Debunking the Spurious Iranian Nuclear Threat

by Stephen Lendman

The deviousness of American policy exposed


Most Syrian rebels are lodged in smaller cities, and, contrary to complaints and whining by the punditry—continuously aided by the warpushers in the West.

Previous articles debunked claims of Iran’s alleged nuclear threat. For months, major media scoundrels regurgitated official lies.  Yet at least since 2007, America’s annual intelligence assessment found none. Media reports ignored it. Suddenly old news is new news.

Quelle surprise! It’s now headlined. More on that below, and a review of past intelligence assessments. Previous articles explained them.

Why the change? Iran faces frequent false accusations. In recent months alone, they include the fake US Saudi assassination plot, being the world’s leading sponsor of terror, targeting Israeli officials in India, Georgia and Thailand, and, of course, claims about a nonexistent nuclear weapons program. They all fail the smell test.

Defusing Iran’s nuclear issue relates directly to Washington designating Syria target one. The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. Both countries are targeted for regime change.

Confronting enemies works best one at a time. If a pro-Western regime replaces Assad, Iran loses its key regional ally. Isolated, it’s more vulnerable.

Attacking both countries simultaneously means war on two fronts against militaries far from pushovers. Though no match for Washington or Israel’s nuclear arsenal, both can hit back hard enough to raise concerns in high places.

As a result, downplaying Iran’s nuclear issue for now plays into likely planned war on Syria. Daily events suggest it. So-called Friends of Syria urge it. Heated rhetoric practically demands it. Calls grow for involving foreign troops.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal openly called killing Syrians a “great idea.” Riyadh’s been actively involved in doing it for months along with Qatar, Turkey, Israel, and other rogue regional states.

Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of the Russian Natsionalnaya Oborona (National Defense) magazine told Russia Today:

“The armed opposition which rejects dialogue is responsible for escalating violence in Syria,” falsely blamed on Assad. He added that UK and other foreign forces in Syria are directly aiding insurgents. Yet “despite all these developments,” he said, “Damascus is still open for dialogue with the opposition.”

He also explained that unrest is mainly in small parts of the country, contrary to Western media reports. In fact, most Syrians support Assad, but spurious accounts suggest otherwise.

America’s Media Discover No Iranian Nuclear Threat

On February 24, The New York Times headlined, “US Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb,” saying:

America’s intelligence assessment finds “no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.” The CIA and 15 other US intelligence agencies concur: Iran has no known military related program. All along, Tehran denied one.

Repeatedly, Iranian leaders and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denied Iran seeks nuclear weapons. Most recently Khamenei called them “useless, harmful and dangerous.”

Western powers know “we are not seeking nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic of Iran considers possession of nuclear weapons a sin. (Iran) wants to prove to the world that possessing (them) does not bring power….”

US Intelligence Confirms It

On February 16, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the US Intelligence Community’s Worldwide Threat Assessment.

He found no evidence of an Iranian terror threat. He called “a mass attack by foreign terrorist groups involving a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapon in the United State unlikely in the next year.”

He discussed potential Iranian WMD threats, saying:

“We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons,” but no evidence suggests an ongoing program. “We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.” (It’s) technically feasible, but unlikely.”

At the same Senate meeting, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA director General David Petraeus, and Joint Chiefs head General Martin Dempsey concurred with Clapper. The alleged Iranian threat is entirely bogus.

Other high US, European and Israeli officials also believe Iran poses no threat, has no ongoing military nuclear program, and has no likely intention to initiate one. Claiming otherwise is spurious and inflammatory.

Experts have known it for years. So have major media scoundrels, but until now said otherwise, while at the same time, trying to have it both ways.

Another February 24 Times article headlined, “Atomic Agency Says Iran Is Making Fuel at Protected Site,” saying:

IAEA “inspectors reported on Friday that Iran was moving more rapidly to produce nuclear fuel than many outsiders expected, at a deep underground (Fordo) site….The report is likely to inflame the debate over whether Iran is nearing what Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, calls entering a ‘zone of immunity.’ “

According to National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor:

“….Iran’s actions demonstrate why (it) has failed to convince the international community that its nuclear program is peaceful.”

Fordo’s enriching uranium to 20% purity. Previous reports called it crossing the line toward developing nuclear weapons.

In fact, Iran uses a small reactor to produce medical isotopes that require 20% enrichment. On site IAEA cameras monitor operations. So do agency inspections. No evidence suggests diverting uranium for military purposes. Yet the canard’s frequently raised.

In its February 24 report, The Times agreed, saying the “claim appears to be true, at least in part.” In other words, the alleged full truth remains elusive.

