The Ghost of George Orwell at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

By Gary Brumback

Pakistanis hold up a burning mock drone aircraft during a May rally against drone attacks in Peshawar. In 2009, the Brookings Institution estimated that unmanned drone attacks were killing about 10 civilians for every 1 insurgent in Pakistan. K. Pervez/Reuters

 
Murder: an intentional killing. Surrogate murder: An intentional drone killing.  A difference between Mafia hit men and U.S. drone strikes is that hit men have no Orwellian defense that makes “lies sound truthful and murder respectable—.”  [www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language]
 
People at the White House and its West Wing are always trotting out Orwellian defenses. Orwell’s ghost walks the corridors of the White House coaching its propagandists. One of them, President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser was in prime Orwellian form when he gave a speech April 30 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center. [http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy.] He droned on and on about how efficacious, ethical, legal, and wise are the administration’s deadly drone strikes on foreign soil. Such chutzpah! But it fools and frightens the American people, just as Orwell said it would. So let’s take a look at the claims and counter the counter chief.   
 
 
On the Orwellian Claim Drone Strikes are Efficacious
 
How so? Because robots can’t be killed? Are drones effective because every one struck on the ground is murdered or maimed? Hardly so. No, to be effective, drone strikes must achieve their objective and timely so; pursue the right objective; pursue a credible objective; be the best means available to achieve the objective; and avoid undesirable side effects and chain reactions.
 
Drone strikes can never achieve the objective of eliminating al-Qaida and ending terrorism against the U.S. Drone strikes beg for retaliation, guaranteeing that al-Qaida or mutations of it will keep the U.S. war on terror in perpetuity.
 
Eliminating terrorism by eliminating al-Qaida is not the right objective. An unachievable objective never is. 
 
The objective isn’t credible. Not everyone is fooled. Consider Paul Craig Roberts, a high-ranking official in the Reagan administration who rhetorically asks if the war on terror is a hoax designed to make Americans fearful and subservient. [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-The-War-On-Terror-A-Hoa-by-paul-craig-roberts-110930-453.html]  Consider Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the antiwar group Code Pink. [http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-I-Interrupted-Obama-Co-by-Medea-Benjamin-120501-709.html]  She was in the chief’s audience and interrupted him to dispute his claims before being whisked away and handcuffed.
 
Drone strikes aren’t among the best means for eliminating terrorism. The best means would be those designed to end the U.S. support of Israel’s militarism and her illegal building of settlements; substantially reduce U.S. military presence in the Great Middle East; substantially reduce welfare to the war industry; reduce dependence on foreign oil; and stop aiding corporate hegemony.
 
Drone strikes can never avoid the “collateral” killing and maiming of hundreds of non-targeted men, women and children or guarantee preventing possible retaliation some day worse than the attack on the twin towers.
 
On the Orwellian Claim that Drone strikes are Ethical
 
By whose ethics and values, the administration’s or those of civilization down through the ages? Throughout history and across very different cultures certain ethical values have remained constant, such as accountability, caring for others, excellence, fairness, fidelity, honesty, integrity, promise keeping, respecting others, and responsible citizenship. Only an Orwellian claim could twist those universal values to justify drone strikes; could argue that the “principle of humanity,” whatever that means to the administration “requires it to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering;” could cite abstruse principles of “necessity,” “distinction,” and “proportionality” as additional justifications; and could assert that the administration is “harnessing every element of American power— [including] the power of our values.”
 
While acknowledging that many innocent, noncombatant men, women and children have been killed and wounded by U.S. drone strikes, the Orwellian claim is made that the “administration puts a “premium—on protecting human life, including innocent civilians.” Why didn’t the chief counterterroris adviser go on to say what exactly this premium is and what limit if any the administration has set on the toll taken by drone strikes before it decides that they are no longer efficacious and ethical?
 
On the Orwellian Claim that Drone Strikes are Legal
 
One after another purportedly authoritative legal sources are cited to justify drone strikes. Why weren’t counter arguments mentioned such as one by the U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich that “Drones [are] a direct hit upon [the] rule of law;” [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/drones-direct-hit-upon-ru_b_929203.html], or one  by Philip Ashton, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings suggesting that in certain circumstances (e.g., when the CIA is conducting the strikes) U.S. drone strikes may violate international law”? [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/28nations.html
 
Why doesn’t the administration acknowledge that it is relying on legal loop holes to claim the legality of drone strikes; loop holes such as not declaring drone strikes to be an act of war since the Constitution requires Congress to declare war; and using the CIA because it somehow circumvents legal accountability?
 
On the Orwellian Claim that Drone Strikes are Wise
 
Drone strikes are a wise choice, the Orwellian claim goes, because they are less constrained by geography; can be done more quickly; use robots; reduce the danger to innocent people in the targeted area; can aim precisely at targets; and strategically avoid troublesome consequences that can ensue from “deploying large armies.”
 
Why was the issue sidestepped of whether a wiser choice in the long run would be to persistently pursue peaceful means to eliminating al-Qaida? 
 
Only an Orwellian spokesperson would brag about the precautions taken to ensure that the use of drone strikes is a “standard bearer,” on the insistence of President Obama, in the conduct of war, and would add that “if we want other nations to use these technologies responsibly, we must use them responsibly.”
 
