An old former insider imparting wisdom

.
.
.
.

Washington Leads World Into Lawlessness

By Paul Craig Roberts at Information Clearing House.

The US government pretends to live under the rule of law, to respect human rights, and to provide freedom and democracy to citizens. Washington’s pretense and the stark reality are diametrically opposed.

Obviously

US government officials routinely criticize other governments for being undemocratic and for violating human rights. Yet, no other country except Israel sends bombs, missiles, and drones into sovereign countries to murder civilian populations. The torture prisons of Abu Gahraib, Guantanamo, and CIA secret rendition sites are the contributions of the Bush/Obama regimes to human rights.

Washington violates the human rights of its own citizens. Washington has suspended the civil liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution and declared its intention to detain US citizens indefinitely without due process of law. President Obama has announced that he, at his discretion, can murder US citizens whom he regards as a threat to the US.

Congress did not respond to these extraordinary announcements with impeachment proceedings. There was no uproar from the federal courts, law schools, or bar associations. Glenn Greenwald reports that the Department of Homeland Security harasses journalists who refuse to be presstitutes, and we have seen videos of the brutal police oppression of peaceful OWS protestors. Chris Floyd describes the torture-perverts who rule the US.

Could we say that this is an empire in absolute decline, and that the deviant few have taken over?

Now Washington is forcing as much of the world as it can to overthrow international treaties and international law.

Unfortunately certain criminal groups feel lowering the threshold of law enables their agenda to be more greatly promoted, because they have the means, resources, organization, cunning, pre-knowledge of manufactured crisis's to put themselves in a better position within a host country. Carpet beggars in a grand scale. We note that in Turkey the Doenme Jews became ascendant in Turkey during the Young Turks Movement, and their consequent involvement in WWI, a war that killed 25% of the population, but allowed the Doenme Jews to become the dominant economic group in the country to this day, and the state structure. Prior to 1915 the Armenians were the dominant economic group in the Ottoman empire. Ditto in Imperial Russia, Imperial Germany......and now in Imperial USA which is unnecessarily focused on endless wars for Israel.

Washington has issued a ukase that its word alone is international law.

(It isn't and it shouldn't be.......but we will see how significant countries around the world comply with Washington's imperial edicts. If these significant countries comply meekly, then Imperial Washington will issue further imperial edicts...........like its imperial wars edicts from Washington no matter how illogical will never cease)

Any country, except those who receive Washington’s dispensation, that engages in trade with Iran or purchases Iran’s oil will be sanctioned by the US. These countries will be cut off from US markets, and their banking systems will not be able to use banks that process international payments. In other words, Washington’s “sanctions against Iran” apply not to Iran but to countries that defy Washington and meet their energy needs with Iranian oil.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, so far Washington has granted special privileges to Japan and 10 European Union countries to continue purchasing Iranian oil. Requiring countries to shutdown their economies in order to comply with Washington’s vendetta against Iran, a vendetta that has been ongoing ever since the Iranians overthrew the Washington-installed puppet, the Shah of Iran, more than three decades ago, was more than Washington could get away with. Washington has permitted Japan to keep importing between 78-85% of its normal oil imports from Iran.

Unfortunately that is not the case. The mullahs were cultivated by the CIA in the 1950's, and used against the democratically elected Mossaddeq government in 1953, and once the International Jews judged that their puppet the Shah had to go, they replaced him with another set of puppets cultivated since the 1950's........ the mullahs......who incidentally had no prior political experience, and did not lose one single member during the so called Islamic Revolution of 1979.........BUT somehow managed to overcome one of the most ruthless intelligence agencies, and come to power eventually, and rule the country for 33 years hence.

The International Jews needed to create artificial enemies, boogies for Israel, so that the USA can save little Israel from these artificially created enemies later.......and destroy such societies in the process of saving Israel........hence "al-CIA-duh" ascendant in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria.........openly backed by the USA/NATO. And of course America's performance in Iraq, and Afghanistan......simply appalling. The USA was not in Iraq to liberate, and build...but to destroy for Israel.

Washington’s dispensations, however, are arbitrary. Dispensations have not been granted to China, India, Turkey, and South Korea. India and China are the largest importers of Iranian oil, and Turkey and South Korea are among the top ten importers. Before looking at possible unintended consequences of Washington’s vendetta against Iran, what is Washington’s case against Iran?

ZERO

Frankly, Washington has no case. It is the hoax of “weapons of mass destruction” all over again. Iran, unlike Israel, signed the non-proliferation treaty. All countries that sign the treaty have the right to nuclear energy. Washington claims that Iran is violating the treaty by developing a nuclear weapon. There is no evidence whatsoever for Washington’s assertion. Washington’s own 16 intelligence agencies are unanimous that Iran has had no nuclear weapon’s program since 2003. Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s weapons inspectors are in Iran and have reported consistently that there is no diversion of nuclear material from the energy program to a weapons program.

On the rare occasion when Washington is reminded of the facts, Washington makes a different case. Washington asserts that Iran’s rights under the non-proliferation treaty notwithstanding, Iran cannot have a nuclear energy program, because Iran would then have learned enough to be able at some future time to make a bomb.

The world’s hegemon has unilaterally decided that the possibility that Iran might one day decide to make a nuke is too great a risk to take.

It is better, Washington says,

to drive up the oil price,

disrupt the world economy,

violate international law,

and risk a major war than to have to worry that a future Iranian government will make a nuclear weapon.

This is the Jeremy Bentham tyrannical approach to law that was repudiated by the Anglo-American legal system.

The USA/UK have a Jewish led legal system.......there is very little Anglo-Saxon about it.

It is difficult to characterize Washington’s position as one of good judgment. Moreover, Washington has never explained the huge risk Washington sees in the possibility of an Iranian nuke. Why is this risk so much greater than the risk associated with Soviet nukes or with the nukes of the US, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea today?

Iran is a relatively small country. It does not have Washington’s world hegemonic ambitions. Unlike Washington, Iran is not at war with a half dozen countries.

Why is Washington destroying America’s reputation as a country that respects law and risking a major war and economic dislocation over some possible future development, the probability of which is unknown?

There is no good answer to this question. Lacking evidence for a case against Iran, Washington and Israel have substituted demonization. The lie has been established as truth that the current president of Iran intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

This lie has succeeded as propaganda even though numerous language experts have proven that the intention attributed to the Iranian president by American-Israeli propaganda is a gross mistranslation of what the president of Iran said. Once again, for Washington and its presstitutes, facts do not count. The agenda is all that counts, and any lie will be used to advance the agenda.

Washington’s sanctions could end up biting Washington harder than they bite Iran.
What will Washington do if India, China, Turkey and South Korea do not succumb to Washington’s threats?

According to recent news reports, India and China are not inclined to inconvenience themselves and to harm their economic development in order to support Washington’s vendetta against Iran. Having watched China’s rapid rise and having observed North Korea’s immunity to American attack, South Korea might be wondering how much longer it intends to remain Washington’s puppet state.

