OPEDS | JAMES PETRAS

Both the Right and Left have failed to grasp the contradiction that defines US political life: Namely, the profound gap between the American public and the Washington elite on questions of war and peace within an electoral process that consistently leads to more militarism.

This is an analysis of the most recent US public opinion polls with regard to outcome of the recent elections. The essay concludes with a discussion of the deep-seated contradictions and proposes several ways in which these contradictions can be resolved.

Method

A major survey of public opinion, sponsored by the Charles Koch Institute and the Center for the National Interest, conducted by the Survey Sampling International, interviewed a sample of one thousand respondents.

The Results: War or Peace

More than half of the American public oppose any increase is the US military role overseas while only 25% back military expansion.

The public has expressed its disillusionment over Obama’s foreign policy, especially his new military commitments in the Middle East, which have been heavily promoted by the state of Israel and its US domestic Zionist lobby.

The US public shows a deep historical memory with regard to the past military debacles launched by Presidents Bush and Obama. Over half of the public (51%) believe that the US has become less safe over the past 15 years (2001-2015), while one eighth (13%) feel they are more secure.

In the present period, over half of the public opposes the deployment of ground troops to Syria and Yemen and only 10% favor continued US support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

With regard to specific US wars, over half believe that Bush’s invasion of Iraq made the US homeland less secure, while only 25% believe it didn’t increase or decrease domestic security. Similar responses were expressed with regard to Afghanistan: 42% believe the Afghan War increased insecurity and about a third (34%) felt it did not affect US security.

In terms of future perspectives, three quarters (75%) of the American public want the next President to focus less on the US military operations abroad or are uncertain about its role. Only 37% are in favor of increased spending for the military.

The mass media and the powerful financial backers of the Democratic Presidential candidate have focused on demonizing Russia and China as ‘the greatest threats in our time’. In contrast, almost two thirds (63.4%) of Americans believe the greatest threat comes from terrorism both foreign and domestic. Only 18% view Russia and China as major threats to their security.

In regard to the Pentagon, 56% want to reduce or freeze current military spending while only 37% want to increase it.

Wars and Peace: The Political Elites

Contrary to the views of a majority of the public, the last four US Presidents, since the 1990’s, have increased the military budget, sending hundreds of thousands of US troops to launch wars in three Middle Eastern countries, while promoting bloody civil wars in three North African and two European countries. Despite public opinion majorities, who believe that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have increased threats to the US security, Obama kept ground troops, air and sea forces and drone operations in those countries. Despite only 10% public approval for his military policies, the Obama regime has sent arms, advisors and Special Forces to support the Saudi dictatorship’s invasion of tiny Yemen.

Obama and the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pushed a policy of encircling Russia and demonizing its President Putin as the greatest threat to the US in contrast to US opinion, which considers the threat of Islamist terrorism as five times more serious.

The mass media and the powerful financial backers of the Democratic Presidential candidate have focused on demonizing Russia and China as ‘the greatest threats in our time’. In contrast, almost two thirds (63.4%) of Americans believe the greatest threat comes from terrorism both foreign and domestic. Only 18% view Russia and China as major threats to their security.

While the political elite and the leading Presidential candidates promise to expand the number of US troops abroad and increase military spending, over three quarters of the American public oppose or are uncertain about expanding US militarism.

While candidate Clinton campaigned for the deployment of the US Air Force jets and missiles to police a ‘no fly zone’ in Syria, even shooting down Syrian and Russian government planes, the majority of US public opposed it by 51%.

In terms of constitutional law, fully four-fifths (80%) of the US public believes the President must secure Congressional approval for additional military action abroad. Nevertheless, Presidents from both parties, Bush and Obama launched wars without Congressional approval, creating a precedent which the next president is likely to exploit.

Analysis and Perspectives

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n all major foreign policy issues related to waging war abroad, the political elite is far more bellicose than the US public; they are far more likely to ignite wars that ultimately threaten domestic security; they are more likely to violate the Constitutional provisions on the declaration of war; and they are committed to increasing military spending even at the risk of defunding vital domestic social programs. [Actually they do that routinely and programmatically, a reflection of their class priorities.—Editor)

The political elites are more likely to intervene in wars in the Middle East, without domestic support and even in spite of majoritarian popular opposition to war. No doubt the executives of the oligarchical military-industrial complex, the pro-Israel power configuration and the mass media moguls are far more influential than the pro-democracy public.

The future portends a continuation of militarism by the political elites, and increase in domestic security threats and even less public representation.

Some Hypothesis on the Contradiction between Popular Opinion and Electoral Outcomes

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]here is clearly a substantial gap between the majority of Americans and the political elite regarding the role of the military in overseas wars, the undermining of constitutional prerogatives, the demonization of Russia, the deployment of US troops to Syria and deeper US entanglement in Middle East wars for the benefit of Israel.

Yet it is also a fact that the US electorate continue to vote for the two major political parties which have consistently supported wars, formed military alliances with warring Middle East states, especially Saudi Arabia and Israel and aggressively sanctioned Russia as the main threat to US security.