How can the administration be a standard bearer since it is lagging behind in drone technology? Jefferson Morley in a recent piece in Salon tells us that if we “want to know how drones will change America, look to the Jewish State — where they’re already widespread.” [www.salon.com/2012/05/15/israels_drone_dominance/singleton/]  He cites a top Israeli official claiming Israel is becoming a world leader in development and production of UAVs [that’s drone talk].”
 
Never to mind, though, whether Israel or America; welcome world to the Devil’s premium quality drones! Get them before their prices go even more stratospheric. 
 
In closing
 
The transcript also reminded me of Hannah Arendt’s phrase, “the banality of evil.” Well, we have just looked it in the eye, but will it ever blink?
 
America’s worse enemy is not al-Qaida, as treacherous as it may be according to the administration. America’s worse enemy is her own powerful corpocracy, the Devil’s marriage between corporate and political interests. The only way to end the administration’s surrogate murdering is to end the corpocracy by organizing and unleashing two-fisted democracy power (see www.uschamberofdemocracy.com). 
 
Gary Brumback, PhD, is a retired psychologist and Fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science. He is the author of The Devil’s Marriage: Break Up the Corpocracy or Leave Democracy in the Lurch. Gary can be reached at: democracypower@bellsouth.net.

ACHTUNG! ACHTUNG! (Hmm…that got your attention, uh?)

Did you like this article? Then buy us a beer. How many times do we have to beg you? The wingnuts and fascists are falling over each other to make donations…to their filthy causes. We, on the other hand, take our left blogs for granted.

Just think how much money you spend on beer, cigs, trinkets and other useless stuff that can also kill you.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

 

 

 

 

 

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

//




Remembering Herbert Schiller

FIRST IN OUR CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS SERIES—

” How can a democratic discourse exist in a corporate owned informational system? Who, for example, possesses freedom of speech in such a society?”

THAT’S A QUESTION MORE PEOPLE SHOULD ASK IN THE UNITED STATES BUT WHICH FEW DO, INCLUDING IN ACADEMIA.  It’s also the question that Herbert Schiller and a handful of people of his generation set out to answer. 

By Patrice Greanville

Schiller graduating from City College in 1940.

 Herbert I. Schiller (November 5, 1919 – January 29, 2000) was one of the finest radical scholars of his generation. Before we had a Parenti, a Bagdikian, a McChesney or even a Chomsky, there was Schiller, James Aronson (The Press and the Cold War), and Alex Carey, of course, whom Chomsky and the rest deservedly held in the highest regard, a true pioneer in the field of corporate disinformation.  For this early trio probing the field where the lies about American reality were carefully buried, discovering how “brainwash under freedom” operated, became a lifelong mission.

“I have never forgotten how the deprivation of work erodes human beings, those not working and those related to them. And from that time on, I loathed an economic system that could put a huge part of its workforce on the streets with no compunction.”  (Introduction, Living in the Number One Country)

It’s perhaps noteworthy that, as is the case with  Schiller, few of these people began as students of American propaganda, although for any alert (and honest) political scientist the topic is pretty much unavoidable. Michael Parenti taught and wrote first about the scandalously rigged American political system, aptly calling it a “democracy for the few.”  Noam Chomsky cut his teeth in linguistics; Ed Herman, his brilliant partner in several epochal books (Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of Human Rights, et al), was and remains formally an economist. Both started delving in media after becoming incensed at the manner US foreign policy crimes and accompanying hypocrisy were misreported or omitted by the corporate press.  In the same vein, Ben Bagdikian and James Aronson’s trade was journalism, an occupation whose almost incestuous proximity to propaganda might suggest more awareness among its practitioners about institutionalized deceit instead of the opposite, and Alex Carey was a social psychologist. (His Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Propaganda in the US and Australia is simply indispensable reading for anyone fancying work as a serious left activist.) 

Only the formidable (and much younger) Robert McChesney began his career as a communication scholar.

______________
Herbert Schiller reads the New York Times
Schiller’s travels

Schiller’s experiences in World War Two and his parents’ tribulations during the Great Depression served as a catalyst for an awakening about the profound chasm between what most Americans see and the way reality is perceived by the rest of the world. This chasm, this split consciousness—the product of a longstanding deliberate propaganda effort by the plutocracy and its innumerable minions in all areas of society—remains a significant prop to their practically unopposed rule in the richest and most powerful nation in history. (Incidentally, just a few million dollars do not qualify anyone these days for membership in the reigning plutocracy.  With fortunes bloated by ever more daring and criminal speculations that immiserate the masses and devastate the environment, the financial oligarchy now boasts plenty of double-digit fortunes in the billions to make even the old royals look ordinary.

Teresa Giudice, of the Bravo's New Jersey Housewives pack. Not quite ready for real bourgeois prime time.

In the US and elsewhere this segment of parasites does not comprise more than 0.001%.  Thus the much invoked “1%” are pikers, nouveau riche wannabes, nincompoop bystanders in the great struggle, largely uninterested in or devoid of political power. Watching the truculent comings and goings of the pathetic “Housewives” series on Bravo, with their on-camera time mostly spent on petty squabbles and crass displays of materialism, is an education about this pitiful sliver of America.)