South Korea is the USA's puppet state, and this is reinforced by the present center-right government of Lee Myung-bak. A relationship borne from WWII, and the Korean war which created a climate of dependency on the USA, based on Cold War geo-politics. The previous government under Roh Moo-hyun attempted to become more independent of the USA, but they have lost the last two elections. The USA through law and bilateral treaties controls the Korean military, modeled and armed by the USA, and the intelligence agencies. Koreans play baseball, and copy a good deal of American culture, and host 37,000 American servicemen.

However clearly whatever shade of politics Korean governments have there is always a need to show to the highly educated Korean public that their governments formulate policies which put the country first, second and last.......and are not based on the wishes of shadowy Wall street, criminalized, failing puppet masters.

3 + White T-shirt + pot ready to eat noodles?


Turkey, where the civilian and somewhat Islamist government has managed to become independent of the US- controlled Turkish military, appears to be slowly coming to the realization that Washington and NATO have Turkey in a “service role” in which Turkey is Washington’s agent against its own kind. The Turkish government appears to be reassessing the benefits of being Washington’s pawn.

Beg to disagree......that is poor analysis. Turkey continues to be a friend of Israel and the USA, no matter the short sound bites and rhetoric. Turkey has played a leading role and IS playing a leading role in enabling the so-called Arab Spring...where "al-CIA-duh" eventually comes to power in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and if Turkey can initiate a border war using NATO muscle and backup, in Syria. Turkey is in Afghanistan harvesting the heroin for the Jewish banks of London and New York, along with the USA and UK. Turkey is however trying to play the "good cop" with mullah Iran so as to channel the country along the path desired by the USA......IF not Israel.

What Turkey and South Korea decide is basically a decision whether the countries will be independent countries or be subsumed within Washington’s empire. The success of the American-Israeli assault on Iran’s independence depends on India and China.

If India and China give the bird to Washington, what can Washington do? Absolutely nothing. What if Washington, drowning in its gigantic hubris, announced sanctions against India and China?

Wal-Mart’s shelves would be empty, and America’s largest retailer would be hammering on the White House door.

Apple Computer and innumerable powerful US corporations, which have off-shored their production for the American market to China, would see their profits evaporate. Together with their Wall Street allies, these powerful corporations would assault the fool in the White House with more force than the Red Army. The Chinese trade surplus would cease to flow into US Treasury debt. The off-shored-to-India back office operations of banks, credit card companies, and customer service departments of utilities throughout the US would cease to function.

In America, chaos would reign. Such are the rewards to the Empire of globalism.

The White House moron and the neoconservative and Israeli warmongers who urge him on to more wars do not understand that the US is no longer an independent country.

America is owned by off-shoring corporations and the foreign countries in which the corporations have located their production for US markets. Sanctions on China and India (and South Korea) mean sanctions on US corporations. Sanctions on Turkey mean sanctions on a NATO ally.

Do China, India, South Korea and Turkey realize that they hold the winning cards?

Do they understand that they can give the bird to the American Empire and bring it down in collapse, or are they brainwashed like Europe and the rest of the world that the powerful Americans cannot be resisted?

Will China and India exercise their power over the US, or will the two countries fudge the issue and adopt a pose that saves face for Washington while they continue to purchase Iranian oil?

The answer to this question is: how much will Washington pay China and India in secret concessions, such as eviction of the US from the South China Sea, for their pretense that China and India acknowledge Washington’s dictatorial powers over the rest of the world?

Without concession to China and India, Washington is likely to be ignored while it watches its power evaporate. A country that cannot produce industrial and manufactured goods, but can only print debt instruments and money is not a powerful country. It is a washed-up two-bit punk that can continue to strut around until the proverbial boy says: “the Emperor has no clothes”.

Update: China is responding to the sanctions by taking advantage of the drop in demand for Iranian oil to negotiate lower prices for its purchases. The result of Washington’s sanctions on Iran is to lower the cost of energy for China and to raise it for everyone else.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. www.paulcraigroberts.org

Nazi USA, harvesting opium for the Jewish bankers and killing Afghan children at the same time

.
.
.
.
The recent tragic episode is being passed off as the deranged work of one lone USA soldier who was over stressed.....(USA media typically have focused on the personal challenges he faces as the "noble warrior" of the Pentagon/CIA narco Jew banker globalist Mafia machine)

The Afghan puppet government have however discovered detailed method in the madness....suggesting detailed planning of many noble warriors, who were not happy that some happy Afghans, NOT from the village, should have dared attack them, whilst they were busy building schools, hospitals, roads and shopping mauls for the Afghans.

In the 21st century, is this the center piece focal point of USA endeavor and civilization in the world? Does it not have anything better to offer?

These Neanderthal scum must be eliminated out of the country.....there must not be any CIA proxy forces left in the country after 2014.......harvesting the opium for the Jew bankers in London and New York.(The solidarity of which was celebrated by the two leaders of both countries recently, cryptically and symbolically)

Their occupation harms Afghans, and their occupation harms the world through the opium trade of the Anglo-Americans.

__________________________

Up to 20 US Troops Behind Kandahar Bloodbath – Afghan Probe

By RT

An Afghan parliamentary investigation team has implicated up to 20 US troops in the massacre of 16 civilians in Kandahar early on Sunday morning. It contradicts NATO's account that insists one rogue soldier was behind the slaughter.

The team of Afghan lawmakers has spent two days collating reports from witnesses, survivors and inhabitants of the villages where the tragedy took place.

“We are convinced that one soldier cannot kill so many people in two villages within one hour at the same time, and the 16 civilians, most of them children and women, have been killed by the two groups,” investigator Hamizai Lali told Afghan News.

Lali also said their investigations led them to believe 15 to 20 US soldiers had been involved in the killings. He appealed to the international community to ensure that the responsible parties were brought to justice, stressing the Afghan parliament would not rest until the killers were prosecuted.

"If the international community does not play its role in punishing the perpetrators, the Wolesi Jirga [parliament] would declare foreign troops as occupying forces,” he said.


The head of the Afghan parliamentary investigation, Sayed Ishaq Gillani, told the BBC that witnesses report seeing helicopters dropping chaff during the attack, a measure used to hide targets from ground attack. Gillani added that locals suspect the massacre was revenge for attacks carried out last week on US forces that left several injured.


In response to the massacre Afghan PM Hamid Karzai called for US troops to quit Afghan villages and confine themselves to their military bases across the country. Furthermore, the Taliban announced that talks with US forces would be suspended.


Meanwhile the US military has detained one soldier in connection with the massacre and transferred him to Kuwait amid outcry for a public trial in Afghanistan. Currently, the soldier is being flown to Kansas base, AFP reported.

US authorities are currently conducting an investigation into the motives behind the attack, but maintain that the soldier’s trial must be dealt with by the US legal system.

It is believed that the soldier may have had alcohol problems and been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.



