is good and just will remain without your own initiative. Never wait for others to fix those problems which you could just as easily solve yourself. Never expect that freedoms won cannot also be easily lost. Always prepare for the worst outcome, and strive for the best outcome.

Rule #2: Educate Yourself

Never become a useful idiot, or a waste of oxygen. Being a part of the herd is nothing to be proud of. Strive for knowledge, and thirst for the truth every moment of every day. Many of the things we deem "important" in modern society are in the grand scheme hollow attempts to fill our lives with distraction, only wasting time until we finally bite the dust filled with regret. Pretending to further the depth of one's life is not the same as actually doing so. I can't think of anything more horrifying than becoming a man who rushes around frantically every waking moment, but ultimately accomplishes nothing.

Do not assume that you already have a tangible grasp of the truth, especially if all your knowledge has been handed to you. Instead, research that knowledge for yourself. Put that which you have been taught to the test. Only in this way will you finally learn. Expand your horizons. Learn something useful. Remove unnecessary distractions for at least part of your day and focus on increasing your awareness of the environment you live in. There are very few things in this world more important than this, and self education should take precedence over everything else except your family. "Lack of time" is no excuse for ignorance. Make time! The ignorant are led. The knowledgeable lead themselves.

Rule #3: Don't Be A Pansy

Liberty is not for the faint of heart. Emotional courage is paramount to freedom, and it can be expressed to incredible effect by even the most unlikely heroes. I've seen children with more courage and tenacity than some full grown men.

If one recognizes the gravity of the situation we face as a people, if one understands the considerable danger involved in the fall of a Republic to the depths of fear and autocracy, but still does nothing, that person has not only failed the world, he has also failed himself. "Making waves", or drawing the ire of "authority", is the least of our worries. If you have utilized an objective eye, and know you are right in your position, then there is no reason to fear criticism from anyone.

Sociopolitical action, nonconformity, noncompliance, and self defense, are unavoidable aspects of a society that wishes to maintain its freedoms. There is no way around it. If you are not willing to stick your neck out and expose yourself to risk, you remove all chance of possible gain. If you are a self proclaimed activist that refuses to sacrifice, that refuses to struggle, then you have failed before you even began. Talk must lead to balanced action. Never thumb your nose at the devil without being ready to trade punches as well, or all is lost.

Rule #4: Stop Waiting For Others To Tell You What To Do

Independent people not only consider and implement the solutions of others, they also work on their own. Complaints abound lately in the Liberty Movement;

"When is someone going to do something!? What are YOU going to do about our predicament!?"

This is the question of a slave, not a free man. A free man asks, "What am I going to do about this predicament? What is MY solution to the problem?" Therein is the key to liberty; decentralized leadership and movements based on fluidity and spontaneity of action, instead of a great mass of people standing around stiffly waiting for orders on high, or a self styled messiah to engineer their world view. As soon as you place your very initiative under the control of others, you have lost the fight. Always consider the solid strategies of intelligent people, and adopt them if they are useful, but do not remain idle because you are too frightened to exert the effort to solve problems bigger than yourself. Spectators only witness history, they do not make history.

Rule #5: Cast Off What Is Unnecessary, Keep What Is Effective

Yes, I stole this rule from Bruce Lee, but it is just as applicable to social movements and economic stability as it is to the martial arts. Invasive debt creation, for instance, is a tool for subversion, and no people forced to bear the burden of liabilities they can never repay is free. Therefore, exorbitant debt must be avoided, or cast off completely.

In our personal lives, how many useless goods do we accumulate on a daily basis, instead of useful items that we may one day desperately need? How much of our life is spent accumulating garbage in order to keep up with "socially acceptable" levels of consumer behavior? How many of us cling to careers we hate in order to service our needless consumption? The ability to prioritize must become a virtue once again, and, we all need to shut off the cable television…

This rule also applies to governments. If a government no longer fulfills its sworn duties to the people, and no longer serves the purposes to which it was originally intended, then it too must be cast off and replaced with one that does serve the people, or, it must be forced to return to its inherent foundations. Today, this kind of talk is often referred to as "extremism", or insurgency, no matter how correct it might be, which brings us to our next rule…

Rule #6: Ignore Establishment Labels

Tactical name calling is only effective if we actually care what other people think of us. Labels like "homegrown terrorist", "extremist", "doomer", or "conspiracy theorist", are designed to shame people into self censorship. That is to say, they pigeonhole movements and their participants into categories of public shame, causing said movements to fear social reprisal. They are also meant to forcefully assign "outsider" or "fringe" status to particular political positions in order to marginalize and weaken the resolve of those who hold them. Never mind that almost every powerful and honorable cultural movement in history once started out as "fringe".