Several hypotheses regarding this contradiction should be considered:

2. The fact that the mass media vehemently supports one or the other of the two war parties probably influences a minority of the electorate who decide to actually participate in the elections. However, critics have exaggerated the mass media’s influence and fail to explain why the majority of the American public disagree with the mass media and oppose the militarist propaganda.

3. Many Americans, while opposed to militarism, vote for the ‘lesser evil’ between the two war parties. They may believe that there are greater and lesser ‘degrees’ of war mongering and choose the less strident.

4. Americans, who consistently oppose militarism, may decide to vote for militarist politicians for reasons besides those of overseas wars. For example, majoritarian Americans may support a militarist politician who has secured funding for local infrastructure programs, or protected farm and dairy subsidies, or who promises jobs programs, lowers public debt or opposes corrupt incumbents.

5. Americans, opposed to militarism, may be deceived by the pronouncements of a demagogic presidential candidate from one of the war parties, whose promise of peace will give way to escalating wars.

6. Likewise, the emphasis on ‘identity politics’ can deceive anti-war voters into supporting a proven militarist because of issues related to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preferences or loyalties to overseas states.

7. The war parties work together to block mass media access for anti-militarist parties, especially preventing their participation in national electoral debates viewed by tens of millions of voters. War parties collude to set impossible restrictions against anti-militarist party participation in national level elections, banning citizens with non-violent police records or former convicts who have served their sentences from voting. They reject poor citizens who lack photo identification, limit access to transport to voting sites, limit the number of polling places in poor or minority neighborhoods and deny time-off for workers to vote. Unlike other countries, US elections are held on a work day and many workers are unable to vote.

In other words the electoral process is ‘rigged’ and imposes ‘forced voting’ and abstention: Collusion between the two war parties limits voter choice to abstention or casting a ballot for the ‘lesser evil’ among the militarists.

Only if elections were open and democratic, where anti-militarist parties were allowed equal rights to register, participate and debate in the mass media, and where campaign financing were made equal would the contradictions between the wishes of the anti-militarist majorities and votes cast for pro-war elites be resolved.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

James Petras (born c. 1930s) is a retired Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York and adjunct professor at Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada who has published on Latin American and Middle Eastern political issues.  Petras was a founding member of the Young Socialist Alliance and early articles by him appeared in the The Young Socialist in 1959 and 1960. He's listed as the Bay Area correspondent for the paper for several issues.^[6] He has a long history of commitment to social justice, through the decades Petras has worked directly with indigenous workers as an organizer, in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement and the unemployed workers' movement in Argentina. He has advised left-wing presidents like President Andreas Papandreou (Greece 1981-84),^[7] President Salvador Allende of Chile (1970–73) and in recent years, President Hugo Chávez, and defended the rights of the indigenous in Latin America. From 1973-76 Petras worked on the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America.^[1]

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

What will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Please see our red registration box at the bottom of this page

[Graphic: Historical cartoon. From WCHS History online.]

=By= Joseph Waters

The first thing that comes to mind is a sense of déjà vu that we’ve all been through something remarkably similar to this before – like in 2008. Now we get to experience hope and change Republican-style. Eight years ago the liberals were euphoric while conservatives were fuming; now we have the reverse situation.

Myth #1: Trump isn’t really Republican – To which I reply: Did he run as a Republican? Yes? Then he’s a Republican. That was easy. Let’s move on.

Myth #2: Trump is anti-establishment – This shows an incredible degree of political ignorance. In the American mind, there is a “political class” and “media class” and a multitude of other communities, groups, special interests, genders, minorities, etc., etc., that are seen and treated as distinct, apart, and often at odds with one another. One group that is singled out for extraordinary persecution is the lowly businessman. You see, big government, those fat cat politicians and union bosses, enrich themselves at the expense of the humble businessman simply trying to make an honest buck to scrape by while providing for his children (and employees). The reality, of course, is that the big businessman (like Trump) and the big government politicos are old pals – they are even the same people. They are part of the same group, the same ruling class. In a similar way, in medieval times, if you took a superficial look at European feudal society you might conclude that there was an aristocratic class and an ecclesiastical class, when in reality they were part of a single ruling class; according to the feudal law of primogeniture, the first-born son would inherit the entire estate while the second sons would often enter the priesthood.

At any rate, Trump has been involved in politics before. He has funded and lobbied politicians and participated in propaganda and political operations; now he has just decided to become a politician for a short while. He has apparently flirted with the idea of running for president since the 80’s. Many capitalists do this and then go back to the so-called private sector; they may go back and forth because it can be boring just doing the same thing all the time. Regardless, the private businessman will engage in political activism through lobbying, running an NGO, and assisting the CIA in their covert operations (including espionage, propaganda, economic sanctions, assassination, coups, etc.) by providing funding, technical expertise and agent cover through their corporations. The point is: There is no wall dividing up the private and public sectors. All those ruling class members are in the same club, they play for the same team and they are cut from the same cloth. Even the playboys and jet-setters are expected to kick in once in a while and assist in ensuring that their class, the ruling class, remains the ruling class.