“The fact that Iran is increasing production further has heightened suspicions in the West that it wants to stockpile the fuel in case it decides, in the future, to produce bomb-grade material. It would take relatively little additional work to get that fuel to the 90 percent purity needed for weapon fuel.”

Nothing, in fact, suggests it. Reporting it keeps the nuclear threat alive, when it has no credibility whatever based on years of intensive intelligence.

At the same time, multiple rounds of stiff sanctions remain in place, including an attempted oil embargo effective July 1. It affects crude oil, petroleum and petrochemical products, oil related business, equipment and technology, selling Tehran refined products, new investments, and dealing with its central bank.

A previous article said Europe’s shooting itself in foot by going along with Washington. The Obama administration’s done the same thing, based on how major purchasers reacted.

Important ones, wholly or in part, dismissed the sanctions, including Russia, China, India, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, and others. For its part, Iran can play the same game, and did by demanding complicit EU nations sign long-term agreements and guarantee payments. If not, Tehran won’t wait for July 1. It may immediately cut them off entirely.

At the same time, it’s no longer shipping oil to Britain and France, Europe’s two main bullies. They’re partnered with Washington’s worst crimes, including likely war on Syria.

Given world tensions, oil prices and Iran’s revenue keep rising. On Friday, Brent crude topped $125 a barrel and and US WTI approaches $110. As long as current conditions are uncertain, the trend remains up. For Iran, it’s not only pure profit, but as Progressive Radio News Hour regular Bob Chapman explains:

Iranian oil sanctions haven’t worked. The embargo’s “ridiculous. This has to be one of the most ill thought through schemes ever….Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. This has been a case of the Illuminists’ shooting themselves in both feet.”

Iranian crude buyers won’t bow to Washington, including on how they make payments. They’ll circumvent Tehran’s central bank sanctions by using multiple currencies, barter and gold. As a result, “Iran is breaking the hold on the petrodollar,” and weakening America in the process.

“Keeping Iran out of Swift Code for bank transfers is dumb.” Alternatives are easily found via China, Russia or India. Dollar strength will weaken more. Whoever dreamed up this scheme should be fired. Iran’s beating Washington at its own game. The longer it practices rogue politics, the more friends it finds won’t go along.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS! We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________



The Persecution of Judge Garzon

Exposing the Wounds of Military Fascism

by SAUL LANDAU

On September 11, 1973 (28 years before the World Trade Center-Pentagon attack), General Augusto Pinochet, leading a gang of treasonous officers, ordered Chilean air force jets to fire missiles at the Presidential Palace. By the end of the day Pinochet had seized power in a bloody, US-backed coup against the elected socialist government of Dr. Salvador Allende who died in the assault on the Palace.

In 1974, Pinochet ordered his secret police to assassinate his former boss, General Carlos Prats, Chile’s army chief, who lived in exile in Buenos Aires. A car bomb blew Prats and his wife six stories high.

In September 1975, another Pinochet foe and his wife got shot in Rome. Christian Democratic leader Bernardo Leighton survived but never fully recovered.

On September 21, 1976, Pinochet’s hit squad detonated a bomb placed under the car of Orlando Letelier, Allende’s last Defense Minister, exiled in Washington, D.C. The blast on Washington’s Embassy Row severed Letelier’s legs and also killed Ronni Moffitt, an American woman passenger and colleague of Letelier’s at the Institute for Policy Studies where both worked.

Two lead FBI agents investigating the case later affirmed publicly their certainty of Pinochet’s direct responsibility. Despite abundant proof of his guilt, successive Attorneys General did not indict him.

When he died in 2006 Pinochet faced 3,197 murder charges – number of proven assassinations; one of his accomplishments during his 17-year reign –1973-1990. (March 1991, Chilean Commission for Truth and Reconciliation)

In 1998, a smug and retired Pinochet, secure in the Amnesty he had granted himself and his fellow torturers and murders, traveled to England, visited his friend Margaret Thatcher, and then had back surgery. When he awoke from the anesthetic, a British policeman told him he was under arrest; a translator made sure he understood his rights.

Spanish Judge Baltazar Garzón signed the extradition order. Underlying this extraordinary arrest lay a groundwork of legal activity. When Spanish lawyer and former Allender adviser Juan Garces learned of Pinochet’s London trip, he convinced Judge Garzón, who had recently taken over the case, that sufficient evidence existed to ask British authorities to arrest Pinochet and request his extradition to stand trial in Spain and to freeze his assets so that his victims could receive some compensation. British authorities complied.

After 16 months in custody, validated by England’s highest Court, the British government maneuvered with Washington and Santiago to free Pinochet on the pretext of mental unfitness for trial.