Early in our lives, we are taught that it is far better to be accepted, and to avoid standing out, even at the expense of our individualism. Unfortunately, many adults never outgrow this childish belief, and thus become vulnerable to tactics as absurd as simple ridicule. At bottom, being slandered by a thieving bureaucracy infested with soulless parasites bent on centralization at the expense of innocent human life is a bit laughable (this goes for you too, SPLC). Globalists, along with their media cronies and their think-tank sock puppets, will say ANYTHING to get what they want. Empty words and false labels cannot stop the truth, or a movement driven by the truth.

Rule #7: Cynicism Is The Path To Defeat

It is good to be critical, but not to the point of nihilism. America's past is riddled with mistakes, bad judgments, horrible crimes, and downright stupidity; that doesn't mean that the principles on which this country was founded are any less vital. We hear often from cynics that humanity has become too stupid and complacent to do what is right. However, stupidity and complacency are not inherent qualities. That's an elitist fantasy with no basis in fact. Stupidity and complacency are learned behaviors, and they can be unlearned. What IS inherent is our ability to choose what path we will take. For adherents of liberty, we need only remind people that they have this choice. We can whine and cry all day long about how nobody pays attention and how there is no hope, or, we can exhaust all options before throwing in the proverbial towel. We don't need to "like" society the way it is, but we do need to recognize the underlying potential of all people to become something much more than what they currently are (I can't stand blind ignorance either, but I'm certainly not ready to accept it as a fact of American life). Remember, no fight is over until it is over.

Rule #8: True Authority Is Derived From Respect That Is Earned, Not Bought, Or Taken

A corrupt politician is just a criminal conman in a nice suit. A law enforcement officer who refuses to follow Constitutional Law is just a petty little tyrant in a black uniform. An economist who knowingly skews data to fit his own political bias or to serve the political biases of men above him is just a liar or an inept buffoon with an embossed piece of paper from an expensive university. A lab scientist or doctor who flubs experimentation to support the interests of the corporate world rather than the needs of the public is just a quack in a white coat. All too often, though, we find ourselves taking these cretins seriously all because they talk the talk and wear the costume. They are just people, and if they cannot do their jobs honestly, then they are useless people, who deserve our disdain, not our respect. We should never allow such men to wield positions of authority over us.

Rule #9: Take It Personally

When someone tries to steal from you, hurt you, or enslave you, unless you are some kind of nut, you take it pretty personally, right? Why should it be any different when a government commits the same grievances? Americans should be furious over the destruction of their economy, their currency, their infrastructure, and their Constitutional freedoms! They should be enraged over the endless wars overseas that are bankrupting the nation. They should be bellowing to the rooftops over the cooption of their political system by a slimy brood of corporate bankers. Is this "extremist" behavior? Who cares!? If your anger is not visible then it is not worth a damn. Don't just get active, get emotional! This is about your life, and the lives of those you love. That's not to say that we should take out our frustrations randomly and haphazardly, but if we can't at least make known our anger over the misdeeds of government, then what the hell is the point of calling ourselves free?

Rule #10: You Are The First And Last Line Of Defense

Like it our not, this is our job. We have inherited a country on the verge of disaster, and we are tasked with cleaning it up, otherwise, there will be little left to pass on. We do not get to bask in illusory prosperity for the rest of our days. We do not get to feed off the entitlement program trough until we are fat and contented. We are not going to retain our rights without blood, sweat, and tears. We will not be building magical floating cities in the clouds or skyscrapers on Mars. We will NOT be remembered fondly as members of some fantastical "golden era".

We have been thrust into the muck and the mire. We are being molded as the lost children of an age better forgotten. We have been slapped in the face with a dilemma so volatile and so incredible it may one day be called the greatest crisis of all time. We have drawn the short straw.