_____________________________

US Forces Raped Two Women in Kandahar Carnage: Probe Mission

By Press TV

The Afghan parliamentary mission investigating the recent massacre of 16 civilians by US forces in Afghanistan says two women were raped during the deadly incident, Press TV reports.

Two members of the fact-finding mission, Hamidzi Lali and Shakiba Hashemi, told the general meeting of Afghanistan’s parliament on Saturday that the American troopers raped two Afghan women before starting the massacre.

They said between 15 to 20 US soldiers were involved in the carnage.

This is while Washington claims that the 38-year-old Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, who has just arrived in the US, was the only American military personnel responsible for the massacre.

Earlier on Friday, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai criticized the United States for not cooperating with the Afghan fact-finding team and said the killing of civilians by foreign forces in Afghanistan “has been going on for too long.”

On March 11, a group of US soldiers went from house to house in three villages in Kandahar’s Panjwaii district and gunned down Afghan civilians inside their homes, killing at least 16 people -- mostly women and children -- and injuring several others.

China's response to Hilary's criticism over Syria

.
.
.
.

China calls US critique on Syria "super arrogant"

By BBC and information clearing House.

China has hit out at comments by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on its stance on Syria.

A foreign ministry spokesman called the comments unacceptable, and the official Communist Party newspaper described the criticism as "super arrogant".

Mrs Clinton on Friday called China and Russia's veto of a UN resolution on Syria "despicable".

The Chinese criticism came a day after Syria held a national referendum on a new constitution, amid violent unrest.

The referendum calls for a multi-party parliamentary election within three months. The opposition has dismissed Sunday's vote as a farce, as at least 30 more deaths were reported around the country.

'Patronising'

Ms Clinton made her remarks at the Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia, a meeting of diplomats boycotted by China and Russia that sought an end to the crisis.

The US Secretary of State said it was "quite distressing" to see two Security Council members using their vetoes "while people are being murdered".

"It is just despicable and I ask whose side are they on? They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian people."

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, when asked for Beijing's response, said China "cannot accept that at all", AFP news agency reported.

Communist Party mouthpiece the People's Daily was more outspoken.

"The United States' motive in parading as a 'protector' of the Arab peoples is not difficult to imagine," it said in a commentary.

"The problem is, what moral basis does it have for this patronising and egotistical super-arrogance and self-confidence?"

"Even now, violence continues unabated in Iraq and ordinary people enjoy no security. This alone is enough for us to draw a huge question mark over the sincerity and efficacy of US policy," it added.

While China is traditionally resistant to interference in other countries' affairs, it has come under intense pressure on Syria.

Beijing believes that Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad should be allowed to carry out reforms to try and end the bloodshed, says the BBC's Martin Patience in Beijing.

But observers say the power to end the violence lies with Beijing and Moscow, which have so far provided the diplomatic support that has shielded Syria.

On 4 February they blocked a resolution in the UN Security Council backing an Arab plan condemning the crackdown and calling on Mr Assad to step down.

Frustrated scarcasm at the JEWSA.

.
.
.
.
.

Washington’s Insouciance Has No Rival

Paul Craig Roberts at Infowars.com

Is Obama a hypocrite or merely insouciant? Or is he an idiot?

According to news reports Obama’s White House meeting on Valentine’s day with China’s Vice President, Xi Jinping, provided an opportunity for Obama to raise “a sensitive human rights issue with the Chinese leader-in-waiting.” The brave and forthright Obama didn’t let etiquette or decorum get in his way. Afterwards, Obama declared that Washington would “continue to emphasize what we believe is the importance of realizing the aspirations and rights of all people.”

Think about that for a minute. Washington is now in the second decade of murdering Muslim men, women, and children in six countries. Washington is so concerned with human rights that it drops bombs on schools, hospitals, weddings and funerals, all in order to uphold the human rights of Muslim people. You see, bombing liberates Muslim women from having to wear the burka and from male domination.

One hundred thousand, or one million, dead Iraqis, four million displaced Iraqis, a country with destroyed infrastructure, and entire cities, such as Fallujah, bombed and burnt with white phosphorus into cinders is the proper way to show concern for human rights.

Ditto for Afghanistan. And Libya.

In Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia Washington’s drones bring human rights to the people.

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA prison sites are other places to which Washington brings human rights. Obama, who has the power to murder American citizens without due process of law, is too powerless to close Guantanamo Prison.

He is powerless to prevent himself from supplying Israel with weapons with which to murder Palestinians and Lebanese citizens to whom Obama brings human rights by vetoing every UN resolution passed against Israel for its crimes against humanity.

Instead of following Washington’s human rights lead, the evil Chinese invest in other countries, buy things from them, and sell them goods.

Has any foreign dignitary ever raised “a sensitive human rights issue” with Obama or his predecessor? How is the world so deranged that Washington can murder innocents for years on end and still profess to be the world’s defender of human rights?

How many people has China bombed, droned, and sanctioned into non-existence in the 21st century?

Will Syria and Iran be the next victims of Washington’s concern for human rights?

Nothing better illustrates the total unreality of life in the West than the fact that the entire Western world did not break out in riotous laughter over Obama’s expression of his human rights concern over China’s behavior.

Washington’s concern with human rights does not extend as far as airport security where little girls and grandmothers are sexually groped. Antiwar activists have their homes invaded, their personal possessions carried off, and a grand jury is summoned to frame them up on some terrorist charge. US soldier Bradley Manning is held for two years in violation of the US Constitution while the human rights government concocts fabricated charges to punish him for revealing a US war crime. WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is harassed endlessly with the goal of bringing him into the human rights clutches of Washington. Critics of Washington’s inhumane policies are monitored and spied upon.

Washington is the worst violator of human rights in our era, and Washington has only begun.

Who will liberate Americans from Washington’s clutches?

_______________________

This Paul Craig Roberts article first appeared at his website Institute For Political Economy. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He is the author of several books including The Tyranny of Good Intentions and How the Economy Was Lost.

Beware of the Fifth Column filth in sheeps clothing offering alms

.
.
.
.
An old article from 5 years ago, which is still relevant especially now with JEWSA funded regime change.

__________________________

450,000 NGOs in Russia

U.S. finances opposition

By Sara Flounders

A struggle is developing in Russia over legislation regulating non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that is due to go into effect in April.

The new law was passed by both houses of the Russian legislature, called the Duma, and signed by President Vladimir Putin on Jan. 10. Resistance to it has opened a window on the level of Western and especially U.S. intervention in Russia today.

Under the new law, foreign organizations and groups receiving funding from outside Russia have to register with the government. Russian officials say the legislation is necessary to combat the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing from foreign governments to organizations in the country.

An original version of the law was toned down under an intense campaign of pressure from the NGOs themselves and from the U.S. government. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressured Putin, expressing concern for “democracy.” The legislation was on the agenda at the recent G-8 meeting.