Myth #3: The system works. The people have spoken! – The power elite of the ruling class outflanked a lot of us with this caper. By appointing Trump president they were able to show the world that democracy and pluralism work. They were able to make a liar out of all of us, including Julian Assange of Wikileaks who proclaimed that “Trump would not be allowed to win.” I believe it is quite possible the power elite (through the CIA) decided it was wiser to let the under(funded)dog win since over 90% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money. Hillary raised over twice as much money as Trump did. The message is that big money cannot always have its way and the little guy is beginning to assert some control over the government. Just keep voting and everything will be fine. The system works. Our democracy is safe and sound. On the contrary, the vote very likely was rigged in favor of Donald Trump according to investigative journalist Greg Palast and professor Mark Crispin Miller, who has studied voter suppression and election fraud tactics. According to Dr. Miller, when the exit polls differ widely from the election outcome, this is not likely to be evidence of bad polling methods, but rather proof that the vote tallies were tampered with. My own feeling is that when it comes to a question between whether the elites and their agents are mistaken or incompetent or whether they are corrupt and duplicitous, I think that without compelling evidence to the contrary, it is safer to assume the latter possibility.

Unfortunately, in their analyses these two gentlemen seem to lean toward the ridiculous notion that the mean ol’ Republicans are stealing elections from the timid and perpetually bullied Democrats. The two parties may represent different factions in the capitalist one-party state, but they certainly seem to collude (especially toward the top) a lot more than they compete. For instance, how often have you heard a politico refer to his or her “friends across the aisle?” When they are no longer in front of the cameras, they go back to being quite chummy.

I speculate that the CIA is deeply embedded within the DNC and GOP and allows the two parties to vie for its affection and may tip the balance for one or the other if it has a clear preference. Actually, we should probably have seen this coming. For one thing, following the pattern of the last few decades, it is the Republican party’s turn to represent the capitalist ruling class in government. Also, as indicated earlier, a Trump “win” turned out to be the best mechanism for keeping the masses fired up and most starkly divided. If Hillary had won, then you would have outraged conservatives with a lukewarm, perhaps relatively content batch of liberals and everyone else. Due to the fixed outcome for Trump, again, you have euphoric conservatives and irate liberals; it’s a win-win!

Myth #4: The (liberal) media favored Hillary. – The teenage daughter that is the American people succumbed to reverse psychology and ran into the arms of the bad boy Donald Trump. Trump received over $5 billion in free advertising from the MSM during his campaign according to Lee Camp of Redacted Tonight (twice as much as Clinton). Trump got 23x as much coverage as Bernie Sanders, by the way. In fact, if you tally up the value of free advertising Trump received (remembering that there is no such thing as bad publicity – especially when it comes to Trump) the maxim remains true that the candidate with the most money wins!

Myth #5: Trump will end all the wars and imperialist aggression! – I see no evidence for this beyond Trump’s rhetoric. The important question to ask is why Trump and his supporters are against foreign wars. The why is very, very important in determining how likely it is that the US will turn away from its quest for global domination. The answer to the question “why” seems to be that the wars are “stupid” or “too expensive.” I for one do not find this to be reassuring; this is not a very moral, progressive or principled stance to take. All that is needed is another Gulf of Tonkin or 9/11 type provocation or false flag attack and, well, President Trump’s hands will be tied; he will have to act to defend America!

Having dealt with several Trump myths, I would like to make a few more observations. The conflation by the media of the far left with the far right and all manifestations of “extremism” has been with us for a long time, but now Trump has become the “pied piper” for all these folks. The ruling class strategists have painted these contrasting ideologies with the same wide brush. Once it was forbidden to speak of the working class because of the Marxist connotations of the term, but now the media propagandists are happy to talk about a white working class in the context of how reactionary they are claimed to be. Sadly, there is some truth to this because the white working class has been reared to be white supremacist; this is enormously helpful for purposes of divide and rule. The bourgeois ruling class would love to encourage and exacerbate this racial division.

Also, I think there is another dangerous and disturbing possibility that we must consider, and it is that the Trump rapprochement with Russia could be a CIA/ruling class ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and China – that powerful alliance is the greatest threat to their plans for global domination.

Finally, in a bizarre twist, many supposed leftists are proclaiming a victory for the people with this Trumpocalypse. This is a strange and dangerous development and has no basis in reality. I really hope I’m wrong and that Trump stops the wars and defies the ruling class in its quest for world domination, but I’m not at all optimistic about that eventuality. We need to keep asking questions, retain a healthy skepticism, apply a Marxist analysis to events and not get suckered by a massive CIA propaganda/psyop/political operation.

Joseph Waters is a highly respected political activist. He operates the blog, Proletarian Center for Research, Education and Culture (Prole Center).

Hillary with Donald and his oldest sons. Old friends?

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

[World socialist flag by Frankoko.]