This could be viewed as some terrible doom. It could be held as a star crossed act of ferocious fate. We could fall to our knees and lament with despair, overcome with woe at our unbearable lot. But, this would be in violation of rule #3, and nobody wants to be a sobbing pansy. On the contrary, every "bad luck generation" is only so if they refuse to see the great fortune at their fingertips; if they refuse to seize the moment and conquer the giants of their day. The greater the hardship, the greater the enemy, the greater the heroes. We are faced with possibly the most unrelenting antagonists and the most treacherous obstacles in recent memory, or even distant memory. In the same spark of confrontation, we are also presented with unparalleled opportunity to change the course of the world forever. Whether or not we succeed, is entirely up to us.

You can contact Brandon Smith at:  brandon@alt-market.com

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28519.htm

The US-sponsored plot to kill Patrice Lumumba, the hero of Congolese independence, took place 50 years ago

By Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja
January 17, 2011 - guardian.co.uk

Patrice Lumumba, the first legally elected prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), was assassinated 50 years ago today, on 17 January, 1961. This heinous crime was a culmination of two inter-related assassination plots by American and Belgian governments, which used Congolese accomplices and a Belgian execution squad to carry out the deed.

Ludo De Witte, the Belgian author of the best book on this crime, qualifies it as "the most important assassination of the 20th century". The assassination's historical importance lies in a multitude of factors, the most pertinent being the global context in which it took place, its impact on Congolese politics since then and Lumumba's overall legacy as a nationalist leader.

Full Article : guardian.co.uk

What does the War on Libya Mean for the Rise of Latin America?

By Lizzie Phelan, June 24th 2011
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6295

The rise of Latin America has been something that I have been very privileged to be able to witness in my lifetime. To see living, breathing examples of socialism, to see vast nations like Venezuela and Brazil lift thousands of people out of poverty and some of the historically most downtrodden and oppressed peoples of this earth regain dignity, to witness the first indigenous president in Bolivia, Evo Morales take power - these are all events that reverberate amongst oppressed peoples throughout this planet.

But the most important lesson that 21st century socialism has hammered home is that socialism cannot develop according to a rigid formula. But it will develop according to the unique dynamics and contradictions that exist in any given location at any given time. It has shown that a political system should be judged on its content and outcomes rather than its form.

In saying that, whilst 21st century socialism in Venezuela may look different from how it looks in Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil or elsewhere, there are crucial commonalities, namely the assertion of sovereignty from foreign interference, which for a continent that for centuries was treated as Europe and the United States’ back yard is an anti imperialist assertion.

The commonality of this struggle stretches to all corners of the Global South, and in that commonality, Latin America and its sister countries in the Global South find a basis for cooperation towards their common anti imperialist goal of sovereignty.

The rise of Latin America is not an isolated story, it is also the story of the rise of China, the growing economic prowess of India, Russia, South Africa and other nations who now provide alternative trade partners to what used to be the only show in town - the US and Europe.

And up until three months ago, this remarkable story of progress away from a unipolar world of US-European control, towards a multipolar world, seemed unstoppable. But on March 31, when Britain, France and the US along with the rest of its friends in NATO and the GCC states, unleashed the first of thousands of bombs on the socialist Republic of Libya, this path of progress suffered a setback of grave proportions, the consequences of which are yet to become clear.

For the war on Libya is AFRICOM’s - the US’ project for military control over Africa - inaugural mission on the continent. It is a war on Africa.

Alongside the illegal sanctions on the nation of Zimbabwe, like Libya -another friend of Latin America’s, it is clear that the imperialists are coming straight for what leading figure in the US Black Liberation Movement, sister Viola Plummer said are the two “stalwart countries, who resist the militarisation of the continent”.

And since 1450, when the first of what is estimated to be 5 million African slaves, landed on the shores of the Americas, Latin America and Africa have shared mirror histories of European conquest.

Brazil itself can be considered an African country - it is often said that it has the largest population of Africans outside of Nigeria. In that sense it is appropriate that former Brazilian president, Lula da Silva, did more than any other leader on the continent to strengthen ties between Latin America and Africa, making 12 visits to the continent in his eight years in office.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez also has been a very vocal champion of friendship between the two continents. During his visit to Tripoli, Libya, to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the revolution in that African country, he said: "I strongly believe that Latin America will have no future without Africa, the same way Africa will not have a future without Latin America ... both of us share the same dream of a better world, a world of free and equal people....Africa cannot ever allow again that countries from overseas come to impose certain kinds of political, economic and social systems. Africa has to be for the Africans and only through unity Africa will be free and great.”