The law imposes restrictions on the financing, registration and activities of NGOs. This term originally meant any non-profit, voluntary, civic, humanitarian, health, human rights, service or environmental organization. Now a huge number of organizations that claim to be non-governmental, but rely on the U.S. and other major imperialist countries and on big corporations for their funds, operate in Russia and in many countries around the world. They dispense aid, set policy and intervene in political life based on the political agenda and economic interests of the funders.

The sheer number of organizations described as NGOs and the number receiving foreign funding is staggering. Since 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, hundreds of thousands of NGOs have sprung up in Russia. Members of the Russian Duma say over 450,000 NGOs operate in Russia today. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization puts the number even higher, saying that “There are at least 600,000 registered non-governmental, non-commercial organizations operating in Russia. At least as many may be working in the country without official registration.”

Duma deputy Alexei Ostrovsky, a co-author of the new law, estimates up to a quarter of Russian NGOs receive money from abroad. These include environmental groups, human rights monitors and consumer advocates.

President Putin, in supporting the legislation, said: “Whether these organizations want it or not, they become an instrument in the hands of foreign states that use them to achieve their own political objectives. This situation is unacceptable. This law is designed to prevent interference in Russia’s internal political life by foreign countries and create transparent conditions for the financing of nongovernmental organizations.”

The cross followed the gun

When the European capitalist nations first established colonies around the world, the cross followed the gun. Thousands of missionaries were an integral part of the machinery of conquest and subjugation.

Establishing a colonial administration meant reorganizing society and the ownership of property in a way that benefited the colonizers. It involved schools, training and political orientation for those among the local elite who would become collaborators. Religious conversion helped to pacify a whole section of the population, and paved the way for some to become loyal and fervent servants of the new power structure.

Today in Russia, not just religious organizations have been flooding into the region. The primary role of proselytizing capitalist values is played by “human rights” NGOs.

(With the irony and added hypocrisy that it is the JEWSA and its lapdogs who are the greatest clappy happy purveyors of violence and human rights abuse around the world.....100,000 people from the Greater Middle East abducted, kidnapped by the JEWSA and incarcerated at various secret prisons, over 10 years. 5 wars fought where millions have died and millions more turned into refugees. The JEWSA itself holds 2,300,000 people in gulag, free labor industrial prisons.......with the added capacity to hold 20,000,000 million more at FEMA concentration camps if peoples views don't match Rick Santorums.......and of course the Gestapo laws since 2001.

The Irony and hypocrisy is glaring.......the JEWSA is the greatest Humans rights abuser in the world, but given the sheer Jew Chtuzpah such FACTS above does not discourage the JEWSA from promoting "Liberty" in other peoples countries, and in the case of Libya in the mold of classic colonialism)

In response to these new restrictions, the volume of political pressure and protests from Washington has been turned up. But it is sheer hypocrisy. Regulations that are far more restrictive and intrusive monitor organizations in the U.S.

Any individual or organization here that accepts money from a foreign country must register with the U.S. government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Charitable donations are a matter of public record. Imagine Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea or Iran pumping millions of dollars into political organizations in the U.S. Even U.S. allies such as Britain, France, Germany or Japan cannot secretly fund political organizations within the U.S.

Alexei Pankin, writing in the Jan. 25 issue of the magazine Russia Profile, described his relation with two NGOs. “I ran a USAID-funded three-year program supporting Russian media, with a total budget of $10.5 million, and a Soros Foundation program supporting Russian media with an annual budget of $1.8 million. The number of supervisors, bosses, inspectors and advisers who I had to deal with (or had to deal with me) defies belief. I am sure there were intelligence officers among them.”

Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), successor of the KGB, on Jan. 23 accused four British diplomats of spying. It said it had caught one of them “red-handed” channeling funds to several Russian nongovernmental organizations. London denied misconduct, saying it openly funded NGOs in Russia.

Significant foreign funding comes directly from U.S. sources, such as the quasi-governmental National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and from the European Union’s Tacis Program. Millions of dollars in funding originates with foundations that represent the interests of the wealthy elite, such as the Ford, MacArthur, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Soros organizations.

Regime change in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan

The role of U.S.-funded NGOs in trying to impose “regime change” in Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Nicaragua and Haiti is increasingly understood. The role of these same subversive organizations in Eastern Europe and the countries that made up the former Soviet Union is less well known, even though they operate on an even larger scale there.

Russia’s FSB security service chief, Nikolai Patrushev, recently blamed foreign-funded NGOs for fomenting coups in the post-Soviet states of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.

The active and open role that foreign-funded NGOS played in the overturn of these three governments is what is setting off alarm bells in Moscow. The imperialist media fondly call these coups “velvet revolutions” and sometimes “color revolutions” for the colors chosen by the opposition forces.

Ironically, the political leaders who were overthrown—especially Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia and Leonid Kuchma in Ukraine—had in the past been the U.S.-chosen candidates. Both had carried out policies that brought their governments into the U.S. orbit. They had pushed for joining NATO’s “Partnership for Peace.” Both had agreed to send troops to Iraq.

Yet both politicians were unceremoniously thrown out when they were not totally compliant with U.S. corporate demands. Both of their replacements—Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia and Viktor Yuschchenko in Ukraine—had served in the governments of their predecessors.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said after attending Yuschchenko’s inauguration as president of Ukraine on Jan 23, 2005, that he was “proud to have been associated with both events”—in Georgia and Ukraine.

Much insight into U.S. plans for the future and evaluations of past interventions can actually be found on the web sites of the foundations behind these regime changes.

40,000 NGOs in Ukraine

In an article on the World Bank’s website entitled: “Civil Society Development in Ukraine and the Orange Revolution,” Vira Nanivska, director of the International Center for Policy Studies in Ukraine, brags: “Today some 40,000 NGOs in Ukraine involve 12 percent of the population—and these organizations have been a key active force in the Orange Revolution.” (www.worldbank.org)

She describes how international consultants, policy experts and technical assistants work in coordination to change legislation, develop interest groups, set up media centers and develop protest movements. NGOs affect legislation, train civil servants, establish community councils and business associations, and push to revise the state budget in their own interests.

Young people and student organizations are drawn in through campaigns around protection of minority rights and fighting child abandonment. The whole aim of this web of projects, she explains, is to prevent any “backsliding towards the old regime” and to push for “Euro-integration,” meaning integrating into international and European organizations like NATO and the World Bank.

The overturn of socialist ownership and the breakup of the Soviet Union is a process that did not end in 1991. Shaping the laws on property, the rights of foreign capital, justifying the expropriation and privatizing of the socially owned resources, industry and services for individual profit, dismembering social programs, shaping the media, education and culture, and undermining any assertions of sovereignty are a much longer process.

These funds have an even greater impact in a region where the centralized socialist planning that once guaranteed pensions, full employment, free health care, free education and subsidized housing is gone. Its brutal dismembering has affected millions of people, leaving them intensely angry with the leaders who betrayed them.