Garzón proceeded to follow the Pinochet case with indictments and prosecution other foreign nationals like Argentine navy officer Adolfo Scilingo for crimes against humanity during that country’s dirty war (dates). He also pursued high-ranking human-rights abusers in Guatemala and in Guantánamo.

In Spain, as a National Court judge he also, in the 1980s, opened investigations into Spain’s own questionable procedures in its fight against Basque separatists. What got him into trouble, however, derived from his re-opening of crimes committed during Spain’s 1936-39 civil war and the years of dictatorship that ensued. Almost 115,000 people had disappeared during Franco’s fascist regime; thousands were assassinated – with impunity for the criminals.

Garzón’s reputation as human rights defender did not protect him from — and indeed may have contributed to — the wrath of right wing judges, with ties to the old Franco regime. Garzón “challenged the very nerve centers of right wing political power,” said Juan Garces, “by going after corruption among the elite of Spain’s right wing party.” He re-opened the issue of “impunity granted by the very people who collaborated with or approved of the kidnappings and murders.” (Netherlands radio interview)

In 2010, Garzón was indicted for criminal abuse of power. A panel of pro-Franco judges declared Garzón of guilty of exceeding legal authority because he ordered police to record conversations between suspects in prison and their lawyers. Garzón argued the taping emerged directly from the charges against those in custody and their attorneys: corruption, and suspicion that the lawyers did money-laundering for their clients.

The prosecutor called Garzón’s actions “monstrous” and Garzón “some kind of Big Brother who thinks he can listen to everything.”

After hearing the guilty verdict, Garzón said: “This sentence, lacking in juridical basis or supporting evidence, eliminates any possibility of investigating corruption and its associated crimes. Instead, it makes room for impunity and, in its fervor to impugn one particular judge, crushes the independence of the entire Spanish judiciary.”

Perhaps Judge Garzón recalled W.H. Auden’s thought on September 1, 1939 when Nazi troops invaded Poland and World War II began. The fascists in Germany and Italy had also supported Franco. “The unmentionable odor of death offends the September night.”  Chileans remember that odo9r from September, 1973 when fascists destroyed their democratically elected government and went on a killing-torture rampage.

Because of the work Garzón and fellow human rights activists, like Garces, some sense of basic justice was restored to people who survived the wounds of military fascism.  In 2006, Chilean judge Judge Juan Guzman ordered divers to search for evidence relating to missing bodies of Pinochet victims in Chile. Guzman accumulated evidence about the whereabouts of the 1200 “disappeared” people – euphemism for avoiding paper trails for murder. No arrest records. No corpse! No crime!

Then the divers found evidence of human remains. The families of the disappeared had proof: Pinochet’s thugs had murdered their loved ones. Garzón’s persecutors now want to hide the Franco era crimes by removing the withering rays of light that this brave judge had shined on the odoriferous deeds.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS! We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________



OpEds: The Coprophilic Party

By Branford Perry

And you thought the invasion of the body snatchers was fiction!


How tall are you, Private?

The Janusian party (1) that monopolizes American politics, in particular its Republican face, has mastered a colossal feat: the turning of Grade A excrement into things that look, talk and sound like regular politicians, to the delight of its clueless legions and the consternation of just about everyone else. This  is no World News wacky news; it’s been confirmed by renowned political scientists. In fact, when we look more closely into it, we discover that this achievement has not only yielded run-of-the-mill politicos, impressive as that would be, but leading figures capable of aspiring to the corporate throne itself.

Since the first mutant appeared on the scene with the emergence of Ronald Reagan in the 1970s the prototypes have been continuously perfected by the party puppet-masters until now, when barely a trace of the offending substance can be seen or smelled, and the creatures can only be told by their pronouncements, which invariably lead any reasonable person to conclude that their brains are full of shit.

Indeed, when you take even a quick inventory of what these amazing creatures are saying and doing, all doubt about their true DNA vanishes.  Their domestic policies are as simple as they’re unadulterated hypocritical shit. (They simply want to shit on the vast majority of Americans.) Their foreign policy, if we can call it that, jingoist to a fault, and compulsively warmongering and imperialist, is shit. Period. Their ecological posture of wanton denial toward the most urgent problems afflicting the globe and countless species (including our own) is excrement writ large. Shit, shit and more shit. Indeed, their whole environmental policy is guaranteed to turn the whole planet into one big cesspool, which is, after all, the natural home of all shit.

Their exteriors can be deceiving, of course. They range from the Ken and Barbie doll types like Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin, to the avuncular, but poisonous, Mike Huckabee.  Besides always giving the impression that he wears a suit one or two sizes too large, the rumpled Huckabee, who can spew shit and be a total suck-ass to the powerful like the rest of his ilk,  brings to mind what Gunny Sgt. Hartman (R. Lee Ermey) shouts at one of his rookie recruits in Kubrick’s classic Full Metal Jacket.  Observe:

 

HARTMAN

I am Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, your Senior Drill Instructor. From now on, you will speak only when spoken to, and the first and last words out of your filthy sewers will be “Sir!” Do you maggots understand that?