As well as talking about solidarity between the two continents, Chavez stresses the importance of a united Africa not just for Africa, but also for the Global South more broadly. When that is understood, the basis for his, Lula’s, Morales’ and Latin America’s close friendship with Moammar Gaddafi is put into context because Gaddafi is, as former Black Panther, Deedan Kamathi stressed during an interview with Sukant Chandan in Tripoli, the vanguard of the pan-African revolution.

Kamathi said, “Libya became the vanguard country for the pan-African revolution and it also became the vanguard country for the international revolution in terms of - no other African country, even liberated zones in Africa - provided the kind of material, political and ideological support to the liberation movements throughout the world, especially to the liberation movements in the United States and the Carribean. So we salute brother Gaddafi and the Jamahiriya for that and that's why I'm here today and that's why we conduct some kind of a media campaign and actual demonstrations and protests in support of "Hand Off Libya" , "Stop the Bombing of Libya" and "No Regime Change", in fact we need to uplift the Jamahiriya to a higher elevated position and amongst the anti-war progressive peoples all around the world.”

In addition to Gaddafi’s Libya being a vital source of trade and political cooperation between Latin America and Africa, exemplified by the fact that between 2003 and 2009 Brazilian exports to Libya increased by 289 per cent, while Brazilian imports from Libya grew by 3,111 per cent. 41 years of the Jamahiriya also serves as a vital source of revolutionary inspiration for leaders like Chavez, which he paid homage to when he said, “What Simon Bolivar is for the Venezuelan people, Moammar Gaddafi is for the Libyan people. He's the Liberator of Libya."

So, returning to my point about the symbolic impact of having living examples of socialism in Latin America and how socialism develops according to the unique dynamics of any given location, for 41 years we have also had the example of Libya, which kicked out the British and the Americans, closed their military bases, and nationalised their oil - and  has achieved for its people the highest standard of living in Africa in a country that was the poorest on this planet. In the west, and in that I do not include Latin America or other nations of the geopolitical sphere that we term the Global South, our orientalist disdain for Gaddafi has meant that in all of those 41 years, we have blinded ourselves to, and missed out on learning from the incredible progress that has taken place within Libya under the Jamahiriya.

And while for Latin America and the Global South, the Jamahiriya provides a great example of what can be achieved, the war on the Jamahiriya also exposes the great vulnerabilities of all nations of the Global South which assert their sovereignty and identity at the expense of US-European domination.

While people across the world, from David Cameron, to so-called anti-imperialists in the west were calling what was in fact a counterrevolution, a revolution against another “Arab despot”, Chavez knew exactly what was going on. Because in another time and in another place, the narrative being parroted out to the world by Al Jazeera and the western media against Gaddafi, could have been the same narrative being spun against him.

And so he said: “I am not going to condemn from afar. That would be cowardly with someone who has been my friend and our friend for a long time, without knowing what is happening in Libya … I am not a coward, I am not fickle.”

Similarly in the very early days of the attempted counterrevolution, Fidel Castro called it out for what it was, an opportunity for NATO to finish off what the US had attempted to start when it bombed Libya in 1986.

But neither Chavez’s attempt at a peace plan, nor denunciations from across the Global South were enough to stop the imperialists in their mission to take the oil rich Benghazi for itself, begin the recolonisation Africa and in the process leave Libya in ruins to the Libyan people and all the other African migrants who have been welcomed by the Jamihiriya

Drawing back for a moment to Latin America, the first victory in the rise of Latin America began at the end of the 18th century with the liberation of Haiti by African slaves and the establishment of the world’s first Black Republic. Today, on behalf of the same oppressor Haiti rose up against, black people are being lynched in Libya by NATO’s “revolutionaries”. Progress is hard won, but easily destroyed.