Funding youth movements

A significant part of the U.S. corporate funding is to create youth movements. The Soros Foundation, USAID and the NED together funded the Serbian youth group Otpor. Young people were provided specialized training and seminars in Budapest, Hungary, along with t-shirts, stickers, posters, office rent and a newspaper, as part of the successful campaign to overturn the Milosevic government in Serbia.

In Georgia, the Soros Foundation budgeted $4.6 million for the youth group Kmara, which became a primary weapon against the government. In Ukraine, Soros budgeted $7 million for the youth group Pora.

The opendemocracy.net web site is funded by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations. An article there by Sreeram Chaulia analyzes the role of U.S.-funded NGOs from Georgia to Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine. The blurb for it is provocative, saying that “new forms of youthful, tech-savvy mass mobilization are impelling regime change from below. But is the phenomenon as benign as it appears? Are the movements who inspire the ‘color revolutions’ catalysts or saboteurs?”

The author is not criticizing these NGOs; he is evaluating their effectiveness in implementing “regime change.” A few of his observations give insight into how these political organizations operate as just another weapon in the U.S. arsenal.

“Sabotage can suffice in some countries while full-scale military offensives may be needed in others,” Chaulia says.

“These three revolutions—the ‘rose revolution’ in Georgia (November 2003-January 2004), the ‘orange revolution’ in Ukraine (January 2005) and the ‘tulip revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan (April 2005)—each followed a near-identical trajectory; all were spearheaded by the American democratization Ingos [international NGOs] working at the behest of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. … Rarely has the U.S. promoted human rights and democracy in a region when they did not suit its grander foreign-policy objectives. … Ingos heavily dependent on U.S. finances have been found to be consciously or subconsciously extending U.S. governmental interests. …

“NED’s first president, Allen Weinstein, admitted openly that ‘a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA. … NED was conceived as a quasi-governmental foundation that funneled U.S. government funding through Ingos like the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), and Freedom House. …

“The U.S. Embassy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, worked closely with NGOs like Freedom House and the Soros Foundation—supplying generators, printing presses and money to keep the protests boiling until President Akayev fled. Information about where protesters should gather and what they should bring was spread through State Department-funded radio and TV stations.”

Today’s new and developing anti-war movement needs an understanding of the many forms of U.S. intervention, along with the chaos and instability that it breeds. This will build anti-imperialist awareness and strengthen the growing global demand of “U.S. out now!”

---

Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org

Gangsta JEWSA, Gangsta outside the JEWSA.

.
.
.
.











































In the JEWSA many sport tatoo's as a proud symbol of their Americanism, forgetting that in the near past only prisoners and Polynesian Maoris sported them.

In the JEWSA the American Italian Mafia (subliminally Jewish mafia) are celebrated as heroes to be empathized with, understood and even admired....on TV and the Cinema, and not recognized for what they really were, criminal scum.

These are but small indications of the decline of the American empire.

Naturally now crooks in broad day light run the government.

Why the USA/UK is in Afghanistan for 10 years.

.
.
.
.
From time to time we get small glimpses of why the USA and the UK are really in Afghanistan for 10 years and more, by way of hints of the respective States actions in other parts of the world, beyond the ever changing implausible rational offered tongue in cheek. The sheer swaggering chutzpah and bravado of the criminal crook States becomes more apparent by the year.

__________________________

US Agents Laundered Money, Shipped Drugs for Cartels

The same old drug war tactics lead to more powerful cartels and illicit activity by US authorities

by John Glaser at antiwar.com

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents laundered millions in cash for a powerful Mexican drug trafficker and his Colombian cocaine supplier, according to documents made public Monday.

With the help of Mexican federal police officers, the DEA agents and their Colombian informant conducted at least 15 wire transfers to banks in the United States, Canada and China and smuggled about $2.5 million in the United States.

The efforts aimed to infiltrate the Mexican Beltran Leyva drug cartel and a cell of money launderers for Colombia’s Valle del Norte cartel in Mexico and included flying at least one shipment of cocaine from Ecuador to Madrid through a Dallas airport on behalf of the cartels.

Money laundering is a favored tactic of the DEA. The illicit activity – specifically sanctioned as Attorney General Exempt Operations – often violates Mexican sovereignty, facilitates additional criminal activity on the part of the drug cartels, and may be counterproductive, especially in the shadow of the failed gun-running operation Fast and Furious.

Mexican military and law enforcement, trained and armed by the U.S., typically assist the Americans. But Mexico’s over-reliance on harsh law enforcement and militaristic approaches to the drug war – actively promoted by the United States – has resulted in a dramatic increase in violence and an unaccountable police and military force that is responsible for widespread human rights violations.

Human Rights Watch recently released a report providing evidence that U.S.-supported Mexico’s security forces participated in “more than 170 cases of torture, 39 ‘disappearances,’ and 24 extrajudicial killings since Calderón took office in December 2006.”

“Instead of reducing violence, Mexico’s ‘war on drugs’ has resulted in a dramatic increase in killings, torture, and other appalling abuses by security forces, which only make the climate of lawlessness and fear worse in many parts of the country,” said José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch. What’s more, claimed the report, is that most of these crimes are committed with impunity.

President Calderon’s policy to deploy 50,000 Mexican troops and thousands more federal police officers – forces that are trained by the United States – appears only to have increased the violence, which has left about 50,000 dead in recent years,including 12,000 dead in 2011.

Dumb and Dumber

.
.
.
.
Dr. Professor Max Weber the 19th century Sociologist who said roughly that the modern State is a rational actor, and the State is a neutral faceless machine which operates for the optimal good of all.

Professor John Rawls in his "Theory of Justice" said "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position." roughly translated that rational logical humans in any given post-modern society, in the majority will always opt for what is in the best interests of ALL, which will determine how society operates itself ultimately.

Clearly such academic giants and philosophers hadn't heard about closed elite groups, and how they manipulate the system for their specific advantage over and above the rest of the 99%......and even to the detriment of the nation which facilitated their rise in the first place.

It is a shame, and certainly not a source of joy that the USA is run by such utterly confused, compromised, morons........a nation that manages to turn former ardent allies into enemies.

Just sad.

__________________________

Confrontation on the Frontiers of China and Russia

Obama Raises the Military Stakes

By James Petras in Information Clearing House

After suffering major military and political defeats in bloody ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and failing to buttress long-standing clients in Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia and witnessing the disintegration of puppet regimes in Somalia and South Sudan, the Obama regime has learned nothing: instead he has turned toward greater military confrontation with global powers, namely Russia and China.

Obama has adopted a provocative offensive military strategy on the very frontiers of both China and Russia going from defeat to defeat on the periphery of world power and not satisfied with running treasury-busting deficits in pursuit of empire building against economically weak countries, Obama has embraced a policy of encirclement and provocations against China, the world’s second largest economy and the US’s most important creditor, and Russia the European Union’s principle oil and gas provider and the world’s second most powerful nuclear weapons power.

This paper addresses the Obama regime’s highly irrational and world threatening escalation of imperial militarism.

We examine the global military, economic and domestic political context that gives rise to these policies.