RECRUITS (in unison) 
Sir, yes, sir!
(The DI does his usual routine trying to instill the “fear of God” in the impressionable newbies. He whimsically renames each of the men, Pvt. Joker, Pvt. Snowball, Pvt. Cowboy, etc. One by one, Hartman does his best to humiliate the rookies. Below the pertinent repartee with Pvt. “Cowboy”.)

 HARTMAN

How tall are you, Private?

COWBOY Sir, five foot nine, sir!

HARTMAN Five foot nine? I didn’t know they stacked shit that high!
You trying to squeeze an inch in on me somewhere, huh?

COWBOY Sir, no, sir.

Now, how tall is Huckabee?  Five-ten?  Five-eleven? And I think Romney is six-foot-two.

Just imagine how amazed Stgt. Hartman would be.

(1) a.k.a. Uniparty, duopoly, Republicrats, Rethuglicans.

_________________________
ADDENDUM: You be the judge

Our proof that Huckabee is made of fecal matter

[The evidence is not hard to find, given how prolific the excrement people are, but the material below, excerpted from Newsmax.com’s INSIDER REPORT, which caters to coprophiliacs, should suffice.)

Huckabee: Americans Would Back Israeli Strike on Iran

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says the American people would definitely support an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities — but questions whether the Obama administration would back such a strike.
 
“I’m confident that there would be an overwhelming support from the American people,” the 2008 Republican presidential candidate told CBN News in Jerusalem on Monday.

“Whether the American administration would be as supportive, I don’t know.

“It’s one of those real concerns that many of us have — why the Obama administration hasn’t been stronger in its support for Israel in doing what it has to do.”

A bipartisan group of senators has passed a resolution declaring that it is unacceptable for Iran to obtain a nuclear capability.

“Now it’s been pretty clear, saying it’s unacceptable and all the options are on the table to keep Iran from having a nuclear device,” said Huckabee, who is hosting a tour of about 175 Americans in Israel.

“But it hasn’t been as clear as saying that should Israel [act] as a sovereign nation to protect itself and to preserve its own survival, if it takes the action, we will stand behind her and accept that.”

He added: “They’re not just doing Israel a favor. They’re doing a favor for the United States, but they’re also doing a favor for the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Kuwaitis, the people of Qatar and the [United Arab] Emirates. Everybody in the world is safer for Iran to be disengaged from nuclear capacity.”

Middle East expert Walid Phares said in a Newsmax.TV interview on Tuesday: “If the Iranian regime is very close to putting a weapon on a missile, then no questions asked, [the Israelis] are going to try to take action. They will try to coordinate with us or inform us at the end of the day.

“It has to do with the width of Israel. It has to do with Israel unaccepting the idea that they could absorb one strike.”

Many Israelis and Israel supporters abroad are concerned that if Obama wins re-election, he would no longer be motivated to court the Jewish vote and could turn against Israel, CBN News reported.

Referring to those concerns, Huckabee said that in a second Obama term, when the “political consequences” are behind him, Obama’s “true sentiments” might surface.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS! We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________



Infiltration to Disrupt, Divide and Misdirect Is Widespread in Occupy


A “V for Vendetta” mask, one of the symbols of the Occupy movement, adorns the statue of Maj. Gen. James B. McPherson on Feb. 1 in McPherson Square in Washington, where Occupy D.C. protesters camped.  AP / Carolyn Kaster

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, Truthdig

This is Part I of a two-part series on infiltration of Occupy and what the movement can do about limiting the damage of those who seek to destroy us from within. This first article describes public reports of infiltration as well as results of a survey and discussions with Occupiers about this important issue. The second article will examine the history of political infiltration and steps we can take to address it.

In the first five months, the Occupy movement has had major victories and has altered the debate about the economy. People in the power structure and who hold different political views are pushing back with a traditional tool—infiltration. Across the country, Occupies are struggling with disruption and division, attacks on key people, escalation of tactics to include property damage and police conflict as well as misuse of websites and social media.

As Part II of this discussion will show, infiltration is the norm in political movements in the United States. Occupy has many opponents likely to infiltrate to divide and destroy it beyond the usual law enforcement apparatus. Other detractors include the corporations whose rule Occupy seeks to end; conservative right wing groups allied with corporate interests; and members of the power structure including nonprofit organizations linked with corporate-funded political parties, especially the Democratic Party, which would like Occupy to be its tea party rather than an independent movement critical of both parties.