Andre Vltchek – from Moscow
Itinerant Philosopher and Journalist

People all over the world are fed up with capitalism. They don’t always know how to formulate their aversions anymore (the result of a confusing ‘education’ and disinformation campaign pouring out of the West), but intuitively they are increasingly longing for socialism or even Communism; definitely for some humane, compassionate system based on social justice, kindness and anti-imperialist principles.

Such sentiments are everywhere, in countries as diverse as the Philippines and Bolivia, South Africa and Kirgizstan.

The rulers and propagandists in the West are well aware of this ‘dangerous trend’, and they are trying to reverse it with increasing determination – even with brutal force.

In the past, they used to simply try to fully ideologically discredit all socialist and Communist thoughts. Billions of dollars were spent on propaganda and disinformation, on ‘re-education’ of the masses in all corners of the globe, on targeted scholarships and tactics aimed at dividing the Left. This approach was successful, but only to a certain degree. All over the world, the leftist revolutionary ideas would lose some ground for a while, but then they would re-emerge again, often under some new labels and banners.

Lately, the Empire has begun changing its strategy. Instead of trying to contain its main adversaries, it has decided to exterminate them ‘intellectually’ once and for all. And how better to do it than by what it always does the best – by spreading confusion, nihilism and chaos!

*

Instead of attacking socialism and Communism directly, the Empire has begun its massive campaign to discredit most of the countries that are being governed by left-wing governments and movements. This is of course by itself nothing new. What is ‘innovative’ is that this time Western propaganda has actually began arguing that the anti-imperialist countries are essentially not left wing at all, that they are more capitalist than the West itself, that they are ‘anti-people’, and sometimes even fascist.

New derogatory and thoroughly grotesque terms like ‘state capitalism’ have been invented and put to destructive work. These terms have then been repeated so often that they have become normalized, and eventually been adopted by the Western ‘soft left’, the liberal media and academia, as well as by the countless ‘progressive’ but anti-Communist movements – including anarchists.

While I was told by some of the greatest revolutionary figures like Eduardo Galeano and Pramoedya Ananta Toer, that it is time for ‘un-dusting the old flags and symbols’ (and they were clearly talking about the socialist and Communist ones), the Western official propaganda and much of the Western ‘left’ were busy spreading their vitriolic but contagious doctrines that ‘the labels’ should be once and for all declared obsolete. “I don’t want to be part of any political party or any movement”, one hears increasingly from millions of couch and cafe revolutionaries in cities like London or Paris. “I don’t like to be labeled”. Or typically so in those places: “I have my own mind”.

Except where there are no structures, no strong organization, no labels or flags, there can be no true victory.

But who cares about victory? Soon it became clear that the ‘progressive’ Western ‘opposition’ was not truly seeking to take power or to implement real revolutionary changes. It wanted to ‘improve things at home’, instead of abolishing the entire monstrous world order. It felt cozy and comfortable being a toothless discussion club, hating everything that was truly fighting, risking life while trying to stop imperialism and the Empire from devouring the Planet.

Thus was born the grand quiet alliance of the Western establishment (the Empire), the liberals and of those undefined (or of loosely defined) movements like the anarchists. It was directly antagonistic to almost all the countries where the Left was by now holding power. It ‘distrusted’ leading revolutionary figures. Needless to say – the criticism of the world revolutions has been based strictly on Western liberal values and doctrines.

Those countries that decided to face the Western Empire were generally labeled as un-democratic, as being arch violators of human rights. Socialist nations became the main target of the propaganda. Their every move has been scrutinized, each error blown out of proportion. Grotesquely, the West was, as mentioned above, now criticizing them for ‘not being socialist enough, or socialist at all’. It is because the demagogues in London, New York and Paris knew perfectly well that socialism, even Communism, is once again, for many people all over the world a great asset, not liability.

In the meantime, millions of ‘purists’ from the pseudo-Left in the West got engaged in endless and pointless theoretical debates about what was or not true socialism and Communism.

“Is socialism, the Chinese way, truly socialism?” they are repeating, like parrots, all over Europe and North America. “Is Russia socialist at all, or is it governed by a strongman and by a bunch of selfish oligarchs?” And of course: “How socialist are countries like Iran or South Africa?”

The verdict of the purists is always extremely stern. Almost nobody manages to survive the scrutiny! The purists in the West don’t hold power, and it is apparent that they don’t really want to. They bark. They philosophize. They throw sticks into the wheels of those who are truly and determinedly fighting for a better world. They ridicule the revolutions and any powerful left-leaning state.

Victorious and actively militant anti-imperialist governments and nations make them feel irrelevant, obsolete, embarrassing.

And the Empire knows it. It understands. It uses the soft Western left against the arch socialist and Communist enemies.

It is using soft left effectively because it is selfish, cowardly and it lacks discipline. But above all, because it is self enamored.

*

And so, in great unison with the Western Empire’s palace propagandists, the soft Western anti-Communist ‘left’ is arguing that the governing Left all over the world is not really true left, that the countries that call themselves socialist are in fact more capitalist than the West, and the world can only be saved by some extremely vaguely defined and abstract system of collective production means (unrealistic and utopian, as nowhere except in the West and in a handful of countries inhabited by European descendants, like Argentina, would such concepts be supported by the masses).