We then examine the multiple points of conflict and intervention in which Washington is engaged, from Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia and beyond.

We will then analyze the rationale for military escalation against Russia and China as part of a new ‘offensive moving beyond the Arab world (Syria, Libya) and in the face of the declining economic position of the EU and the US in the global economy.

We will then outline the strategies of a declining empire nurtured on perpetual wars, facing global economic decline, domestic discredit and a working population facing long-term large scale rollback of basic social programs.

The Turn from Militarism in the Periphery to Global Military Confrontation

November 2011 is a moment of great historical import. Obama declared two major policy positions, both having tremendous strategic consequences affecting competing world powers. Obama pronounced a policy of military encirclement of China based on stationing a maritime, aerial armada facing the Chinese coast. A policy designed to weaken and disrupt China’s access to raw materials and commercial and financial ties in Asia.

Obama’s declaration that Asia is the priority region for US military expansion, base building and economic alliances was directed against China, challenging Beijing in its own backyard. Obama’s iron fist policy statement, addressed to the Australian Parliament, was crystal clear in defining US imperial goals. "Our enduring interests in the region [Asia Pacific] demands our enduring presence in this region … The United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay … As we end today’s wars [the defeats and retreats from Iraq and Afghanistan]… I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia Pacific a top priority … As a result reduction in US defense spending will not … come at the expense of the Asia Pacific” (CNN.com, Nov. 16, 2011).

The precise nature of what Obama called our “presence and mission” was underlined by the military agreement with Australia to dispatch warships, warplanes and 2500 marines to the northern most city of Australia (Darwin) facing China. Secretary of State Clinton has spent the better part of 2011 making highly provocative overtures, to Asian countries that have maritime border conflicts with China.

Clinton has forcibly injected the US into these disputes, encouraging and exacerbating the demands of Vietnam, Philippines, and Brunei in the South China Sea. Even more seriously Washington is bolstering its military ties and sales with Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea as well as increasing the presence of battleships, nuclear submarines and over flights of war planes along China’s coastal waters. In line with the policy of military encirclement and provocation, the Obama-Clinton regime is promoting Asian multi-lateral trade agreements that exclude China and privilege US multi-national corporations, bankers and exporters, dubbed the “Trans-Pacific partnership”.It currently includes mostly smaller countries, but Obama has hopes of enticing Japan and Canada to join …Obama’s presence at the APEC meeting of East Asian leader and his visit to Indonesia in November 2011 all revolve around efforts to secure US hegemony. Obama-Clinton hope to counter the relative decline of US economic links in the face of the geometrical growth of trade and investment ties between East Asia and China. (with greater military power...and presence, but obviously this will not work)

A most recent example of Obama-Clinton’s delusional but destructive efforts to deliberately disrupt China’s economic ties in Asia, is taking place in Burma/Myanmar. Clinton’s December 2011 visit to Burma was preceded by a decision by the Thein Sein regime to suspend a China Power Investment funded dam in the North of the country. According to official confidential documents released by WilkiLeaks the “Burmese ngo’s which organized and led the campaign against the dam were heavily funded by the US government”(Financial Times, Dec. 2, 2011, p. 2). This and other provocative activity and Clinton’s speeches condemning Chinese “tied aid” pale in comparison with the long-term large scale interests which link Burma with China. China is Burma’s biggest trading partner and investor, including six other dam projects. Its companies are carving new highways and rail lines across the country opening southwestern China up for Burmese products and China is building oil pipelines and ports. There is a powerful dynamic of mutual economic interests that will not be disturbed by one dispute (FT, December 2, 2011, p.2).

Clinton’s critique of China’s billion dollar investments in Burma’s infrastructure is one of the most bizarre in world history, coming in the aftermath of Washington’s eight year military presence in Iraq which destroyed $500 billion dollars of infrastructures, according to Baghdad official estimates. Only a delusional administration could imagine that rhetorical flourishes, a three day visit and the bankrolling of an NGO is an adequate counter-weight to deep economic ties linking Burma to China.(eloquent and precise........China's relationship with Myanmar is not sinister, but neighborly and natural)

The same delusional posture underlies the entire repertoire of policies informing the Obama regimes’ efforts to displace China’s predominant role in Asia. While each policy adopted by the Obama regime in themselves do no present an immediate threat to peace, the cumulative impact of all the policy pronouncements and the projections of military power add up to an all out comprehensive effort to isolate, intimidate and degrade China’s rise as a regional and global power.

Military encirclement and alliances, exclusion of China in proposed regional economic associations, partisan intervention in regional maritime disputes, positioning technologically advanced warplanes, are all aimed to undermine China’s competitiveness and to compensate for US economic inferiority via closed political and economic networks.

Clearly White House military and economic moves and Congressional anti-China demagogy are aimed at weakening China’s trading position and forcing its business minded leaders into privileging US banking and business interests over and above their own enterprises. Pushed to its limits, Obama’s prioritizing a big military push could lead to a catastrophic rupture in US Chinese economic relations. This would result in dire consequences, especially but not exclusively, on the US economy and particularly its financial system. China holds over $1.5 trillion dollars in US debt, mainly Treasury Notes and each year purchases from $200 to $300 billion in new issues, a vital source in financing the US deficit. If Obama provokes a serious threat to China’s security interests and Beijing is forced to respond, it will not be military but economic retaliation: the sell-off of a few hundred billion dollars in T-notes and the curtailment of new purchases of US debt. The US deficit will skyrocket, its credit ratings will descend to ‘junk’, and the financial system will ‘tremble onto collapse’. Interest rates to attract new buyers of US debt will approach double digits. Chinese exports to the US will suffer and losses will incur due to the devaluation of the T-notes in Chinese hands. But China has been diversifying its markets around the world and its huge domestic market could probably absorb most of what China loses abroad.

While Obama strays across the Pacific to mount its military threat to China and strives to economically isolate it in Asia, the US economic presence is fading in what used to be its “backyard”. According to one journalist, “China is the only show for Latin America” (Financial Times, Nov. 23, 2011, p.6). China has displaced the US and the EU as Latin America’s principle trading partner; Beijing has poured billions in new investments and provides low interest loans.

China’s trade with India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan and Vietnam is increasing far faster than that of the US. The US effort to build an imperial centered security alliance in Asia is based on fragile economic foundations.

Even Australia(wanna be US gofer in Asia.....after the UK, Australian stars predominate in Hollywood), the anchor and linchpin of the US military thrust in Asia, is heavily dependent on mineral exports to China. Any military interruption would send the Australian economy into a tailspin. The US economy is in no condition to replace China as a market for Asian or Australian commodity and manufacturing exports.

The Asian countries must be acutely aware that there is no future growth tying themselves to a declining highly militarized empire.