On the very first day of the Occupation of Wall Street, we saw infiltration by the police. We were leaving Zuccotti Park and were stopped in traffic. We saw the doors of an unmarked van open and in the front seat were two uniformed police. Out of the back came two men dressed as Occupiers wearing backpacks, sweatshirts and jeans. They walked into Zuccotti Park and became part of the crowd.

In the first week of the Occupation of Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., we saw the impact of two right wing infiltrators. A peaceful protest was planned at the drone exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution. The plan was for a banner drop and a die-in under the drones. But as protesters arrived at the museum, two people ran out in front, threatening the security guards and causing them to pepper spray protesters and tourists. Patrick Howley, an assistant editor at the American Spectator, wrote a column bragging about his role as an agent provocateur. A few days later we uncovered the second infiltrator, Michael Stack, when he was urging people on Freedom Plaza to resist police with force. We later learned he was from the Leadership Institute, which trains youth in right wing ideology and tactics. We were told he had also been at Occupy Wall Street provoking violence.

There have been a handful of other reports around the country of infiltration. In Oakland, CopWatch filmed an Oakland police officer infiltrating.

In another video, CopWatch includes audiotape of an Oakland police chief, Howard Jordan, talking about how police departments all over the country infiltrate, not just to monitor protesters but to manipulate and direct them.

There were also reports in Los Angeles of a dozen undercover police in the encampment before they were forcibly evicted by the police. The raid by the L.A. police was brutal and resulted in mass arrests, with most charges dropped, but with others mistreated in jails. Similar pre-raid undercover activities were reported in Nashville, Tenn.

Los Angeles also had infiltrators from the right wing group Free Republic. They posted on their Web page a call for infiltrators to block a vote concerning an offer from the city of Los Angeles for virtually free space for Occupy L.A.: “Need LA Freepers to show up to block this vote by the Occupy L.A. General Assembly. How brave are you?” In the end, the L.A. Occupy decided not to accept the offer from the city, something opposed by other elements in the encampment.

In New York, there were also reports of infiltration. For example, one protester described how undercover police infiltrated a demonstration at Citibank and were the loudest and most disruptive participants. Later at the station listening to the police, the protester said in an interview: “It was a bit startling how inside their information was, how they were being paid to go to these protests and put us in situations where we’d be arrested and not be able to leave.”

Survey and Interviews of Occupiers Show Common Tactics, Infiltrators

These scattered reports seem to be the tip of the iceberg. As a result of experiencing extreme divisive tactics and character assassination on Freedom Plaza, we began to hear from Occupiers across the country about similar incidents in their encampments. We decided to survey people about infiltration.

Recently we toured occupations on the West Coast, where we spoke to many participants and have attended General Assemblies at Occupy Wall Street and Philadelphia. We heard stories in Arizona of someone with website administrative privileges deleting the live stream archive that included video that was to be used in defense of some who were arrested. In Lancaster, Pa., someone took control of the email list, making it an announce-only list, and when the police threatened to close the camp, that person put out a statement that the Lancaster Occupiers had decided to go without any conflict. In fact, no such decision had been made and 30 Occupiers had planned to risk arrest when the police tried to remove them. The false email resulted in no resistance.

Our West Coast trip ended at the Occupy Olympia Solidarity Social Forum. We were able to survey 41 people representing 15 occupations primarily on the West Coast but including Missoula, Mont., and New Orleans. Participants were questioned about 10 behaviors. The most common behaviors, seen in roughly two-thirds of those surveyed and covering 12 of the 15 occupations, were:

1. Disruptions of the General Assemblies and attempts to divide the group. Individuals would interrupt General Assemblies with emergency items or sidetrack the agenda with their personal needs or issues. When proposals were presented to the General Assembly on principles for the occupation or plans to prevent division, individuals would question the authority of the writers of the proposal, launch personal attacks or question their abilities. There were frequent attacks on people who did the most work and were perceived as leaders. The anti-leadership views of many Occupiers were used to essentially attack the most effective people. Sue Basko wrote about this in Los Angeles in a comment on a Chris Hedges article, writing that there was an “ongoing campaign of harassment and coercion against the Occupy L.A. participants and volunteers. Each day is a fresh set of victims.” She describes the use of Twitter, Listservs and blogs to “defame and harass anyone giving their efforts to help Occupy L.A.” This has included attacks on “social media workers, the website team, the lawyers (including me), the medics, the live streamers, the writers and on and on.” She also writes that “there is the very strong belief that some among them are FBI or DHS [Department of Homeland Security] agents placed there to start the group, egg it on, control it.” Conversations with others in Los Angeles confirmed this report. Our experience in the area of personal attacks included outlandish lies calling us criminals and thieves and near daily email attacks since early December. We found that when we respond and correct lies, it does not stop them and have concluded that if someone has the intention to be a character assassin there is nothing you can do except expose them. Although that does not necessarily stop them, it at least gets those in the occupation who are not gullible to doubt the undocumented personal attacks.