A radical communications scholar is born

Using interdisciplinary tools in a non-conventional way (he was originally trained in economics and sociology) Schiller soon drifted away from the uselessness and conceits of bourgeois “science”—especially establishment economics, all by itself a huge propaganda cesspool— toward mass communications in a search for an  explanation to the dismal state of class consciousness in the United States.  What he found is concentrated in two books that deserve to be called classics (and must reads), The Mind Managers (Beacon), and Living in the Number One Country (Seven Stories Press).  The latter’s moving, autobiographical introduction is alone worth the price of admission.  Generous to a fault, he was also an early mentor and supporter of my own efforts in the direction of setting up a radical media review. As a result, in 1982, Cyrano’s Journal made its debut with a major essay contributed by Schiller, essentially an edited version of his THE PACKAGED CONSCIOUSNESS, again, obligatory reading for anyone genuinely on the left. In it he explores the myth of individualism and personal choice, the myth of neutrality, the myth of unchanging human nature, and other topics also visited by other thinkers but which Schiller presented in an unusually accessible manner.  Schiller and his kind tried to make Americans more politically literate. For that he deserves to be remembered with deep gratitude.

Patrice Greanville is editor in chief of The Greanville Post and publisher of Cyrano’s Journal Today.  He too is a renegade economist, and has a largely un-utilized degree in journalism from Columbia University.
________________________
Below, a 1997 interview with Schiller.  Wait a couple of minutes for the soundtrack to kick in. The host apparently was not properly cued in.

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vpqXGW9sE

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

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.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________




Double whammy by Paul Craig Roberts

» Recovery or Collapse? Bet on Collapse

By Paul Craig Roberts| May 20, 2012

The US financial system and, probably, the financial system of Europe, like the police, no longer serves a useful social purpose.

In the US the police have proven themselves to be a greater threat to public safety than private sector criminals. I just googled “police brutality” and up came 183,000,000 results. (Here are two recent brutal assaults, one deadly, by police on hapless individuals: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/kelly-thomas-video-dad-they-are-killing-me-.html and http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31364.htm )

The cost to society of the private financial system is even higher. Writing in CounterPunch (May 18), Rob Urie reports that two years ago Andrew Haldane, executive Director for Financial Stability at the Bank of England (the UK’s version of the Federal Reserve) said that the financial crisis, now four years old, will in the end cost the world economy between $60 trillion and $200 trillion in lost GDP. If Urie’s report is correct, this is an astonishing admission from a member of the ruling elite. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/18/the-true-costs-of-bank-crises/print

Try to get your mind around these figures. The US GDP, the largest in the world, is about 15 trillion. What Haldane is telling us is that the financial crisis will end up costing the world lost real income between 4 and 13 times the size of the current Gross Domestic Product of the United States. This could turn out to be an optimistic forecast.

In the end, the financial crisis could destroy Western civilization.

Even if Urie’s report, or Haldane’s calculation, is incorrect, the obvious large economic loss from the financial crisis is still unprecedented. The enormous cost of the financial crisis has one single source–financial deregulation. Financial deregulation is likely to prove to be the mistake that destroys Western civilization. While we quake in our boots from fear of “Muslim terrorists,” it is financial deregulation that is destroying us, with help from jobs offshoring. Keep in mind that Haldane is a member of the ruling elite, not a critic of the system like myself, Gerald Celente, Michael Hudson, Pam Martins, and Nomi Prins. (This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of critics.)

Financial deregulation has had dangerous and adverse consequences. Deregulation permitted financial concentration that produced “banks too big to fail,” thus requiring the general public to absorb the costs of the banks’ mistakes and reckless gambling.

Deregulation permitted banks to leverage a small amount of capital with enormous debt in order to maximize return on equity, thereby maximizing the instability of the financial system and the cost to society of the banks’ bad bets.

Deregulation allowed financial institutions to sweep aside the position limits on speculators and to dominate commodity markets, turning them into a gambling casino and driving up the prices of energy and food.

Deregulation permits financial institutions to sell naked shorts, which means to sell a company’s stock or gold and silver bullion that the seller does not possess into the market in order to drive down the price. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/accidentally-released-and-incredibly-embarrassing-documents-show-how-goldman-et-al-engaged-in-naked-short-selling-20120515

The informed reader can add more items to this list.

The dollar in its role as world reserve currency is the source of Washington’s power. It allows Washington to control the international payments system and to exclude from the financial system those countries that do not do Washington’s bidding. It allows Washington to print money with which to pay its bills and to purchase the cooperation of foreign governments or to fund opposition within those countries whose governments Washington is unable to purchase, such as Iran, Russia, and China. If the dollar was not the world reserve currency and actually reflected its true depreciated value from the mounting US debt and running of the printing press, Washington’s power would be dramatically curtailed.

The US dollar has come close to its demise several times recently. In 2011 the dollar’s value fell as low as 72 Swiss cents. Investors seeking safety for the value of their money flooded into Swiss francs, pushing the value of the franc so high that Switzerland’s exports began to suffer. The Swiss government responded to the inflow of dollars and euros seeking refuge in the franc by declaring that it would in the future print new francs to offset the inflows of foreign currency in order to prevent the rise in the value of the franc. In other words, currency flight from the US and Europe forced the Swiss to inflate in order to prevent the continuous rise in the exchange value of the Swiss currency.

Prior to the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, the dollar was also faced with a run-up in the value of the euro as foreign central banks and OPEC members shifted their reserves into euros from dollars. The euro was on its way to becoming an alternative reserve currency. However, Goldman Sachs, whose former employees dominate the US Treasury and financial regulatory agencies and also the European Central Bank and governments of Italy and, indirectly, Greece, helped the Greek government to disguise its true deficit, thus deceiving the private European banks who were purchasing the bonds of the Greek government. Once the European sovereign debt crisis was launched, Washington had an interest in keeping it going, as it sends holders of euros fleeing into “safe” dollars, thus boosting the exchange value of the dollar, despite the enormous rise in Washington’s own debt and the doubling of the US money supply.

Last year gold and silver were rapidly rising in price (measured in US dollars), with gold hitting $1,900 an ounce and on its way to $2,000 when suddenly short sales began dominating the bullion markets. The naked shorts of gold and silver bullion succeeded in driving the price of gold down $350 per ounce from its peak. Many informed observers believe that the reason Washington has not prosecuted the banksters for their known financial crimes is that the banksters serve as an auxiliary to Washington by protecting the value of the dollar by shorting bullion and rival currencies.

What happens if Greece exits the EU on its own or by the German boot? What happens if the other EU members reject German Chancellor Merkel’s austerity, as the new president of France promised to do? If Europe breaks apart, do more investors flee to the doomed US dollar?

Will a dollar bubble become the largest bubble in economic history?

When the dollar goes, interest rates will escalate, and bond prices will collapse. Everyone who sought safety in US Treasuries will be wiped out.
We should all be aware that such outcomes are not part of the public debate.

Recently Bill Moyers interviewed Simon Johnson, formerly chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and currently professor at MIT. It turns out that deregulation, which abolished the separation of investment banks from commercial banks, permitted Jamie Dimon’s JPMorganChase to gamble with federally insured deposits. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31356.htm Despite this, Moyers reports that Republicans remain determined to kill the weak Dodd-Frank law and restore full deregulation.

Simon Johnson says: “I think it [deregulation] is a recipe for disaster.” The problem is, Johnson says, that correct economic policy is blocked by the enormous donations banks make to political campaigns. This means Wall Street’s attitudes and faulty risk models will result in an even bigger financial crisis than the one from which we are still suffering. And it will happen prior to recovery from the current crisis.

Johnson warns that the Republicans will distract everyone from the real crisis by concocting another “crisis” over the debt ceiling.

Johnson says that “a few people, particularly in and around the financial system, have become too powerful. They were allowed to take a lot of risk, and they did massive damage to the economy — more than eight million jobs lost. We’re still struggling to get back anywhere close to employment levels where we were before 2008. And they’ve done massive damage to the budget. This damage to the budget is long lasting; it undermines the budget when we need it to be stronger because the society is aging. We need to support Social Security and support Medicare on a fair basis. We need to restore and rebuild revenue, revenue that was absolutely devastated by the financial crisis. People need to understand the link between what the banks did and the budget. And too many people fail to do that.”

Consequently, Johnson says, the banksters continue to receive mega-benefits while imposing enormous social costs on society.

Few Americans and no Washington policymakers understand the dire situation. They are too busy hyping a non-existent recovery and the next war. Statistician John Williams reports that when correctly measured as a cost of living indicator, which the CPI no longer is, the current inflation rate in the US is 5 to 7 percentage points higher than the officially reported rate, as every consumer knows. The unemployment rate falls because, and only because, people unable to find jobs drop out of the labor force and are no longer counted as unemployed. Every informed person knows that the official inflation and unemployment rates are fictions; yet, the presstitute media continue to report the rates with a straight face as fact.

The way the government has rigged the measure of unemployment, it is possible for the US to have a zero rate of unemployment and not a single person employed or in the work force.

The way the government has the measure of inflation rigged, it is possible for your living standing to fall while the government reports that you are better off.

Financial deregulation raises the returns from speculative schemes above the returns from productive activity. The highly leveraged debt and derivatives that gave us the financial crisis have nothing to do with financing businesses. The banks are not only risking their customers’ deposits on gambling bets but also jeopardizing the country’s financial stability and economic future.

With an eye on the approaching dollar crisis, which will wreck the international financial system, the presidents of China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, and the prime minister of India met last month to discuss forming a new bank that would shield their economies and commerce from mistakes made by Washington and the European Union. The five countries, known as the BRICS, intend to settle their trade with one another in their own currencies and cease relying on the dollar. The fact that Russia, the two Asian giants, and the largest economies in Africa and South America are leaving the dollar’s orbit sends a powerful message of lack of confidence in Washington’s handling of financial matters.

It is ironic that the outcome of financial deregulation in the US is the opposite of what its free market advocates promised. In place of highly competitive financial firms that live or die by their wits alone without government intervention, we have unprecedented financial concentration. Massive banks, “too big to fail,” now send their multi-trillion dollar losses to Washington to be paid by heavily indebted US taxpayers whose real incomes have not risen in 20 years. The banksters take home fortunes in annual bonuses for their success in socializing the “free market” banks’ losses and privatizing profits to the point of not even paying income taxes.

In the US free market economists unleashed avarice and permitted it to run amuck. Will the disastrous consequences discredit capitalism to the extent that the Soviet collapse discredited socialism?

Will Western civilization itself survive the financial tsunami that deregulated Wall Street has produced?

Ironic, isn’t it, that the United States, the home of the “indispensable people,” stands before us as the likely candidate whose government will be responsible for the collapse of the West.

Are Americans Catching On, Waking Up, Unplugging?

In response to the question in the title I can report that most of my readers are. Almost everyone got the point of the last column. They see the absurdity of the government’s claim that the identity of the tough, macho Navy Seals, who allegedly murdered Osama bin Laden, has to be kept secret in order to protect our fierce warriors from reprisals from Muslim terrorists, while those government officials responsible for the torture and deaths of large numbers of Muslims can walk around, identity known, unprotected and safe.

A few members of Congress are also awake, but not very many. Indeed, we are losing two of the most aware–Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Kucinich was redistricted in order to get rid of his independent voice. He carried 75% of the votes from that part of his old district that was included in his new one, but the new voters lacked the intelligence to vote for him. Ron Paul, in our time of tribulation, tried for the Republican presidential nomination on a platform of saving the US Constitution, but those who voted in Republican primaries weren’t interested in saving the US Constitution.

Now we are down to US Rep. Walter Jones. Initially, Jones was a member of the warmonger crowd. He was angered when the French government cast doubt on the George W. Bush regime’s reasons for the need for war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Jones said at that time that he was renaming French Fries “Freedom Fries.”

Jones unplugged from the Matrix and has been sentient for some time. Recently the tyrant Obama and the government operative Panetta, a political whore who has been in a variety of government positions and is currently Secretary of Warmongering, announced publicly that, the US Constitution notwithstanding, the executive branch no longer needed the authority of Congress to go to war. In our globalist existence, the authority for the US to initiate hostilities against another country comes from the UN, declared Obama and Panetta. If the executive branch can persuade or bribe the UN to give a war OK, Congress is no longer relevant.

This was too much for the awakened US Rep. Walter Jones. He has introduced House Congressional Resolution 107, which clearly states that the president’s use of US military in an act of aggression without the consent of Congress is an impeachable offense.

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that Rep. Jones is correct. However, you can bet that the Obama regime already has a John Yoo-type hireling busy at work in the Department of Justice (sic) writing a legal memo that the US Constitution gives no authority to Congress to declare war.

A person would think that members of Congress would flock to Rep. Jones’ resolution.

After all, it is Congress’ own power that is on the line. Normally, organizations defend their own power. Strangely, the US Congress has not defended its power since Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in the 1930s. Because of the crisis of the Great Depression, Congress gave up its law-making powers to the executive agencies created by Roosevelt to run the country. Congress pretends to still be in control by having “oversight” over the ruling executive cabinet departments and agencies. Cabinet secretaries, assistant sectaries, and CIA directors have to go testify and be questioned before congressional committees and all that, like the Federal Reserve chairman who has unaccountable power over interest rates and inflation, but the laws are made by the executive branch. Ever since the 1930s, when Congress passes a law it is merely an authorization for some executive branch agency to define the law by writing the regulations. As the executive agency also enforces the regulations, we have the beginnings of tyranny as the same agency both makes the law and enforces it. (See, for example, Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Ch. 11, “Abdicating Legislative Power.”)

The roots of tyranny in America go back to the 1930s and even further back to President Lincoln. The decline of Congress, which was created by the Founding Fathers to be a powerful political institution, has been a long term process. However, in recent years the decline of Congress’ power and relevance has accelerated. The Democrats are as responsible for this as Republicans. If US law had been enforced, and Democrats could have enforced the law, George W. Bush and essentially the entirety of his appointees would be in federal prison.

But the Democrats sacrificed the people’s power over government in order that the executive branch could protect us from a terrorism for which no evidence exists. No terrorist events have occurred since September 11, 2001, except for FBI orchestrated plots that “never endangered the public.” As for the government’s 9/11 story, thousands of experts have their doubts.

So, the US Constitution has simply been discarded on the basis of fear. First, the fear of the Great Depression, and secondly, the fear of Muslim Terrorism.

The United States of America is the Constitution. If the Constitution no longer exists as an enforceable document taken seriously by political elites, the United States no longer exists. Some other entity has taken its place.

Think about that. Describe to yourself the characteristics of this new entity. This will be easier for older people than for the young, who have been born into the new tyranny.

For the young, tyranny is all they know. For the young, tyranny is normal.

How old does a person have to be to remember when you boarded an airliner without any security? In previous columns I have pointed out the tiny, essentially insignificant infractions, that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in order to avoid impeachment. Compared to Bush or Obama, Nixon was flawless in his observation of US law and the US Constitution. No one of my generation can possibly imagine Nixon saying that the UN could replace Congress’ authority to initiate war, or that he could strip US citizens of their liberty and lives on suspicion alone without evidence or due process of law, simply on the basis of executive decree. All Nixon did was to lie about when he learned of a burglary of which he had no prior knowledge and no involvement.

The loss of our liberty is where we are today. Rep. Jones wants to retrieve Congress’ war-making power. He says that those Americans who wish to support this goal should inform their Senators and Representative and local newspaper of this fact. He provides the telephone number of the congressional switchboard which can connect you to the three offices that, allegedly, represent you. The number is 202 224-3121.

As you know, I keep trying, and so must we all. If we don’t keep trying, it means we accept our loss of our liberty and accountable government. If we give in now, what was the point of resisting the Soviet threat, other than profits and power for the military/security complex?

The US government and its media whores, presstitutes as Gerald Celente calls them, show increasing contempt for the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the American public. Even Americans spaced out on alcohol, drugs, junk food, television and sports events remember the name Osama bin Laden. This person, formerly an operative of the US government against the Soviet Union, was, we were told, the embodiment of total evil. He was responsible for 9/11.

President George W. Bush declared that Afghanistan’s refusal (apparently another Bush regime lie) to deliver Osama, the alleged (no proof) perpetrator of 9/11, to US authorities was the justification for attacking Afghanistan, a country at that time, as now, with two separate governments at war with one another. Shortly thereafter, Osama became, magically, the reason to invade Iraq, an old US ally who had attacked the government of the Iranian Revolution at Washington’s behest.

Suddenly America’s Iraqi ally had nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction” that threatened American cities, in the words of Bush’s moronic National Security Advisor, with “mushroom clouds.”

How did all this absurdity occur? Yes, what Gerald Celente aptly designates as “the presstitute media” played a role. However, the whores were serving their customers, which are the government and private interests that benefit from war. The American public could have rejected the spin, but they put yellow ribbon decals on their SUVs and supported the troops.

If Americans were puzzled when the US government abandoned its position that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and announced a new “mastermind,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the presstitutes didn’t mention it. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was designated the “mastermind of 9/11” because the US government had in custody this hapless individual, perhaps sold to them by warlords for the bounty paid for “terrorists.” There’s no good in having a mastermind of 9/11 whom you cannot catch. So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed became the Mastermind of 9/11.

Once designated the Mastermind, the CIA torturers went to work on him, illegally, of course, but who cares, here was the Mastermind of 9/11.

After Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water-boarded 183 times with the only evidence against him being coerced self-incrimination, both the former chief US prosecutor at Guantanamo, Colonel Morris Davis, and Admiral Donald Guter, Judge Advocate General of the US Navy, dismissed the Guantanamo military tribunal trials as show trials or “circuses.”

Indeed, the American trials of alleged “terrorists” are even less lawful than Stalin’s show trials of the Bolsheviks, who created the Russian Revolution in 1917, and Hitler’s trials of the German military who attempted to assassinate him in order to save Germany from destruction.

When America’s own chief military prosecutors denounce trials of alleged “terrorists,” the media and the public should take notice. But not in America where the government believes its own lies as fervently as the brainwashed public believes the presstitute media.

Astonishingly, before a show trial could dispatch Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the Mastermind of 9/11, the US government has produced a new culprit. It was not Osama bin Laden nor Sheikh Mohammed, but Iran that is responsible for 9/11. In a US federal court judgment issued in December 2011, Iran was found guilty of the 9/11 attacks (ref).

So who is responsible for 9/11? If not bin Laden, why did the Navy Seals allegedly murder him? If not Sheikh Mohammed, why is he being put on trial after being tortured for years?

The answer is that the criminals in Washington, who control our lives, no longer care about any of their previous propaganda. They now want to attack another country on totally false pretenses, as does the extreme right-wing Israeli government, the cancer of the Middle East.

Some of the Israeli military brass and much of the Israeli security/intelligence brass oppose an attack on Iran as an act of insanity. Yet, little, if any of the Israeli opposition to war has been reported in the US presstitute media. In order to negate internal opposition, the Israeli prime minister has formed a unity government with the main opposition party, as AIPAC stampedes the US Congress into voting for war with Iran (ref).

If the unaware American population can be programmed to believe that Iran is the 9/11 culprit, then Washington can initiate yet another war that enriches the military/security complex with money and power.

Will bin Laden’s family now sue Washington for blaming Osama for an offense which Washington now acknowledges he was not guilty? Will Sheikh Mohammed be found guiltless, because a US federal court now says it was Iran that was responsible for 9/11?

These would be the results if America had a justice system that was independent of the needs of the political elites and the private interests that they serve. But today in America the ruling interests produce by hook or crook justifications for war that serve the power and profit of the military/security complex. Whatever the mainstream media tells you serves this interest.

So, how do we rescue America from its government and from the corrupt media that serves as a Ministry of Truth for a corrupt government?

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

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.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________




Myanmar learns the lesson of Libya

 By Stephen Gowans, What’s Left

Myanmar Railway minister talks to journalists on May 19, 2012. The regime—according to the West, is beginning to act "reasonably."

Strike Myanmar from the regime change list. Only two years ago, the resource-rich country located between India and China was practicing the kind of economic nationalism that got Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi deep into trouble with the US State Department and oil company giants. Now, Washington has suspended its sanctions on Myanmar and nominated its first ambassador to the country in 22 years.

Why?

The Obama administration says it’s because of the profound political changes Myanmar has brought about over the last year, including the release from house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, who now sits in Myanmar’s parliament. But the real reason has more to do with the country’s military rulers turning away from economic nationalism and throwing their economy’s doors open wide to ownership by outsiders.

Announcing the easing of US sanctions, US secretary of state Hilary Clinton went directly to the heart of the matter, after making obligatory remarks about Myanmar travelling the road to democracy. “Today we say to Americans business: Invest in Burma (Myanmar)!” [1]

When Myanmar’s military took power in a 1962 coup, it nationalized most industries and brought the bulk of the economy under government control, which is the way it stayed until two years ago.

Major utilities were state-owned and health-care and education were publically provided. Private hospitals and private schools were unheard of.

Ownership of land and local companies was limited to the country’s citizens. Companies were required to hire Myanmar workers. And the central bank was answerable to the government. [2]

But in the last year, Myanmar’s government began to sell off government buildings, its port facilities, its national airline, mines, farmland, the country’s fuel distribution network, and soft drink, cigarette and bicycle factories.

The doors to the country’s publically-owned health care and education systems were thrown open, and private investors were invited in.

A new law was drawn up to give more independence to the central bank, making it answerable to its own inflation control targets, rather than directly to the government. [3]

To top it all off, a foreign-investment law was drafted to allow foreigners to control local companies and land, permit the entry of foreign telecom companies and foreign banks, allow 100 percent repatriation of profits, and exempt foreign investors from paying taxes for up to five years.

What’s more, foreign enterprises would be allowed to import skilled workers, and wouldn’t be required to hire locally. [4]

With Myanmar signaling its willingness to turn over its economy to outside investors, President Obama last December dispatched Hillary Clinton to meet with Myanmar’s leaders, the first US secretary of state to visit in more than 50 years. [5]

William Hague soon followed, the first British foreign minister to visit since 1955. [6]

Other foreign ministers beat their own paths to the door of the country’s military junta, seeking to establish ties with the now foreign investment-friendly government on behalf of their own corporations, investors, and banks.

And business organizations sent their own delegations, including four major Japanese business organizations, all looking to cash in on Myanmar’s new opening. [7]

A new frontier

The Wall Street Journal calls Myanmar “the last, large frontier market in Asia” and describes its “potential” as “too great for …investors to ignore.” [8] The country is gas- and oil-rich, and teems with timber and gems. It could become a major exporter of rice and seafood, though with the country’s new foreign investment law, it will be the superrich of New York, London, and Tokyo who reap the lion’s share of benefits, not Myanmar’s citizens.

A country of poor people, Myanmar offers the attraction to overseas investors of low manufacturing wages. And it’s situated between India and China, giving manufacturers easy access to two emerging growth markets.

International companies are circling the country, says the Wall Street Journal, [9] (like vultures?) ready to invest their capital in the provision of heavy machinery, railways, airports, telecom networks, consumer goods–and services, including private healthcare. [10]

Their enthusiasm is no less than that expressed by US ambassador to Libya Gene A. Cretz in connection with that country. Cretz said the Libyans “were starting from A to Z in terms of building infrastructure and other things. If we can get American companies here on a fairly big scale, which we will try to do everything we can to do that, then this will redound to improve the situation in the United States with respect to our own jobs” [11] to say nothing of redounding to Wall Street with respect to its enrichment.

Two countries teeming with investment opportunities. The only difference is that Libya had to be bombed in hopes that Gadhafi’s successors would lay out the welcome mat for foreign investors and US and western European corporations with greater alacrity than the resource nationalism-practicing Gadhafi did.

Myanmar’s generals got the message, and laid out the welcome mat themselves, before they too faced Gadhafi’s fate.
_
Steve Gowans is founding editor of What’s Left. 

1. Steve Myers, “As relations warm with Myanmar, U.S. will ease trade limits”, The New York Times, May 17, 2012.

2. “Myanmar’s ruling junta is selling state’s assets,” The New York Times, March 7, 2010; “Change comes to Myanmar, but only on the Junta’s terms,” The New York Times, March 17, 2010.

3. “Myanmar’s ruling junta is selling state’s assets,” The New York Times, March 7, 2010.

4. “Firms see Myanmar as next frontier”, The Wall Street Journal, November 30, 2011; Patrick Barta, “Myanmar considers letting outsiders in telecom market amid overhauls”, The Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2012; Patrick Barta, “Myanmar eases investment laws”, The Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2012.

5. Thomas Fuller, “Clinton set to visit Myanmar as Obama cites progress”, The New York Times, November 17, 2011.

6. Patrick Barta, “On Myanmar visit, U.K. calls for further reform”, The Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2011.

7. Yoree Koh, ”Japan Inc. Rushes to Myanmar”, The Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2012.

8. Patrick Barta, “A pariah regime courts West in China’s shadow”, The Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2011.

9. Patrick Barta, “Myanmar eases investment laws”, The Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2012.

10. John Bussey, “The new dance with Myanmar”, The Wall Street Journal, November 30, 2011

11. David D. Kirkpatrick, “U.S. reopens its embassy in Libya”, The New York Times, September 22, 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

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.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________




Waging Total War on Islam

by Stephen Lendman

A multitude of images exploit the young male "macho" instinct to prove himself in combat. Most recruits have absolutely no understanding of the real mainsprings of US foreign policy, and then they're further indoctrinated to look at the enemy as subhuman—a standard procedure in all militaries at war. (Credit: milpictures.com)

When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said that’s where the money is. Washington targets the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia because it’s where most proved oil and gas reserves are.

Waging war require enemies. Pretexts create them. Muslims are demonized as threats. They’re portrayed as culturally inferior, dirty, lecherous, untrustworthy, religiously fanatical, and violent. Slanderous media commentaries suggest gun-totting terrorists threatening US interests.

Fear is heightened. Strategically timed false flag terror plots make headlines. So do arrests of entrapped Muslims despite no evidence of crime or intent to commit one. 

Americans are manipulated to believe domestic and foreign jihadists threaten national security. Resource wars follow.

Enemies are dehumanized. Military training creates Groupthink. Recruits are manipulated to hate. Indoctrination involves sensitizing them to become effective combat killing machines.

On May 10, wired.com contributors Noah Shachtman and Spencer Ackerman headlined “US Military Taught Officers: Use ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam,” saying:

Total war is taught to protect America from Islamic terrorists. Options include destroying an entire “civilian population wherever necessary.”

The Norfolk, VA-based Joint Forces Staff College taught “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.” High-ranking officers were instructed to believe “Islam had already declared war on the West.”

A wired.com Danger Room investigation revealed it. Damage control followed. Lt. General George Flynn in charge of training and education said:

“It was inflammatory….(T)hat’s really not what we’re talking about. That is not how we view this situation or the challenges we have in the world today.”

The White House ordered counterterrorism training content reviewed. The “Perspectives” course was taught since 2004. It “not only evaded review, but had defenders in the Joint Forces Staff College (who) taught it.”

Lecturer Stephen Coughlin taught that “Islamic law is a danger to US national security.” College spokesman Steven Williams said around 90% of students considered course content “mostly positive.”

After revisions were made last year, some officers objected to offensive material. According to Flynn:

“We looked at it and we found the material to be objectionable and we started digging into it to see, how did the course get this way?” 

“Possibly, we did not follow the procedures we should have followed in academically approving the course, but that’ll be formally determined when we complete the inquiry into this.”

Course content allegedly had to follow “White House-approved guidelines issued by the Department of Homeland Security to prevent anti-Islam material from being taught by the US government.”

Flynn said “whatever action is warranted” will be done to assure compliance.

On May 10, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey said instructor Lt. Colonel Matthew A. Dooley remains on Norfolk’s staff but is “no longer in a teaching status.”

He taught content about waging total war on Muslim civilians “wherever necessary.” He likened it to firebombing Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki destruction. Other course lecturers encouraged students “to think of themselves as a ‘resistance movement’ to Islam.”

Demsey and Flynn “pulled the plug on the course last month.” An investigation began. Major General Frederick Rudesheim heads it. “Final judgment” awaits his findings.

“The military is hardly alone in dealing with anti-Islam instructional material passing itself off as responsible counterterrorism.” 

“Over the years, hundreds of documents claiming ‘mainstream’ Muslims are ‘violent’ have made their way into FBI curricula, alongside internal claims that agents working on counterterrorism cases could ‘bend or suspend the law.’ “

The Bureau teaches agents that “mainstream” Muslims are “violent,” that Islam “ma(kes) its followers want to commit ‘genocide,’ ” and an “FBI intelligence analyst compared Islam to the Death Star from Star Wars.”

An internal investigation followed. Conclusions weren’t revealed. Allegedly this type content was removed from course content. It compared the “Arab World” to the “Western Mind.”

It said Westerners were even-tempered. Emotional outbursts were “exceptional.” Arab “Outburst(s) and Loss of Control (are) Expected.”

Post-9/11, Muslims have been systematically targeted. In 2011, a New York University School of Law Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHR&GJ) report titled “Targeted and Entrapped: Manufacturing the ‘Homegrown Threat’ in the United States” explained Muslim persecution in detail.

Ruthless targeting entraps them. Paid informants infest mosques and communities. Many dozens are pursued on bogus charges. Invented plots are foiled in the nick of time. Media scoundrels headline them to heighten fear.

Muslims are portrayed as “potential threats” or “homegrown terrorists.” Federal, state and local law enforcement officials consider them more likely to become terrorists, easily radicalized, and compelled to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Counterterrorism policies mandate identifying and stopping them before they act.

Research, of course, contradicts these notions. Claiming Muslims “hate us” is spurious. Nonetheless, their cultural and religious practices are cited as indicators of potential terrorism. As a result, they’re maliciously persecuted for political advantage.

Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI, and Justice Department (DOJ) embrace racist radicalization notions. They’re used as justification to entrap innocent victims with “preventive” policing despite no evidence of wrongdoing. 

Instead of pursuing real criminals, they target people for their faith, religious practices, ethnicity, national origin, political views, or appearance. Lawless tactics entrap them. They include paid informants, surveillance, and inducing, influencing, or provoking potential or actual crimes that otherwise wouldn’t have been committed.

FBI Domestic Investigative Operational Guidelines (DIOGs) are bent without supervisory approval or constraints to permit virtually anything.

The 2003 Department of Justice (DOJ) Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies bans racial and ethnic profiling. Nonetheless, it implicitly permits doing so for faith and national origin purposes. It also allows targeting anyone for national and border security related issues.

Post-9/11, entrapment and other abuses became policy. They remain so. No link whatever connects religion, ethnicity, national origin, or political views to a propensity to commit violence. 

However, most convictions result from bogusly conflating them as proof of intent or predisposition. As a result, innocent victims rot in America’s gulag. Justice is systematically denied. In an environment of hate and fear, no one is safe. Most of all, Muslims are public enemy number one. 

Pentagon damage control casts a veil over policy. Joint Forces Staff College course content changes (whether or not implemented) obscure the greater problem. 

Vilifying enemies is longstanding. Military training features dehumanization. Anti-Japanese WW II epithets and images were grotesque.

North Koreans were called “gooks” and “zipperheads.” 

Vietnamese were also “gooks,” as well as “dinks” and “slopes.” Arabs are called “ragheads” and “sand niggers.” Native Americans were called plundering, murdering savages. Common epithets today marginalize Blacks and Latinos.

Dehumanization facilitates warmaking. It also desensitizes law enforcement agents to target Muslims and other designated state enemies. Doing the wrong thing works best when Groupthink becomes polic

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

His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

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.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________