Obama and Clinton deceive themselves if they think they can entice Asia into a long-term alliance. The Asian’s are simply using the Obama regime’s friendly overtures as a ‘tactical device’, a negotiating ploy to leverage better terms in securing maritime and territorial boundaries. Washington is delusional if it believes that it can convince Asia to break long-term large scale lucrative economic ties to China in order to join an exclusive economic association with dubious prospects. Any such ‘reorientation’ of Asia, from China to the US, would require more than the presence of a naval and airborne armada pointed at China. It would require the total restructuring of the Asian countries’ economies, class structure and political and military elite.

The most powerful economic entrepreneurial groups in Asia have deep and growing ties with China/Hong Kong especially among the dynamic transnational Chinese business elites in the region. A turn toward Washington entails a massive counter-revolution which substitutes ‘traders’ for entrepreneurs. A turn to the US would require a dictatorial elite willing to disrupt strategic trading and investment linkages,displacing millions of workers and professionals.

As much as some US trained Asian military officers, economists and former Wall Street financiers and billionaires might seek to ‘balance’ a US military presence, with Chinese economic power, they must realize that ultimately, advantage resides in working out an Asian solution.

The age of Asian “comprador capitalists”, willing to sell out national industry and sovereignty in exchange for privileged access to US markets, is ancient history.

Whatever the boundless enthusiasm for conspicuous consumerism and Western lifestyles, which Asia and China’s new rich mindlessly celebrate, whatever the embrace of inequalities and savage capitalist exploitation of labor, there is recognition that the past history of US and European dominance precluded the growth and enrichment of an indigenous bourgeoisie and middle class.

The speeches and pronouncements of Obama and Clinton are a mixture of nostalgia for a past of neo-colonial overseers and comprador collaborators and a no-brainer. Their strain for political realism in finally recognizing Asia as the economic pivot of the present world order. But they in turn are delusional in imagining that military prepotency and projections of armed force will reduce China to a marginal player in the region.

Obama’s Escalation of Confrontation with Russia

The Obama regime has launched a major frontal military thrust on Russia’s borders:

(i) The US has moved forward missile sites and Air Force bases in Poland, Romania, Turkey, Spain, Czech Republic and Bulgaria: Patriot PAC-3 anti-aircraft missile complexes in Poland; advanced radar AN/TPY-2 in Turkey; several missile (SM-3 IA) loaded warships in Spain are among the prominent weapons encircling Russia, most only minutes away from it strategic heartland.

(ii) Secondly, the Obama regime has mounted an all-out effort to secure and expand US military bases in Central Asia among former Soviet republics.

(iii) Thirdly, Washington via NATO has launched major economic and military operations against Russia’s major trading partners in North Africa and the Middle East. The NATO war against Libya which ousted the Gadhafi regime has paralyzed or nullified multi-billion dollar Russian oil and gas investments, arms sales and substituted a NATO puppet for a friendly regime. The UN-NATO economic sanctions and US-Israeli clandestine terrorist activity aimed at Iran has undermined Russia’s lucrative billion dollar nuclear trade and joint oil ventures. NATO, including Turkey and backed by the Gulf monarchical dictatorships, have implemented harsh sanctions and funded terrorist assaults on Syria, Russia’s last remaining ally in the region and sole port (Tartus) facing the Mediterranean Sea.

Russia’s collaboration with NATO in weakening its economic and security position is a product of the monumental misreading of NATO and especially Obama’s imperial policies.

(Well professor there are various factors for this.....its not exactly the first time that the Russian state has made monumental mistakes, but later learnt to rectify them. Even a chess playing nation like Russia run by former KGB agents can make mistakes, the issue is how quickly they learn from their mistakes and what action they subsequently take to rectify these mistakes.

Russia is still hampered by a secret Jewish government which came to control the nation from October 1918......unto the present. This secret Jewish government subsequently killed the Royal Romanov dynasty including children; killed the traditional Russian intelligentsia; killed the traditional Russian economic elite; killed most of the Russian clergy; the Russian aristocracy obviously....for some delusional Jewish utopia under Socialism. 70 million Soviets died between 1918--1991, under Jewish rule (Alexander Solzhenitsyn).....a process that is beginning in the USA NOW. 5000 churches destroyed but not a single synagogue.....criticism of Jews made into a capital punishment.....and the country run by secret and not so secret Jewish leaders unto the present Dmitry Medvedev....explains to us why "strange" contradictory poorly judged policies have been adopted by Russia since especially 1991, which seem more like national self immolation and stupid. The so called Oligarchs in Russia who looted the country and destroyed it, with some taking their wealth to Israel, Switzerland, London and other such Jewish slush fund destinations are mostly Jewish.

The Russian state thus has been attempting to balance the requirements of the International Jewish tribe, with the superficial needs of the Russian state and people.

Finally what faulted the Russian chess players who were not Jewish, was the sheer charm of the cosmopolitan urbane Americans. The invitation by GW Bush to Putin to stay in the Crawford ranch; the playing up of Occidentalism/Western we are a white Christian club.....right-wing Anders Brevik type subtle play on the Christian Russians reeling from the sheer misery of Jewish Socialist rule of 73 years, especially in Western centric places like St. Petersburg..........a poor lonely man in dire straights naturally seeks friendship........ditto Admiral Mullen and Kiyani ......."kuta whisperer" )

President Medvedev and his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mistakenly assumed (like Gorbachev and Yeltsin before them) that backing US-NATO policies against Russia’s trading partners would result in some sort of “reciprocity”: US dismantling its offensive “missile shield” on its frontiers and support for Russia’s admission into the World Trade Organization.

Medvedev following his liberal pro-western illusions fell into line and backed US-Israeli sanctions against Iran, believing the tales of a “nuclear weapons programs”. Then Lavrov fell for the NATO line of “no fly zones to protect Libyan lives” and voted in favor, only to feebly “protest”, much too late, that NATO was “exceeding its mandate” by bombing Libya into the Stone Age and installing a pro-NATO puppet regime of rogues and fundamentalists ("al-CIA-duh").

(Lavrov looks Jewish. Medvedev is Jewish)

Finally when the US drove a cleaver in Russia’s heartland by pushing ahead with an all-out effort to install missile sites 5 minutes from Moscow and organized mass and armed assaults on Syria, did Medvedev-Lavrov awake from their stupor and opposed UN sanctions.

Medvedev threatened to abandon the nuclear missile reduction treaty (START) and to place medium range missiles 5 minutes from Berlin, Paris and London.

Medvedev-Lavrov’s policy of consolidation and co-operation based on Obama’s rhetoric of “resetting relations” invited aggressive empire building: each capitulation led to a further aggression. As a result Russia is surrounded by missiles on its western frontier; it has suffered losses among its major trading partners in the Middle East and faces US bases in southwest Asia.

Belatedly Russian officials have moved to replace the delusional Medvedev for the realist Putin, as next President.

This shift to a political realist has predictably evoked a wave of hostility toward Putin in all the Western (Jewish-owned) media.

Obama’s aggressive policies to isolate Russia by undermining independent regimes has, however, not affected Russia’s status as a nuclear weapons power. It has only heightened tensions in Europe and perhaps ended any future chance of peaceful nuclear weapons reduction or efforts to secure a UN Security Council consensus on issues of peaceful conflict resolution.