The new alliance is against China, Russia, South Africa, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Iran, Eritrea; it is basically against all countries that are still opting for an independent, anti-imperialist course.

All these countries are ‘wrong’. All of them are brutally ‘oppressing their people’ and in almost all of them the local ‘oligarchs are more brutal than in the West’.

You look closer, and it’s all manipulation and lies, or at best half-truths. However, ‘falsehoods repeated a thousand times have a tendency of becoming the truth’, as an ‘icon’ of German Nazism explained many decades ago. And so it goes…

Fabrications are sinking deeper and deeper into the sub-conscience of the people, in the West but also in countries that are being targeted. Nobody dares to protest, to scream loudly: “Nonsense! These countries are actually socialist!”

What eyes are seeing and what the brains are conditioned to ‘conclude’ are suddenly two thoroughly different things.

The strategy of the Western Empire is clear: it makes things thoroughly confused, too complex to understand, lacking in transparency.

“Capitalist China, right-wing Russia, anti-black South Africa, state-capitalist Venezuela, monolithic and Fascist DPRK. Who would want to follow their examples? Better to accept the familiar Western fundamentalist capitalism and imperialism”. That’s what the world is being maneuvered into thinking.

Brilliant indoctrination strategy! Except… Red flags, fresh from being washed, are proudly waving all over the world, once again. In China and Russia, in South Africa and in so many other places, people are proudly returning to the old labels.

Not everyone can understand, anymore, but many are still able too feel, instinctively, and as a result of these basic human impulses, a violent clash between depressing deceit and simple human desires and dreams will soon become imminent.

Originally published by NEO.

Andre Vltchek

Philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist, Andre Vltchek has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

[Photo: Hillary Clinton at rally in Phoenix, AZ. Credit: Gage Skidmore]

=By= GH Eliason, Distinguished Collaborator

What if the strife, rumor, and clamor that the world has seen in the presidential campaign were part and parcel of an Inform and Influence Operation against Americans to determine the election outcome? Bear with me for a moment as I lay out the proofs. The quote above is from an early 2015 article with the author showing what it could look like in the civilian world. 

” What would we do? Disrupt, deny, degrade, deceive, corrupt, usurp or destroy the information. The information, please don’t forget, is the ultimate objective of cyber. That will directly impact the decision-making process of the adversary’s leader who is the ultimate target.” – Joel Harding

IO or IIO (Inform and Influence Operations) as defined by the US Army includes the fields of psychological operations and military deception. All of this is used in the civilian world the same way by private contractors.

 In this election, private contractors were hired to focus their capacity to influence the American population. This is proven and you deserve a step by step look at it if you are voting.

What Project Veritas shows is damning evidence of what I have been documenting in the emigre series articles since spring 2016.

 By using mainstream media, they started an integrated approach which includes influencing their political opponent’s decision making. Media is given messages that follow the same themes and fill the entire information space by using an across the board effort. The effort drowns out any other message.

According to the Observer, this has been happening throughout the election cycle to benefit Hillary Clinton. “Rather than informing voters to enrich democracy, the mainstream media has developed a feedback loop between support for particular candidates and the political agenda they intend to support. The freedom of the press is necessary for a democracy to function.” The article further points out that it was the media that helped rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders.

Wikileaks has clearly shown the interplay between mainstream media and the Clinton campaign. And they have shown clearly that most of the mainstream media are working to influence the election. This goes beyond partisan electioneering. All of this follows the exact pattern, a well planned Information Operation against the American public.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was also the Ex-Officio Board Member of the BBG. The BBG (Broadcasting Board of Governors) run RFE/RL (Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty). Most of the 8-member board, appointed by the President of the United States, are the who’s who of powerful media moguls in film, news, print, and radio. Appointment to the BBG is like being awarded an ambassador position for the media industry. It’s also why big media carries the same line or themes.

The 7th member of the board of directors which runs RFE/RL is Mathew Armstrong. He is a longtime friend and mentor to retired Brigadier general Joel Harding. He provides Harding a lot of access and influence in media. Armstrong’s background is public relations. He is an expert in IO and IIO operations. His bio: Author, lecturer, and strategist on public diplomacy and international media. He has worked on traditional and emerging security issues with both civilian and military government agencies, news organizations, think tanks, and academia across several continents.

In what appears to be a conflict of interest, at least two BBG board members are working actively for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Karen Kornbluh is helping refine and to get Hillary Clinton’s message out. ” All of them are names to watch if Clinton wins — and key jobs at the FCC and other federal agencies are up for grabs.”

According to her bio: Karen founded the New America Foundation’s Work and Family Program and is a senior fellow for Digital Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. Karen has written extensively about technology policy, women, and family policy for The Atlantic, The New York Times and The Washington Post. New York Times columnist David Brooks cited her Democracy article “Families Valued,” focused on “juggler families” as one of the best magazine articles of 2006.

Michael Kempner is the founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of MWW Group, a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter, and may get a greater role if she is elected.  Kempner is a member of the Public Relations Hall of Fame. Michael Kempner hired Anthony Weiner after the sexting scandal broke in 2011.