The lessons from this are twofold. The internationalism once expressed by nations like Cuba who bravely sent soldiers to fight in Angola are no more. Then the Cubans had behind it the threat of a nuclear ally in the Soviet Union. So, until nations in the Global South develop a military prowess that can temper that of the United States, all nations in the Global South are vulnerable to their achievements being snuffed out by Tomahawk cruise missiles in the blink of an eye as we are witnessing in Libya.

The second lesson comes from the way in which the war in Libya has been termed a “humanitarian war”. This has been possible not just by the criminalisation of Gaddafi himself, but also by the criminalisation of the whole of Africa in the western media.

On the one hand we have the image of Gaddafi the “mad dog”, who dresses “eccentrically” (a racist assertion in itself, when one considers that he wears traditional African dress). That he is a crazy dictator controlling his own people. Nothing then of the universal health care, mass social housing, free university education, equality between black and white people, the high status of women, or the fact that far from being a dictator, Gaddafi has no official power in Libya, he is the symbolic leader of the revolution in much the same way Fidel is in Cuba today. And in regards to Libya being a dictatorship, democracy in Libya works through a system of people’s councils which is far more representative than anything we could dream of having here in England.

On the other hand we have images of Africans, starving, helpless, conflict hungry and unable to do much for themselves. For minds subjected to such images for the length of a lifetime, it is not such a surprise that people cannot contemplate an African Libya that is developed, where people live in peace, with dignity and a high quality of life.

This is cultural imperialism, and the western criminalisation of Asia, Latin America and Africa is perpetrated via imperialisms’ media machine. Al Jazeera was meant to be our beacon of hope in the west, until it became clear what game the Qataris were playing.

Chavez said it himself once, to a Fox news reporter: “The stupid people from Fox News”, he said. So the global South needs to stop allowing the stupid people to speak for it and it needs its own mass media machine to tell the world its own story from its own mouth.

If imperialism is victorious in Libya, not only Africa, but Latin America and the whole of the Global South will have lost a crucial friend. The lessons must be learnt quickly and as the Libyan people know as each day of bombing destroys a bit more of their hard fought for revolution, time is not on our side.

Long live Libya, only together will Africa, Latin America and the Global South rise.


This speech was delivered at Bolivar Hall, Venezuelan Embassy, London at the Latin America Rising event on June 16 2011.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6295

The Amerikan Police State Strides Forward

By Paul Craig Roberts
May 18, 2011 - globalresearch.ca

The International Monetary Fund's director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was arrested last Sunday in New York City on the allegation of an immigrant hotel maid that he attempted to rape her in his hotel room. A New York judge has denied Strauss-Kahn bail on the grounds that he might flee to France.

President Bill Clinton survived his sexual escapades, because he was a servant to the system, not a threat. But Strauss-Kahn, like former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, was a threat to the system, and, like Eliot Spitzer, Strass-Kahn has been deleted from the power ranks.

Strauss-Kahn was the first IMF director in my lifetime, if memory serves, who disavowed the traditional IMF policy of imposing on the poor and ordinary people the cost of bailing out Wall Street and the Western banks. Strauss-Kahn said that regulation had to be reimposed on the greed-driven, fraud-prone financial sector, which, unregulated, destroyed the lives of ordinary people. Strauss-Kahn listened to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, one of a handful of economists who has a social conscience.

Perhaps the most dangerous black mark in Strauss-Kahn's book is that he was far ahead of America's French puppet, President Sarkozy, in the upcoming French elections. Strauss-Kahn simply had to be eliminated.

It is possible that Strauss-Kahn eliminated himself and saved Washington the trouble. However, as a well-travelled person who has often stayed in New York hotels and in hotels in cities around the world, I have never experienced a maid entering unannounced into my room, much less when I was in the shower.

In the spun story, Strauss-Kahn is portrayed as so deprived of sex that he attempted to rape a hotel maid. Anyone who ever served on the staff of a powerful public figure knows that this is unlikely. On a senator's staff on which I served, there were two aides whose job was to make certain that no woman, with the exception of his wife, was ever alone with the senator. This was done to protect the senator both from female power groupies, who lust after celebrities and powerful men, and from women sent by a rival on missions to compromise an opponent. A powerful man such as Strauss-Kahn would not have been starved for women, and as a multi-millionaire he could certainly afford to make his own discreet arrangements.

As Henry Kissinger said, "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." In politics, sex is handed out as favors and payoffs, and it is used as a honey trap. Some Americans will remember that Senator Packwood's long career (1969-1995) was destroyed by a female lobbyist, suspected, according to rumors, of sexual conquests of Senators, who charged that Packwood propositioned her in his office. Perhaps what inspired the charge was that Packwood was in the way of her employer's legislative agenda.

Even those who exercise care can be framed by allegations of an event to which there are no witnesses. On May 16 the British Daily Mail reported that prior to Strauss-Kahn's fateful departure for New York, the French newspaper, Liberation, published comments he made while discussing his plans to challenge Sarkozy for the presidency of France. Strauss-Kahn said that as he was the clear favorite to beat Sarkozy, he would be subjected to a smear campaign by Sarkozy and his interior minister, Glaude Gueant. Strauss-Kahn predicted that a woman would be offered between 500,000 and 1,000,000 euros (more than $1,000,000) to make up a story that he raped her. (dailymail.co.uk)

The Daily Mail reports that Strauss-Kahn's suspicions are supported by the fact that the first person to break the news of Strauss-Kahn's arrest was an activist in Mr Sarkozy's UMP party – who apparently knew about the scandal before it happened.

Jonathan Pinet, a politics student, tweeted the news just before the New York Police Department made it public, although he said that he simply had a 'friend' working at the Sofitel where the attack was said to have happened.

The first person to re-tweet Mr Pinet was Arnaud Dassier, a spin doctor who had previously publicised details of multi-millionaire Strauss-Kahn's luxurious lifestyle in a bid to dent his left wing credentials.

Strauss-Kahn could just as easily been set up by rivals inside the IMF, as well as by rivals within the French political establishment.

Michelle Sabban, a senior councillor for the greater Paris region and a Strauss-Kahn loyalist said: 'I am convinced it is an international conspiracy.'

She added: 'It's the IMF they wanted to decapitate, not so much the Socialist primary candidate.'

'It's not like him. Everyone knows that his weakness is seduction, women. That's how they got him.'

Even some of Strauss-Kahn's rivals said they could not believe the news. 'It is totally hallucinatory,' said centrist Dominique Paille.

'If it is true, this would be a historic moment, but in the negative sense, for French political life. I hope that everyone respects the presumption of innocence. I cannot manage to believe this affair.'

And Henri de Raincourt, minister for overseas co-operation in President Nicolas Sarkozy's government, added: 'We cannot rule out the thought of a trap.'

Michelle Sabban is on to something when she says the IMF was the target. Strauss-Kahn is the first IMF director who is not lined up on the side of the rich against the poor. Strauss-Kahn's suspicions were of Sarkozy, but Wall Street and the US government also had strong reasons to eliminate him. Wall Street is terrified by the prospect of regulation, and Washington was embarrassed by the recent IMF report that China's economy would surpass the US economy within five years. An international conspiracy is not out of the question.

Indeed, the plot is unfolding as a conspiracy. Authorities have produced a French woman who claims she was a near rape victim of Strauss-Kahn a decade ago. It would be interesting to know whether this allegation is the result of a threat or a bribe. As in the case of Julian Assange, there are now two women to accuse Strauss-Kahn. Once the prosecutors get the odds of two females against one male, they win in the media.

It has not been revealed how the authorities knew Strauss-Kahn was on a flight to France. However, by arresting him aboard his scheduled flight just as it was to depart, the authorities created the image of a man fleeing from a crime.

The way Amerikan justice (sic) works is that prosecutors in about 96 percent of the cases get a plea bargain. US prosecutors are permitted by judges and the public to pay for testimony against the defendant and to put sufficient pressure on innocent defendants to coerce them into making a guilty plea in exchange for lesser charges and a lighter sentence. Unless the hotel maid has a spell of bad conscience and admits she was paid to lie, or gets cold feet about perjuring herself, Strauss-Kahn is likely to find that Amerikan criminal justice (sic) is organized to produce conviction regardless of innocence or guilt.

On May 16, the day following Strauss-Kahn's arrest, the US Supreme Court threw its weight behind the Amerikan police state by destroying the remains of the Fourth Amendment with an 8-1 ruling that, the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding, Amerika's police do not need warrants to invade homes and search persons.

This ruling is more evidence that every American is regarded as a potential enemy of the state, not only by Airport Security but also by the high muckety-mucks in Washington. The conservatives' "war on crime" has created a police state, and conservatives, who originally stood for limited government and civil liberty, are euphoric over the expanded and unaccountable powers that a conservative Supreme Court has handed to the police.

On the same day the federal government reached the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, which forced the Treasury to "borrow" money from federal employee pensions in order to continue funding Amerika's illegal wars and crimes against humanity. The breached debt ceiling serves as an appropriate marker for a country that has squandered its constitutional heritage and has arrived at moral as well as fiscal bankruptcy.

UPDATE -

In the several hours since I wrote this article, authorities have announced that Strauss-Kahn, who was refused bail on specious grounds, has been put on suicide watch. Why announce it unless it serves an agenda? From the beginning every statement and action of the authorities is designed to convey the impression of guilt. Is putting Strauss-Kahn on suicide watch a way to paint a picture of a person who can't face the public humiliation of his crime? Is it a way to use the humiliation of constant interruption to break down his character and resolve? Or might it be to plant the idea that should he expire in prison, suicide is the explanation?

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Paul Craig Roberts
May 14, 2011

I have heard one dozen times today (May 13) from media that the US killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. I heard it three times from National Public Radio, twice from the BBC, and from every TV and radio station I encountered, even those stations that play the rock and roll music of the 1950s and 1960s. The killing of bin Laden has now entered the legends of our time and, no doubt, the history books.

The US government that told us that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” and “al Qaeda connections” and that Iran has nuclear missiles that require the US to ring Russia with anti-ballistic missile systems, finally told us the truth for once. Obama found Osama and had him murdered, apparently unarmed in his underwear, defended not by al Qaeda, “the best trained, most dangerous vicious killers on the planet,” but by two unarmed women.

As I offered previously, if you believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can let you have for a cheap price.

The government has created another reality for us proles. We won again. Us white hats got the black hat, just like in the western movie. Fantasy is better than fact, and us good guys are on a roll. It makes everybody happy, even those who have lost their jobs, their houses, their pensions.

So, who’s the next black hat? The military/security complex cannot do without a bad guy, or the budget could be cut and billions of dollars in profits would go missing. Without someone for Americans to hate, the show can’t go on.

Homeland Security says the next black hat will be “domestic extremists.” The CIA says it will be the next al Qaeda leader, bin Laden’s replacement, who will terrorize us white hats for killing bin Laden. The neocon brownshirts say it is Pakistan, who hid bin Laden from us, thus protecting him from justice being done. Hillary says it is China, and as the US economy continues its collapse, more and more fingers will point at China.

Airport Security will pat down more babies, feel more genitals, and radiate more air travelers.

But without bin Laden, we will feel safer and more secure, which is counterproductive for the military/security complex. Obama has made a fundamental mistake. He has killed Emanuel Goldstein (bin Laden), the hate figure who justified the trillions of dollars we have blown trying to get him.

Once Homeland Security, the CIA, and the White House decide who the new hate figure is to be, we will be off and running again.

It took 10 years to get bin Laden. This proves that all those security experts who say that the war will last for 30 years might be underestimating the necessary commitment. If it takes 10 years each to find and murder the next two leaders, we are faced with conflict that lasts across generations.

As I wrote previously, bin Laden’s killing serves so many different agendas that even those who don’t believe the story have hooked their wagon to it. Al Qaeda itself can no longer take credit for acts of terrorism without declaring that it was to avenge bin Laden.

The bin Laden story is now set in stone, immune from fact. Global Research has provided us with bin Laden’s last known interview, which appeared in a Pakistan newspaper on September 28, 2001 and was translated and made available to the West by the BBC World Monitoring Service on September 29, 2001.

In the interview, bin Laden says: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. . . . Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks the common American people have been killed. . . .The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which makes us surprised, but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. . . . Terror is the most dreaded weapon in the modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people.”

But who would believe a demonized bin Laden when to do so requires them to disbelieve George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Western media?

We all know, don’t we, that in America the government always has the best interest of ordinary people at heart and always tells them the truth. If you don’t believe this, you are anti-American.

Reproduced from: globalresearch.ca