Washington has turned Russia from a pliant client to a major adversary. Putin looks to deepening and expanding ties with the East, namely China, in the face of threats from the West.

The combination of Russian advanced weapons technology and energy resources and Chinese dynamic manufacturing and industrial growth are more than a match for crises ridden EU-USA economies wallowing in stagnation.

Obama’s military confrontation toward Russia will greatly prejudice access to Russian raw materials and definitively foreclose any long-term strategic security agreement which would be useful in lowering the deficit and reviving the US economy.

Between Realism and Delusion: Obama’s Strategic Realignment

Obama’s recognition that the present and future center of political and economic power is moving inexorably to Asia, is a flash of political realism. After a lost decade of pouring hundreds of billions of dollars in military adventures on the margins and periphery of world politics, Washington has finally discovered that is not where the fate of nations, especially Great Powers, will be decided, except in a negative sense – of bleeding resources over lost causes.

Obama’s new realism and priorities apparently are now focused on Southeast and Northeast Asia, where dynamic economies flourish, markets are growing at a double digit rate, investors are ploughing tens of billions in productive activity and trade is expanding at three times the rate of the US and the EU.

But Obama’s ‘New Realism’ is blighted by entirely delusional assumptions, which totally undermine any real effort to realign US policy.

In the first place Obama’s effort to ‘enter’ into Asia is via a military build-up not through a sharpening and upgrading of US economic competitiveness. What does the US produce for the Asian countries that will enhance its market share? Apart from arms, airplanes and agriculture, the US has few industries which are competitive. The US would have to totally re-orient its economy, upgrade skilled labor, and transfer billions from “security” and militarism to applied innovations.

But Obama works within the current military-Zionist-financial complex: he knows no other and is incapable of breaking with it.

(Obama is believed to have been recruited by the CIA, within which it is alleged his own mother worked for in Asia....and is a love child between her and another black CIA agent. This is reminiscent of the KGB installing its puppet in the Kremlin especially in the 1980's prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991)

Secondly, Obama-Clinton operate under the delusion that the US can exclude China or minimize its role in Asia, a policy that is undercut by the huge and growing investment and presence of all the major US multi-national corporations in China , who use it as an export platform to Asia and the rest of the world.

(duh!!!)

The US military build-up and policy of “intimidation” will only force China to downgrade its role as creditor, financing the US debt; a policy China can pursue because the US market, while is still important, is becoming less so, as China expands its presence in its domestic, Asian, Latin American and European markets.

What appeared to be New Realism is now the recycling of Old Delusions: the idea that the US can return to being the Pacific Power it was after World War Two.

The US ‘returns’ to the Pacific in our times with a crippled economy, with the overhang of an over-militarized economy ($1.5 trillion security budget unofficially), with strategic handicaps: over the past decade it has been at the beck and call of Israel’s fifth column (the Israel “lobby”).

The entire US political class is devoid of common, practical sense and national purpose.

(Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachman...and the rest of the freak show clowns talking through their backsides)

They are immersed in troglodyte debates over “indefinite detentions” and “mass immigrant expulsion”.

(IRRELEVANT SKEWED MINUTIAE.....OF/BY DUMFUCKS)

Worse, all are on the payrolls of private corporations who sell in the US and invest in China.

(DUH...DUH DUH DUH)

Why would Obama abjure costly wars in the unprofitable periphery and then practice the same military metaphysics at the dynamic center of the world economy?

Does he and his advisers believe he is the Second Coming of Admiral Commodore (Perry)whose 19th century warships opened Asia to Western trade?

(Western colonialism won't be repeated in Asia again, as it was in the 18th and 19th century by the European powers.....history doesn't always repeat itself)

Does he believe that military alliances will be the first stage to a subsequent period of privileged economic entry?

Does Obama believe that his regime can blockade China, as Washington did to Japan in the lead up to World War Two? It’s too late.

China is much more central to the world economy, too vital even to the financing of the US debt, too bonded up with the Forbes Five Hundred multi-national corporations.

To provoke China, to even fantasize about economic “exclusion” to bring down China, is to pursue policies which will totally disrupt the world economy and that means first and foremost the US economy!

Conclusion

Obama’s ‘crackpot realism’, his shift from wars in the Islamic world to military confrontation in Asia, has no intrinsic worth and extraordinary extrinsic costs. The military methods and economic goals are totally incompatible and beyond the capacity of the US, as it is currently constituted. Washington’s policies will not ‘weaken’ Russia or China, even less intimidate them. Instead it will encourage both to adopt more adversarial positions, making it less likely that they lend a hand to Obama’s sequential wars.

Already Russia has sent warships to its Syrian port, refused to support an arms embargo against Syria and Iran and (in retrospect) criticized the NATO war against Libya.

China and Russia have far too many strategic ties with the world economy to suffer any great losses from a series of US military outposts and “exclusive” alliances. Russia can aim just as many deadly nuclear missiles at the West as the US can mount from its bases in Eastern Europe.

In other words, Obama’s military escalation will not change the nuclear balance of power, but will bring Russia and China into a closer and deeper alliance. Gone are the days of Kissinger-Nixon’s “divide and conquer” strategy pitting US-Chinese trade agreements against Russian arms. Washington has a totally exaggerated significance of the current maritime spats between China and its neighbors. What unites them in economic terms is far more important in the medium and long-run.

China’s Asian economic ties will erode any tenuous military links to the US. Obama’s “crackpot realism”, views the world market through military lenses. Military arrogance toward Asia has led to a rupture with Pakistan its most compliant client regime in South Asia. NATO deliberately killed 24 soldiers and thumbed their nose at the Pakistan generals while China and Russia condemned the attack and gained influence.

In the end, the military and exclusionary posture to China will fail. Washington will overplay its hand and frighten its business oriented erstwhile Asian partners, who only want to play-off a US military presence to gain tactical economic advantage.

They certainly do not want a new US instigated ‘Cold War’ which divides and weakens dynamic intra-Asian trade and investment. Obama and his minions will quickly learn that Asia’s current leaders do not have permanent allies’ only permanent interests.

In the final analysis, China figures prominently in configuring a new Asia-centric world economy. Washington may claim to have a ‘permanent Pacific presence’ but until it demonstrates it can take care of “basic business at home”, like arranging its own finances and balancing its current account deficits, the US Naval command may end up renting its navy to Asian exporters and shippers, transporting goods between them, and protecting them by pursuing pirates, contra-bandits and narco-traffickers.

Come to think about it, Obama might eventually even lessen the US trade deficit with Asia by renting out the Seventh Fleet to patrol the Straits, instead of wasting US taxpayer money bullying successful Asian economic powers.

_______________________

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America. He writes a monthly column for the Mexican newspaper, Le Jornada, and previously, for the Spanish daily, El Mundo. He received his B.A. from Boston University and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.