2. Individuals who took over the website and/or social media and then removed them or hacked them and took control. As noted above, these networks have been used in personal attacks, as well as to send inaccurate messages to the media and other Occupiers. One mistake made is to allow a large number of people to have administrative privileges on the website. Being an administrator allows people to erase crucial information as occurred in Phoenix. In Washington, D.C., we have been removed as administrators of a Facebook page we created because we allowed people who turned out to be untrustworthy to have administrative privileges. People can blog or post to Facebook or websites without being administrators.

Division over how money was being spent was an issue reported by 50 percent of respondents, and in 12 out of 15 occupations, individuals persistently questioned transparency and use of funds. In General Assemblies in New York and Philadelphia, we saw disruption by people who complained about money issues. In New York, an argument about access to free MetroCards resulted in a 30 minute argument. In Philadelphia, it was a vague complaint about “where is the money?” We saw something similar at a 99 percent’s meeting in San Francisco where one of the questioners complained about missing money. And, we have seen the same in Washington, D.C., with false accusations of missing money. Sometimes these disruptors seem like homeless or emotionally disturbed individuals. They could be acting out their concerns or they could be encouraged by police to attend meetings to cause disruption and may be paid a small amount to do so. Whether paid or not, the impact is the same—it takes the Occupy off of its political agenda and turns people off to participating in the movement.

Finally, the issue of escalation of tactics to include property damage and conflict with police was brought up. The euphemism for this is “diversity of tactics.” In fact, there is great diversity within nonviolent tactics. This is really a debate between those who favor strategic nonviolence and those who favor property destruction and police conflict. In 11 of 15 occupations, there were reports of verbal attacks on police and/or escalation of tactics from nonviolence to property destruction or violence. In one occupation, an individual took over the direct action working group and escalated the tactics used beyond what the group had agreed upon. In another Occupy, the General Assembly approved putting up a structure but agreed that if the police wanted it taken down the protesters would promptly do so to prove that it was temporary. After the structure was put up, a handful of people refused to take it down causing a 10 hour police conflict and undermining public support for the Occupy. In another occupation, because a minority of the demonstrators refused to adopt nonviolent strategies, a protest with the teachers union was canceled preventing a major opportunity to expand the movement. When it comes to the issue of violence versus property damage, it is particularly hard to tell whether the differences are political or instigated by infiltrators.

Participants were asked about attempts at co-optation by law enforcement, individuals or organizations affiliated with the Democratic Party and about suspected infiltration by right wing groups. Eight of the 15 occupations (41 percent of respondents) reported Democratic groups attempted to co-opt them, using the demonstrations to push or prevent a legislative agenda or using their social media to change the times of protests or meetings. Far fewer reported suspicion or evidence of right wing infiltration (12 percent of respondents in four occupations), most stating that the corporate media provided poor or misleading coverage. The most common form of infiltration was by law enforcement agencies (49 percent of respondents, 11 of 15 occupations). Some respondents reported having video evidence; some reported law enforcement officers having more information than they had been given—such as police using names of Occupiers when names had never been provided; and some suspected police infiltration but had no proof.

Of course, there is a lot of suspicion, but people are rarely able to prove infiltration. These incidents could be people with real political disagreement within the Occupy, or they could be people who are emotionally disturbed, mentally ill or who bring other personal challenges with them. Or, it could be an infiltrator manipulating these people, playing on their fears and prejudices. This is not a simple issue, as we will discuss in Part II. It is best to judge people by their actions and not label them as infiltrators without direct proof.

Some may wonder why Democrats or groups closely affiliated with the Democrats, such as MoveOn.org, Campaign for America’s Future, Rebuild the Dream or unions like the SEIU, would want to infiltrate the Occupy (note: Individuals who are Democrats or members of a union, MoveOn or other groups are not the same as the leadership). Essentially, leaders of these groups see Occupy as the Democrats’ potential answer to the tea party. Occupiers do not see themselves that way, but these groups want the movement to adopt their strategy of working within the Democratic Party. In one example, Eric Lotke, a senior policy analyst for SEIU who has been involved in Occupy D.C., appeared on a radio show with two other Occupiers from the Washington, D.C., and Oakland demonstrations. Lotke said he was speaking as an Occupier from D.C. and talked about “taking back Congress in 2012,” the need for an electoral strategy and gave the usual Democratic rhetoric about Obama needing more time. The two other guests said Lotke was completely out of step with most Occupiers, who say we should not focus on electoral politics but instead should build an independent movement to challenge the corrupt system. We doubt the Occupy D.C. General Assembly members agreed with Lotke’s pro-Democratic Party, pro-Obama views but he had positioned himself to speak for them. Van Jones of Rebuild the Dream similarly was appearing in the media as if he were an Occupy spokesperson, claiming there will be 2,000 “99 percent candidates” in 2012, again trying to push Occupy into Democratic electoral politics. These are just two examples of many Democratic Party operatives trying to drag Occupy into their politics despite the movement consistently describing itself as independent and non-electoral.