Jeff Shell, chairman of the BBG and  Universal Filmed Entertainment is supporting a secondary role by being an honor roll donor to the Atlantic Council. While the BBG is supposed to be neutral it has continuously helped increase tensions in Eastern Europe. While giving to the Atlantic Council may not be illegal while in his position, currently, the Atlantic Council’s main effort is to ignite a war with Russia. This may set up a major conflict of interest.

According to journalist Robert Parry “The people that will be taking senior positions and especially in foreign policy believe “This consensus is driven by a broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the need for restraint, especially in the Middle East.”

 Parry goes on to say that at the forefront of this is the Atlantic Council, a think tank associated with NATO. Their main goal is a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

The Atlantic Council is the think tank for the CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition) which is associated with NATO. The CEEC has only one goal. The question it poses to candidates that mattered is “Are you willing to go to war with Russia?” Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support throughout the campaign. 

The Central and Eastern European Coalition represent the various Central and Eastern European countries to the US government. What makes them special in an election is that they control a 20 million person strong bloc vote in key states across the country and sway elections by themselves. The price of a Clinton win is war with Russia.

While the rest of the BBG board support Clinton’s proposed policy of closing Syrian airspace, the CEEC wants it because it will mean direct conflict with Russia. Hillary Clinton’s first foray into Islamic politics led to genocide and made the way for ISIS setting up training camps in Kosovo.  Hillary Clinton has been friendly with jihadists for as long as she has had a national political career. According to US Special Forces on the ground in Syria training the moderates, there are NO moderates to train. 

Green Berets are forced to train jihadis that they know will eventually attack us. Support our troops? Give them good, honorable missions. They deserve better, don’t they?

As you go through the above links, the information is staggering. Shown are large groups of people strategically located in swing states that will do anything to get her elected. The question is why?

Politically, we have a two party system. If you say you are Republican, people have at least a general idea of what you mean. For Democrats, it’s no different. There are different kinds of politics that fit easily under each umbrella. But the point is they are recognizable and we know where they stand on issues.

Tell me, what are OUNb beliefs? OUNb is a political party and set of beliefs just like Republican or Democrat. The reason I am asking is that you can’t tell me. The odds are you haven’t heard about it before. When the Atlantic Council or The Project for the New American Century takes all the senior positions in the Clinton White House, it will be filled with OUNb and similar political partisans for the first time without dissenting voices.

“Unity to act when required has been the diaspora’s mantra – this cannot be disputed.

As time moves on, we see that things take a natural course. We see that two wings of the OUN – (OUNb)Banderivtsi and (OUNm)Melnykivtsi – are working actively on the international level, working in partnership and currently are in strong negotiations about becoming a single entity again.”

The OUNb political party started under Stepan Bandera and their political beliefs are quite literally Nazi. In the 1930’s they swore undying loyalty to Adolf Hitler and the Diaspora was directing Waffen SS battalions from America secretly even as other Ukrainian emigres were fighting them. The UCCA is the head of OUNb thought in America and now they want America to celebrate their totalitarian beliefs with them. If you disagree with totalitarian politics, you are the enemy. After a brief description of what kind of beliefs the people have from the Atlantic Council that are taking up cabinet positions, the proof it is happening now follows.

The OUNb were the SS that manned the concentration camps during the Holocaust. They successfully murdered 3 million war prisoners by starving them to death. The OUNb killed over 250,000 Jews, 500,000 Ukrainians, and committed the first Holocaust at Babi Yar. Today the UCCA is funding and running the volunteer battalions raping and killing in Donbass the same way.

They and the other emigre group leaders are also behind buying the media headlines and reach, damage control, and the Information Operation against Americans today. If you want to know what American politics will look like within a few years, look at Ukraine. 

There are people who live abroad, who do not feel fully accepted as a minority, and here there is a phenomenon which I call long-distance nationalism. . .The members of the diaspora create for themselves an image of the home land, which is a stronger emotional investment than the country in which they live…One negative consequence of the diaspora experience is the emergence of what Ander-son calls non-responsible politics: diaspora participation in the politics in the country with which they identify can often be toxic, and their impact can be felt through the funding of particular political figures, nationalist propaganda, and even weapons…-Multiculturalism, memory, and ritualization: Ukrainian nationalist monuments in Edmonton, Alberta– Pers Anders Rudling

With the field day the Emigres and paid media had with Donald Trump over David Duke, they forgot to tell you that Ukrainian emigres supporting Hillary Clinton hired Duke in Ukraine as a professor of history and sent their American kids to learn there. Almost all Ukrainian politicians have been through this fascist education system known as MAUP. The Ukrainian American and other likeminded ethnics are the people that will fill the senior foreign and domestic cabinet positions.

“OUNb leader Ivan Kobasa also took responsibility of making sure the Ukrainian-Americans received the proper secondary education at Ukrainian nationalist schools(MAUP) in Ukraine. From the mid-2000’s enrollment in this educational system has skyrocketed into the hundreds of thousands. Today almost all members of the current Ukrainian government are graduates of this ideological system that was taught to them by moderates like David Duke who is also a graduate of the MAUP system.”

“I do care about social and economic issues affecting every American, but given the war in Ukraine, there is only one issue that we as Ukrainian Americans must focus on: Ukraine.

The Ukrainian issue “trumps” all other personal issues!

A vote for Trump is a vote against Ukraine!

When it comes to U.S. elections, Ukrainian Americans are a statistically minor, divided, unorganized voting group.  The Central and East European Coalition is a coalition of U.S.-based organizations that represent their countries of heritage, a voting group of over 20 million people. The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America and the Ukrainian National Association are member organizations of the CEEC. Americans of East and Central European heritage can make a significant difference and influence the election result if their attention is focused.” Ukraine Weekly The Presidential Election: Can We Make A Difference

Hillary Clinton’s response is she will defend Ukraine’s borders! Even though it has no eastern or northern border to defend. She has guaranteed to start a war with Russia if she is elected.

Not only is Clinton buying the media through these second parties, but they are hiring professional, former military psyops professionals to deny pertinent information from voters and disrupt her political opponents message. At the same time, they are paying an across the board mainstream media to simultaneously publish articles and video that lift her campaign up, disrupt, destroy, and drown out alternate messages. 

Wikileaks noted this when it exposed the Clinton campaign’s program to incite violence and obfuscate the point. The Huffington Post example of this is” Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S”.

 “We understand the Clinton camp has hired beaucoup and Zwanzig (a lot) of trolls, we also understand the Kremlin has done the same. We just do not know if Trump has followed suit. From a counterintelligence perspective, this is confusing as heck.

 One of the really neat things about this election is seeing all my information operations and information warfare friends on social media, contributing and commenting, looking darned intelligent! Theirs is normally the voice of reason, maturity, and intelligence.” Joel Harding

 By systematically and continually attacking the voter’s psyche, Americans are being treated in the same way our government treats countries they overthrow. The right to make an informed vote has been denied to support any particular candidate.

What does an Inform and Influence Operation entail against the American public? Read the following carefully. The term “anti-western” refers to anyone that disagrees with whom he is working for. In this case, he works for the Ukrainian Emigres. This also covers Syria. Every media outlet or journalist writing about these subjects that aren’t carrying the line he lays out is the enemy. These are the tactics being used today during the election.

  “I am building a database of planners, operators, logisticians, hackers, and anyone wanting to be involved with special activities I will call ‘inform and influence activities’. I have received a few different suggestions to help organize operations – of all sorts – against anti-Western elements. No government approval, assistance or funding. This skirts legalities. This is not explicitly illegal and it may not even be legal, at this point. That grey area extends a long way. I am only trying to assess the availability of people willing to participate in such efforts. Technology, equipment and facility offers are also appreciated. If you would like to be included in my database, please send a tailored resume to joel_harding@”

 If you don’t think this is possible, this has been going on around you for a long time. look at the credentials of retired Brigadier General Joel Harding and decide for yourself. But first look at what he promises he can do for you when you hire him.

“Information operations and warfare, also known as influence operations, includes the collection of tactical, operational and strategic information about a competitor as well as the dissemination of information and propaganda in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an competitor or adversary in the corporate, government or military realm.

It is our job to maximize your advantages over your competitor while minimizing your competitor.   We work on the national level down to the individual level.  We seek to give you every advantage possible in order to advance your position, increase your reputation, and maximize your standing in your field.”

“Bio- Joel Harding spent 26 years in the Army; his first nine years were spent as an enlisted soldier, mostly in Special Forces, as an SF qualified communicator and medic, on an A-Team. After completing his degree, Joel then received his commission as an Infantry Officer and after four years transitioned to the Military Intelligence Corps. 

In the mid 1990s, Joel was working in the Joint Staff J2 in support of special operations, where he began working in the new field called Information Operations. Eligible Receiver 1997 was his trial by fire, after that he became the Joint Staff J2 liaison for IO to the CIA, DIA, NSA, DISA and other assorted agencies in the Washington DC area, working as the intelligence lead on the Joint Staff IO Response Cell for Solar Sunrise and Moonlight Maze. Joel followed this by a tour at SOCCENT and then INSCOM, working in both IO and intelligence.

 Specializing in Russian Information Warfare for the past 30+ months. Consultant, advisor and subject matter expert on Information Operations, Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy with more than 19 years practical, policy in IO, SC and PD. 35 years experience in broader defense and national security matters. I have lectured all over the world about Information Warfare and Cyberwar and have spoken at numerous conferences.
I am currently focusing on the Ukraine/Russia information war with a simultaneous heavy emphasis on the accompanying hybrid war. I currently teach classes about Russian Information Warfare and a second class on Propaganda/Agitprop. 
Specialties: Information Operations/Information Warfare, Public Diplomacy, Strategic Communication, Counter-Disinformation, Electronic Warfare, Deception, Operational Security, Cyberwar, Intelligence, Special Forces and Special Operations.
Primary author Ukraine National Strategy for Information Policy, submitted in 2015 and again in 2016.”