We have seen some Occupiers attacking the National Occupation of Washington, DC, scheduled to begin March 30, while other Occupiers have shown enthusiasm for it. Solidarity with NOW DC has been shown by 19 General Assemblies of occupations around the country. InterOccupy classifies it as a national event. The attackers have been criticizing NOW DC by finding fault with the authors of this article. This criticism is occurring at the same time that Democratic Party-aligned groups have announced their own project—“99%’s Spring”—that will take place at the same time as NOW DC. Thus far the dividers have succeeded in preventing solidarity between the two D.C. occupations and the rest of the Occupy movement. Is the timing a coincidence?

No doubt the information in this article is incomplete. We have been able to survey and talk with people at only about 20 Occupies. We would very much like to hear from others about experiences at their occupation, as understanding these tactics is the first step in confronting and addressing them. (Send your comments to research@october2011.org.)

In Part II of this series, we will focus on the history of government infiltration and the destruction of political movements and political leaders. We will also examine steps that can be taken to minimize the damage from these tactics. One thing evident from the history: Infiltration has been common in political movements for centuries as have divisive methods, attacks on leaders, escalation of tactics, fights over money and misinformation disseminated to the public.

Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese were among the original organizers of Occupy Washington, DC, and are now helping with the National Occupation of Washington, DC.

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS! We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________



The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science — and Reality

By Chris Mooney


Early indication of what was to come?

This essay is adapted from Chris Mooney’s forthcoming book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality, due out in April from Wiley.

I can still remember when I first realized how naïve I was in thinking—hoping—that laying out the “facts” would suffice to change politicized minds, and especially Republican ones. It was a typically wonkish, liberal revelation: One based on statistics and data. Only this time, the data were showing, rather awkwardly, that people ignore data and evidence—and often, knowledge and education only make the problem worse.

Someone had sent me a 2008 Pew report documenting the intense partisan divide in the U.S. over the reality of global warming.. It’s a divide that, maddeningly for scientists, has shown a paradoxical tendency to widen even as the basic facts about global warming have become more firmly established.

Those facts are these: Humans, since the industrial revolution, have been burning more and more fossil fuels to power their societies, and this has led to a steady accumulation of greenhouse gases, and especially carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. At this point, very simple physics takes over, and you are pretty much doomed, by what scientists refer to as the “radiative” properties of carbon dioxide molecules (which trap infrared heat radiation that would otherwise escape to space), to have a warming planet. Since about 1995, scientists have not only confirmed that this warming is taking place, but have also grown confident that it has, like the gun in a murder mystery, our fingerprint on it. Natural fluctuations, although they exist, can’t explain what we’re seeing. The only reasonable verdict is that humans did it, in the atmosphere, with their cars and their smokestacks.

Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science—among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.

This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the “smart idiots” effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It’s a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists—and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.

And most of all, for many liberals.

Let’s face it: We liberals and progressives are absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about “death panels.” People seriously thinking that President Obama is a Muslim, not born in the United States. Climate-change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can’t comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist.

No less than President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren (a man whom I greatly admire, but disagree with in this instance) has stated, when asked how to get Republicans in Congress to accept our mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, that it’s an “education problem.”

But the facts, the scientific data, say otherwise.

Indeed, the rapidly growing social scientific literature on the resistance to global warming (see for examples here and here) says so pretty unequivocally. Again and again, Republicans or conservatives who say they know more about the topic, or are more educated, are shown to be more in denial, and often more sure of themselves as well—and are confident they don’t need any more information on the issue.

Tea Party members appear to be the worst of all. In a recent survey by Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, they rejected the science of global warming even more strongly than average Republicans did. For instance, considerably more Tea Party members than Republicans incorrectly thought there was a lot of scientific disagreement about global warming (69 percent to 56 percent). Most strikingly, the Tea Party members were very sure of themselves—they considered themselves “very well-informed” about global warming and were more likely than other groups to say they “do not need any more information” to make up their minds on the issue.

But it’s not just global warming where the “smart idiot” effect occurs. It also emerges on nonscientific but factually contested issues, like the claim that President Obama is a Muslim. Belief in this falsehood actually increased more among better-educated Republicans from 2009 to 2010 than it did among less-educated Republicans, according to research by George Washington University political scientist John Sides.

The same effect has also been captured in relation to the myth that the healthcare reform bill empowered government “death panels.” According to research by Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan, Republicans who thought they knew more about the Obama healthcare plan were “paradoxically more likely to endorse the misperception than those who did not.” Well-informed Democrats were the opposite—quite certain there were no “death panels” in the bill.

The Democrats also happened to be right, by the way.

The idealistic, liberal, Enlightenment notion that knowledge will save us, or unite us, was even put to a scientific test last year—and it failed badly.

their study, more than 1,500 randomly selected Americans were asked about their political worldviews and their opinions about how dangerous global warming and nuclear power are. But that’s not all: They were also asked standard questions to determine their degree of scientific literacy (e.g, “Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria—true or false?”) as well as their numeracy or capacity for mathematical reasoning (e.g., “If Person A’s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in 10 years, and person B’s risk is double that of A, what is B’s risk?”).

The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.

Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate science—e.g., a political conservative or “hierarchical-individualist”—then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other group—“egalitarian-communitarians” or liberals—who tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate change—which, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls.

So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning.

What accounts for the “smart idiot” effect?

For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what they’re supposed to think about the issues—what people like them think—and to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. They’ve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, they’ve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain “facts” or claims, and their deeply held political values. And they’re ready to argue.

What this suggests, critically, is that sophisticated conservatives may be very different from unsophisticated or less-informed ones. Paradoxically, we would expect less informed conservatives to be easier to persuade, and more responsive to new and challenging information.

In fact, there is even research suggesting that the most rigid and inflexible breed of conservatives—so-called authoritarians—do not really become their ideological selves until they actually learn something about politics first. A kind of “authoritarian activation” needs to occur, and it happens through the development of political “expertise.” Consuming a lot of political information seems to help authoritarians feel who they are—whereupon they become more accepting of inequality, more dogmatically traditionalist, and more resistant to change.

So now the big question: Are liberals also “smart idiots”?

There’s no doubt that more knowledge—or more political engagement—can produce more bias on either side of the aisle. That’s because it forges a stronger bond between our emotions and identities on the one hand, and a particular body of facts on the other.

Old Enlightenment reason.” They really do seem to like facts; it seems to be part of who they are. And fascinatingly, in Kahan’s study liberals did not act like smart idiots when the question posed was about the safety of nuclear power.

more worried, overall, about the risks of nuclear power. Rather, they moved in the opposite direction from where these initial impulses would have taken them. They become less worried—and, I might add, closer to the opinion of the scientific community on the matter.

You may or may not support nuclear power personally, but let’s face it: This is not the “smart idiot” effect. It looks a lot more like open-mindedness.

What does all of this mean?

forthcoming book. An overall result is definitely that liberals tend to be more flexible and open to new ideas—so that’s a possible factor lying behind these data. In fact, recent evidence suggests that wanting to explore the world and try new things, as opposed to viewing the world as threatening, may subtly push people towards liberal ideologies (and vice versa).

Politically and strategically, meanwhile, the evidence presented here leaves liberals and progressives in a rather awkward situation. We like evidence—but evidence also suggests that politics doesn’t work in the way we want it to work, or think it should. We may be the children of the Enlightenment—convinced that you need good facts to make good policies—but that doesn’t mean this is equally true for all of humanity, or that it is as true of our political opponents as it is of us.

Nevertheless, this knowledge ought to be welcomed, for it offers a learning opportunity and, frankly, a better way of understanding politics and our opponents alike. For instance, it can help us see through the scientific-sounding arguments of someone like Rick Santorum, who has been talking a lot about climate science lately—if only in order to bash it.

On global warming, Santorum definitely has an argument, and he has “facts” to cite. And he is obviously intelligent and capable—but not, apparently, able to see past his ideological biases. Santorum’s argument ultimately comes down to a dismissal of climate science and climate scientists, and even the embrace of a conspiracy theory, one in which the scientists of the world are conspiring to subvert economic growth (yeah, right).

Viewing all this as an ideologically defensive maneuver not only explains a lot, it helps us realize that refuting Santorum probably serves little purpose. He’d just come up with another argument and response, probably even cleverer than the last, and certainly just as appealing to his audience. We’d be much better concentrating our energies elsewhere, where people are more persuadable.

A more scientific understanding of persuasion, then, should not be seen as threatening. It’s actually an opportunity to do better—to be more effective and politically successful.

Chris Mooney is the author of four books, including “The Republican War on Science” (2005). His next book, “The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality,” is due out in April.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS! We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________