 With his resume, no guess work is needed to understand how effective his friends are. Before going further, ask yourself if this is what elections are supposed to be? 

As a litmus test take Hillary’s name out and put down what is known just through Wikileaks in a list. Put McCain’s name, Kucinich, Paul, Bush, and ask yourself would this be an acceptable candidate? Add what’s been shown here. Is there an acceptable candidate?

If any of them would be acceptable, sorry like many others you drank the kool-aid already. 

“I’ve seen how our heroes, activists, journalists, and celebrities have completely sold their souls to support something no person with an iota of morality would do. I’ve seen them say and do things to derail candidates who would have been a million times better for those less fortunate around us. It’s unfortunate most pretend to fight the establishment, to act like they love the people more than they love the struggle and the relevance that it brings them. I am not one of those and I won’t continue to be until the good Lord takes me.” Cesar Vargas

Hillary Clinton is not a Nazi. But every position of relevance will be filled with people that really are political Nazis. They are technically integral nationalists. They look down on democracy in any form. At least now you know what kind of government you are voting for.

Regardless of who wins, there are 2000 tanks, artillery, and rockets pointed my way, waiting for this election to be over. I am an American that lives in Donbass, and wrote many of the early breaking stories and much of the background about the conflict in Ukraine.

If you cannot objectively look and see a more sophisticated version of what happened here through 2014 is going on, I can’t help you. Soon the OUNb will order the volunteer battalions to start killing civilians on a large scale again. I will go back to reporting on the war.

If all these things weren’t being done, I would keep it simply about policy. Russia is not an enemy of the United States. Instead, I believe I am witnessing a quiet coup that demands legality in America.

If this Information Operation is allowed to win the 2016 presidency, then elections are fruitless. Every other election will be based on the same strategy. They will have to be for any candidate to win.

Your voice, your views, your informed choice will no longer matter. The IIO practitioner kills dissent. That’s their job. They’re only doing their job. 

GH Eliason

Mr. Eliason lives in Ukraine. He writes content and optimizes web based businesses across the globe for organic search results, technical issues, and design strategies. He is also a large project construction specialist. When Fukushima happened it became known that he was a locked high rad specialist with a penchant for climbing. He was paid to climb a reactor at a sister plant to Fukushima 3 because of a "million dollar mistake". His now works in  project safety.

Dispatches from Eric Zuesse

“Slate’s Franklin Foer published a story that’s been circulating through the dark web and various newsrooms since summertime, an enormous, eyebrow-raising claim that Donald Trump uses a secret server to communicate with Russia. That claim resulted in an explosive night of Twitter confusion and misinformation. The gist of the Slate article is dramatic — incredible, even: Cybersecurity researchers found that the Trump Organization used a secret box configured to communicate exclusively with Alfa Bank, Russia’s largest commercial bank. This is a story that any reporter in our election cycle would drool over, and drool Foer did.”

Franklin Foer is an American warmonger and p.r. agent, a Democrat, and former editor of The [scurrilous Neocon] New Republic. Foer was a 2012 Bernard L. Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation. 

“Could it be that Donald Trump used one of his shoddy empire’s spam marketing machines, one with his last name built right into the domain name, to secretly collaborate with a Moscow bank? Sure. At this moment, there’s literally no way to disprove that. But there’s also literally no way to prove it, and such a grand claim carries a high burden of proof. Without more evidence it would be safer (and saner) to assume that this is exactly what it looks like: A company that Trump has used since 2007 to outsource his hotel spam is doing exactly that. Otherwise, we’re all making the exact same speculation about the unknown that’s caused untold millions of voters to believe Hillary’s deleted emails might have contained Benghazi cover-up PDFs. Given equal evidence for both, go with the less wacky story.”

---

However, they failed to dig deeper to explain what could have motivated this smear of Trump: was it just sloppiness on the part of Slate, and of Foer? Hardly — it was anything but unintentional:

“People like Miller, with her outsize journalistic temperament of ambition, obsession, and competitive fervor, relying on people like Ahmad Chalabi, with his smooth, affable exterior retailing false information for his own motives, for the benefit of people reading a newspaper, trying to get at the truth of what’s what.”

“In part, the lack of neocon consensus [on whether to, as John McCain was to so poetically put it, ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’] can be attributed to the nature of the problem. Nobody — not the Council on Foreign Relations, not John Kerry’s brain trust — has designed a plausible policy to walk Iran back from the nuclear brink. Or, as Kenneth M. Pollack concludes in his new book, The Persian Puzzle, this is a ‘problem from Hell’ with no good solution.”

“The Russians have made an art of publicizing the material they have filched to injure their adversaries. The locus classicus of this method was a recording of a blunt call between State Department official Toria [that’s actually ‘Victoria’] Nuland [a close friend of both Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney] and the American ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt. The Russians allegedly planted the recording on YouTube and then tweeted a link to it — and from there it became international news. Though they never claimed credit for the leak, few doubted the White House’s contention that Russia was the source.”

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable