18 Of The Most Amazingly-Creative Protests Ever!

18 Of The Most Amazingly-Creative Protests Ever!

What does create long-lasting change, is changing the hearts and minds of the people, and changing the consciousness of society. This is done by connecting to them on both an emotional and a logical level, not by just expressing how angry you there. There is certainly plenty of value in large gatherings where people loudly express their views, but it will require a bit more creativity than that to really connect with people on a deeper level.

Most people think protests are aimless especially when they are mismanaged and get violent. Such protests instead lead to many socio-economic challenges, which create more problems than before.

However, if clever words and peaceful gestures are used for a protest, it gets more positive attention and hence may change the course of history. Traditionally, protests have been thought of as a way to demand change from the masters, but as we have seen throughout history, this rarely achieves long-lasting change.

Here are 18 of some of the most creative protests ever recorded in history:

1. Road Block Clearly Conveys The Sentiments Of Hong Kong Protestors 




2. When The Protesters Are Harry Potter Fans Too






3. A Spanish Girl Protesting For Palestine At Hollywood Walk Of Fame



4. A Demo Against Illegal Organ Transplant




5. Indian Men Protest Against Government Comments That “Those Who Dress Immodestly Are Inviting Rape”




6. Brazilians Protest Against FIFA World Cup




7. Portland Protests Against The Transportation Of Coal, Gas And Oil




8. A Perfect Answer To Westboro Baptist Church’s Logic: God Hates No One




9. PTI Protesters Against Prime Minister’s UN Address



10. Factory Workers Lay Down Their Hats In The Italy Streets



11. EU Dairy Farmers Protestors Used Milk Cannon Against Police



12. Spanish Coal Miners Protests By Holding A Night Vigil With Their Helmets

 

13. There Do Exists Time Travel Protests :D



14. A Good Idea, Though!



15. Powerful Words On A Tent During The Occupy Events



16. British Themed Protest



17. A Reply To Another Sign



18. Give Three Piece A Chance: Protest Against Abercrombie & Fitch Outlet On London’s Historic Savile Row




by John Vibes

Cardiologist Says “Don’t Vaccinate” Amid Recent Vaccine Hysteria

Cardiologist Says “Don’t Vaccinate” Amid Recent Vaccine Hysteria


Dr. Jack Wolfson. Image from WolfsonIntegrativeCardiology.com

The American media has been swarmed with stories about vaccinations in recent weeks, after nearly 100 cases of measles have been identified, originating from an outbreak at Disneyland. The mainstream media and government agencies have been quick to blame this situation of families who chose not to vaccinate, but a number of the original Disneyland cases actually were vaccinated.

People contract illnesses that they are vaccinated for fairly often, in fact, just this week it was reported that a 5-year-old girl died from the flu just weeks after receiving the vaccine. This situation and many like it are leaving many to wonder if it wasn’t the vaccine itself that infected the child with the illness. It is common knowledge that vaccines contain live samples of infections.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/year-girl-dies-catching-flu-vaccine/story?id=28526729

While most mainstream doctors are parroting the pro-vaccine propaganda that is being spread in the news, there are some doctors who are actually speaking out against vaccinations. Dr. Jack Wolfson of Arizona for example, has recently created a controversy by publicly advising parents not to vaccinate, even in the midst of the recent hysteria. Wolfson says that a healthy diet is way more effective against infectious diseases than vaccinations are.

“We do not need to inject chemicals into ourselves and into our children in order to boost our immune system. I’m a big fan of what’s called paleo-nutrition, so our children eat foods that our ancestors have been eating for millions of years. That’s the best way to protect,” Wolfson said.

His interview created an uproar among people who are in favor of vaccinations. Responding to his critics, Wolfson posted an unapologetic column where he calls attention to the many toxins that vaccines contain, saying that his critics should, “be angry with your doctor for being close-minded and not disclosing the ingredients in vaccines (not that they read the package insert anyway). They should tell you about the aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue, animal proteins, polysorbate 80, antibiotics, and other chemicals in the shots. According to the Environmental Working Group, newborns contain over 200 chemicals as detected by cord blood. Maybe your doctor feels a few more chemicals injected into your child won’t be a big deal.”
http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/arizona-cardiologist-responds-to-critics-regarding-measles-and-vaccines/#sthash.bvpKXmtt.dpuf

Woflson then boldly closes his statement with the following message to parents: “Finally, be angry with yourself for not opening your eyes to the snow job and brainwashing which have taken over your mind. You NEVER asked the doctor any questions. You NEVER asked what is in the vaccines. You NEVER learned about these benign infections.Let’s face it, you don’t really give a crap what your children eat. You don’t care about chemicals in their life. You don’t care if they sit around all day watching the TV or playing video games.”

Wolfson is just one of many doctors who are speaking out against the dangers of vaccines, and calling attention to more holistic, health-based solutions for illness. In fact, the people who created some of the first vaccines like the small pox antidote for example, actually refuse to take most modern vaccinations due to the harmful toxins that they now contain.

Mobilized & Winning, Now It’s Time to Escalate, The ‘Movement of Movements’ against Fast Tracking the TPP has the power to win

Mobilized & Winning, Now It’s Time to Escalate, The ‘Movement of Movements’ against Fast Tracking the TPP has the power to win



Since the President’s State of the Union message where he announced his plan to push corporate trade agreements and seek Fast Track trade promotion authority, the movement against Fast Track, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and globalized trade has grown. Instead of the bump in support that Obama expected after the State of the Union, opposition has increased inside Congress and in the grass roots.http://www.flushthetpp.org/fast-tracks-fast-failure-following-the-state-of-the-union/

Indications are that we are winning, and if we continue to mobilize over the next two months, we will win.

Mobilization

Before the President’s speech there was already a large movement organized from across the political spectrum to oppose Fast Track and stop corporate trade agreements.
https://www.popularresistance.org/fast-track-not-a-done-deal-the-people-will-stop-it/

When we took action on Capitol Hill this week, we did so as part of a larger campaign to stop Fast Track. The US Trade Rep Michael Froman testified before the House and Senate. It was essential for him to be confronted at these hearings because he has consistently misled the Congress and the people. There are multiple false statements to dissect, but his latest is the claim that Fast Track will give Congress the power to shape the negotiations. This is a laughable lie since the negotiations have been carried on in secret for most of Obama’s Presidency. How can Congress shape negotiations that Froman claims are near completion?https://www.popularresistance.org/fast-track-not-a-done-deal-the-people-will-stop-it/
http://www.flushthetpp.org/10-tall-tales-on-trade-fact-checking-obamas-top-trade-official/

The truth is that Fast Track removes Congress from the equation. It allows the President to sign trade agreements before sending them to Congress for a brief review of thousands of pages of documents; without committee hearings and only brief debate on the floor. Then Congress has an up or down vote with no amendments. Under Fast Track, Congress would be unable to fulfill its responsibilities under the Commerce Clause to regulate trade. It is also a tremendous grant of power to President Obama.

After the President’s speech there was a protest at a town hall of Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. Wyden is a key player as the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. He has played both sides of the debate and the movement needs to monitor him closely and hold him accountable. If he cannot reach agreement with Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, then Fast Track is unlikely to pass the Senate. This week Senator Grassley said that currently they don’t have 60 votes in support of Fast Track and therefore it could not pass a filibuster. If Wyden demands that Congress sees the text of the TPP and has true involvement in the negotiations before they are finalized, then he and Hatch will not reach agreement and the Republicans will have to go it alone.

In the House there are even more challenges for Fast Track. Chuck Porcari of the Communication Workers (CWA) writes:

“House Speaker John Boehner has said that the White House needs to deliver at least 50 House Democrats if Fast Track has any hopes of passing, especially now that the White House is trying to whip together 80 Democrats in the House and New Democrat Coalition is trying to cobble together at most 40 votes. . . . According to a story by Inside U.S. Trade, ‘one informed source questioned whether the New Democrats actually have an idea of which lawmakers will provide the 40 ‘yes’ votes they are seeking.’”http://newpartners.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d%3e444%3b%26JDG%3c%3d1%40348.LP%3f%40083%3a&RE=MC&RI=4808116&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=45784&Action=Follow+Link

When the TPP negotiators met in New York City this week, people showed up to protest the negotiations despite a winter blizzard. The protests were organized by Trade Justice New York and included the Teamsters, 350.org NY, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Fight for the Future, Food and Water Watch, Veterans for Peace, Citizens for Safe Energy, Popular Resistance and a host of other organizations. Despite snow, the crowd was too large to stay in front of the Sheraton and police forced them across the street. After the protest, they marched to protest Senator Chuck Schumer, a member of the Finance Committee and the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/26/calling-tpp-death-pact-health-advocates-rally-outside-secretive-trade-talks
https://www.popularresistance.org/calendar1/emergency-protest-to-stop-the-tpp/

In the first week after the President’s speech there were 10,000 phone calls opposing Fast Track made to Congress, according to Arthur Stamoulis of Citizens Trade Campaign. These phone calls will continue to escalate. We urge people to call; go to StopFastTrack.com which will contact your legislator for you and provide you with talking points. Phone calls make a difference when tied to a campaign that includes on-the-ground protests, meetings with congressional representatives and media work. We know that this movement can generate tens of thousands of calls and are confident it will do so again.http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/
http://www.stopfasttrack.com/
https://www.popularresistance.org/stop-fast-track-over-40000-phone-calls-600000-emails-to-congress/

NAFTA has changed the Politics of Trade

There are many differences between the debate over trade today and the 1990s era debate over NAFTA. The major difference now is people know that corporate trade agreements favor transnational corporations but undermine people and the environment. At the same time, politicians know they are risking their political careers by supporting corporate trade agreements.

In Trade and Consequences: Dems Forget Political Impact of NAFTA, the author reminds
us that:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/18/336119/-Trade-and-Consequences-Dems-Forget-Political-Impact-of-Nafta

From the get-go, the pursuit of NAFTA was damaging to Democrats . . .With pro-labor and pro-environment congressional Democrats lined up against business oriented New Democrats in their own caucus and the White House . . . when the elections came around, Clinton’s advocacy of NAFTA seriously hurt the Democrats.

The political fall-out from NAFTA was severe. In 1994 there was a tremendous backlash to the policies of Bill Clinton. The result was a 54-seat swing in membership from Democrats to Republicans. For the first time since 1952, Republicans gained a majority of the House. Democrats have still not recovered from this electoral slaughter. But, Republicans should realize that if they go it alone on Fast Track, the Democrats will reap the political benefit from these trade agreements which always lose jobs, expand the wealth divide and increase trade deficits.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113200/opinion-briefing-north-american-free-trade-agreement.aspx

The political winds on corporate trade have been blowing strongly negative in recent years. In a 2008 Gallup Poll, 53% of Americans said that NAFTA had a primarily negative effect on the economy; only 37% said the effect had been positive. As a result President Obama took an anti-NAFTA campaign stance saying “NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people” and promised to “fix” the agreement so it “works for American workers.” Obama claimed he would seek renegotiation of NAFTA to include more rigorous labor and environmental stipulations. Now, he is negotiating even worse deals in the Trans-Atlantic and Pacific partnerships.

By December 2012 polling indicated “U.S. public opinion has intensified from broad opposition to overwhelming opposition to NAFTA-style trade deals,” citing
http://economyincrisis.org/content/18019

U.S. respondents who believe that the United States should ‘renegotiate’ or “leave” NAFTA outnumbered by nearly 4-to-1 those that say the country should ‘continue to be a member’ (53 vs.15 percent). Support for the ‘leave’ or ‘renegotiate’ positions dominated among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike.

The 2012 presidential campaign played on these views; spending “an unprecedented $68 million—about $34 million each—in ads attacking more-of-the-same trade policies. Trade-themed presidential ads aired an estimated 83,000 times in 2012, more than twice the number of trade-related airings in 2008.”http://economyincrisis.org/content/18019

Perhaps more importantly for the current debate in Congress, in the 2012 congressional elections, 57% of candidates in competitive races campaigned against trade deals:

Out of more than 125 paid ads used by congressional candidates across 30 U.S. states, only one indicated support for any trade deals modeled on NAFTA. (It was from GOP candidate Linda Lingle, who lost her bid for Hawaii’s Senate seat.) The same was seen in the Senate where ‘candidates who employed ads against status quo trade won seats in Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

And, these views continue through current times as Dave Johnson writes:
http://ourfuture.org/20140813/dems-should-campaign-on-trade-and-jobs-not-on-being-like-republicans

The public gets it that our NAFTA-style trade agreements have sucked jobs out of the country. They get it that we need a national plan to restore our manufacturing ecosystem. They get it that we need to invest in maintaining and modernizing our infrastructure.

Even politicians who have supported trade in the past are expressing doubts. The Teamsters reported on Froman’s testimony writing “Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said to Froman, ‘If trade agreements can’t show they’re going to help the middle class…I’ve got some real problems with them.’” And in a theme heard throughout the day: “Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, criticized the TPP talks because members of Congress are severely constrained from reviewing the text. He also grilled Froman on the failure of the S. Korea trade deal to create the jobs promised.”
http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2015/01/congress-takes-first-steps-toward-fast.html

Huffington Post reports another area of bi-partisan opposition came from “Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Rob Portman (D-Ohio), who pressed Froman on the issue of currency manipulation — an economic strategy in which a nation devalues its own currency in order to attract jobs from abroad without reducing its workers’ standard of living.  Grassley asked Froman twice if currency manipulation had been raised in the TPP talks, without getting an answer.” Even though almost 250 members of this Congress signed letters in the previous Congress saying this issue is critical for their support.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/obama-trade-pact-republicans_n_6556114.html

The Movement against Corporate Trade has Grown Deeper, Broader and Stronger

The movement has broadened because the current trade agreements cover much more than trade, impacting every aspect of our lives. Leo Gerard of the US Steelworkers writes:
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17544/tpp_fast_track

Supersized trade agreements now intrude on every area of life, from food safety to generic drugs to national sovereignty. They can extend patents that make life-saving drugs unaffordable. They can forbid country-of-origin labeling on food. They can outlaw requirements that American taxpayer-financed road and bridge projects use materials made in America. They can allow multinational corporations to sue governments for damages if a law to protect the public reduces profits. They can commit the United States to pay fines or revise laws if an international tribunal orders it.

Another reason for stronger opposition is the experience with NAFTA and other corporate trade deals. Teamster Mike Dolan writes in a report on how to fight the corporate trade agenda:
http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/wp-content/files_mf/dolan_tpp_ttipengweb5061.pdf

The NAFTA and WTO and their progeny have cost the U.S. millions of jobs lost through outsourcing and cheap imports, and it is the definition of insanity to continue the same trade model and expect different outcomes. The new crop of trade talks, these alleged high-end, 21st century agreements, are so big and complex, and intrude on so much of the substantive jurisdiction of law-makers and regulators, that the old-fashioned Fast Track is a completely inappropriate delegation―an abdication even―of Congressional Authority.

The NAFTA impact can be seen in changes in the environmental movement. During NAFTA, Mike Dolan reports seven Big Green environmental groups provided Clinton cover: World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, Conservation International and Audubon Society. Now the environmental impact is evident and the environmental crisis has worsened. Fresh Greens have taken a more aggressive stand preventing Big Greens from providing Obama cover. Their demand now, echoed by many in Congress, is enforceable environmental standards. The agreements negotiated by Obama have less environmental protection than those negotiated by George W. Bush –leaks show they have no environmental protection.
https://www.popularresistance.org/message-to-tpp-negotiators-environment-not-for-trade/
https://www.popularresistance.org/environmental-tpp-chapter-leaked-weaker-than-previous-agreements/
https://www.popularresistance.org/obamas-tpp-fast-track-gets-dealt-blow-by-leaked-environment-chapter/

Dolan also points out that consumers have joined the anti-corporate trade movement because food and water, health care and medicines, data and privacy as well as the future of the Internet are all adversely impacted by these trade deals. He points to mainstream groups like the American Association of Retired Persons, Breast Cancer Action, AllergyKids Foundation and the Alliance for Natural Health U.S.A, the Council for Responsible Genetics, Food Democracy Now and Moms Across America.

The threat to the future of the Internet has brought groups like Fight For the Future into the battle against Fast Track along with Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and Free Press.

While NAFTA is good for agribusiness, it is not good for traditional farmers. Dolan writes “three great farmer groups, . . . the National Farmers Union (NFU), founded 1902, representing farmers and ranchers in all states; the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), founded 1986, and its 24 constituent grassroots groups in 32 states; and the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy (IATP), the preeminent progressive think-tank at the intersection of globalization and farming” now oppose corporate trade agreements. Similarly, the Organic Consumers Association which has an Internet following of over one million people opposes corporate trade.

Another area of large growth has been faith-based groups. The Vatican has spoken out on trade because of its adverse impact on developing countries, facilitation of corporate tax evasion and exploitation of workers and natural resources.  The Sisters of Mercy oppose corporate trade because of their concerns about immigration, non-violence, anti-racism, women’s rights, and the Earth. Protestant groups opposing NAFTA-like trade include the United Methodists, Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ. The Unitarian Universalists and the Quakers have been long time opponents of corporate trade. And, conservative religious groups oppose the trade agreements because they include countries that are hostile to Christianity.

Of course, a backbone of opposition to corporate trade is labor. Teamster Mike Dolan lists other key players the “United Auto Workers, The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, United Steelworkers of America, the Communication Workers of America,  the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, and the Union of Needletrades and Industrial Textile Employees, affiliates of Public Services International, including AFSCME and the American Federation of Teachers, Service Employees International Union.”

How We Win

The movement opposed to corporate trade is larger – representing tens of millions of Americans; broader – representing people concerned about food, water, healthcare, the Internet, workers’ rights, the environment, banking regulation and more; and more committed because they have seen degradation of the economy and environment by NAFTA and similar corporate trade agreements.

The key is for this movement to mobilize now. The next two months will decide whether corporate trade is finished for the remainder of President Obama’s term in office. If people take action (go to www.StopFastTrack.com), we will win.

There is also a week of national actions being planned in February during the congressional recess. Take the pledge at www.FlushtheTPP.org to get involved and stay informed.

This is a battle between mass people power and trans-national corporate power. It is a battle the people can win, and it is essential for every issue we care about that we win.

-###-

by Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers

Kevin Zeese JD and Margaret Flowers MD co-host ClearingtheFOGRadio.org on We Act Radio 1480 AM Washington, DC and on Economic Democracy Media, co-direct It’s Our Economy and are organizers of the Occupation of Washington, DC. Their twitters are @KBZeese and @MFlowers8.
https://twitter.com/KBZeese
https://twitter.com/MFlowers8

@KBZeese
Shift Wealth: Economic Democracy
Its Our Economy
(www.ItsOurEconomy.US)
Build power and resistance
Popular Resistance
(www.PopularResistance.org)
Democratize the Media
Clearing the FOG (Forces of Greed)
Radio (http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org)

Heading for War with Russia?

Heading for War with Russia?



Ukraine is the epicenter of possible European war. Ongoing events should scare everyone.

Kiev's war on Donbas rages. Area freedom fighters continue routing its military. It's desperate for more Western support.

Wanting greater numbers of US-led NATO boots on the ground than are already involved in fighting.

Three recent regime false flags didn't achieve Kiev's objective. Perhaps something major is planned. A Kiev 9/11.

Big enough to embroil Europe in war. Meaning East/West confrontation. America v. Russia. Possible nuclear war.

It bears repeating what previous articles stressed. Today is the most perilous time in world history. Thursday Stop NATO reports are disturbing.

"US Army Trains for New War in Europe," reported editor Rick Rozoff. Exercise Allied Spirit I involves America, Britain, Canada, Hungary and the Netherlands.
https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/u-s-army-trains-for-new-war-in-europe/

Continuing through January 31. "(D)esigned to provide multinational interoperability training at brigade and battalion levels to enhance US and (NATO's) effectiveness."

In other words, prepare for potential war with Russia. According to US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) commander General David Perkins:

America's military is responsible for "synchronizing and delivering national power (to) seize, retain and exploit the initiative and maintain relative advantage over all enemies."

Prepare for an eventual US/Russia military showdown if current political and economic war fails to achieve Washington's objective.

Namely, turning Russia into another US colony. Eliminating a major rival. Controlling its resources. Exploiting its people.

Part of America's strategy for unchallenged global dominance. Waging permanent wars to achieve it.

Ongoing in Europe's heartland. Kiev's war on Donbas rages. Threatens to become much more than civil war.


"NATO Backs Ukraine Client in 290-Day War: Stoltenberg," headlined Stop NATO.
https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/nato-backs-ukraine-client-in-290-day-war-stoltenberg/

Secretary-General Stoltenberg is a convenient US-controlled front man. NATO's number two is number one.

Its eminence grise. Deputy Secretary-General Alexander Vershbow runs things.

A former Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs.

Clinton's National Security Council European Affairs director. A former US ambassador to Russia.

Calling Moscow "more an enemy than partner." Intends NATO measures to counter nonexistent Russian aggression.

Including stepped up US military presence near its border. America's dirty hands risk the unthinkable. War with Russia means all bets are off.

Supporting Kiev's war on Donbas increases the possibility. On Thursday, Stoltenberg met with Ukraine's illegitimate foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin.

Expressed concern about nonexistent "support of Russia to the separatists."

Telling Klimkin "we will continue to support you, and we will work with you, with strong support to the independence and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine."

Saying NATO "support(s) all efforts (for) a peaceful solution based on the Minsk agreements."

While systematically violating them. Arming, funding and training Kiev's military. Participating in its war on Donbas.

Disingenuously talking peace. Waging dirty war without mercy. Showing no signs of ending. Heading for potentially much greater conflict than already.

Ukraine is effectively bankrupt. Its economy deeply in tatters. Outside aid alone keeps it from disintegrating. Whether enough remains to be seen.

At the same time, military spending increases. So-called defense is the only sector of Ukraine's economy showing growth.

Illegitimate oligarch president Poroshenko said "(t)his year we plan to increase strength of the armed forces of Ukraine up to 250,000 people."

In other words, preparing for greater conflict. Backed by US-dominated NATO.

Risking far greater war than already. NATO Trains Very High Readiness Joint Task Force For War With Russia,"" reported Stop NATO.
https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/nato-trains-very-high-readiness-joint-task-force-for-war-with-russia/

Consisting of land, air, sea and "special operations" as needed. (A)ble to deploy within a few days to respond to any challenges that may arise on NATO's flanks."

Code language for possible war on Russia? It remains to be seen. US-dominated NATO policy heads dangerously in this direction.

Obama wants congressional authorization for unconstrained war. On the phony pretext of combating IS. Syria, Iran, Donbas freedom fighters and Russia the real targets.

With lunatics running things in Washington, expect continued wars without end ahead.

Michel Chossudovsky new book titled The Globalization of War: America's 'Long War' against Humanity"" is essential reading.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-globalization-of-war-americas-long-war-against-humanity-michel-chossudovsky/5427720



Visit Global Research.ca for special offer pre-order information. In his preface, Chossudovsky calls the "globalization of war" a "hegemonic project."

Like nothing in human history preceding it. "Major military and covert intelligence operations are (ongoing) in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East," Chossudovsky explains.

Combining "major theater operations (and) covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states."

US-dominated NATO partnered with Israel coordinate global conflicts "at the highest levels of (Western) military hierarchy."

Political and economic wars accompany them. At stake is humanity's survival. It's very much up for grabs.

Challenging Russia irresponsibly risks crossing an unthinkable red line. Risking potential military confrontation.

On December 4, US House members barely stopped short of declaring war on Russia. Overwhelmingly passing a non-binding resolution. Signaling hostile US intentions.

Former Congressman Denis Kucinich said at the time:

"NATO encirclement, the US-backed coup in Ukraine, an attempt to use an agreement with the European Union to bring NATO into Ukraine at the Russian border, a US nuclear first-strike policy, are all policies which attempt to substitute force for diplomacy."

Heading things dangerously toward open confrontation. The unthinkable. Possible nuclear war.

Last May, Senate members introduced S. 2277: Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014.

Its full title is "(a) bill to prevent Russian aggression toward Ukraine and other sovereign states in Europe and Eurasia, and for other purposes."

Senator Bob Corker (R. TN) introduced it with 26 Republican co-sponsors. Senate Foreign Relations Committee members considered it.

No action was taken so far. Perhaps in the new Congress. Obama as anti-Russian as congressional hawks. Fascists making policy.

Proposed legislation provides "major non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova for purposes of the transfer or possible transfer of defense articles or defense services."

Effectively incorporating these countries into NATO. Making its killing machine more formidable.

Letting Washington establish bases on Russia's border. Challenging Moscow irresponsibly. Risking direct East/West confrontation.

Ongoing events risk the worst possible outcome. Chossudovsky is clear and unequivocal saying "America’s s global military design has been one of world conquest."

"War and globalization are intricately related. Militarization supports powerful economic interests."

"America’s 'Long War' is geared towards worldwide corporate expansion and the conquest of new economic frontiers."

US-dominated NATO partnered with Israel and other rogue states comprise "a formidable military force, deployed in all major regions of the World."

Targeting all independent countries for regime change. Including Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Hezbollah in Lebanon and others.

Potential US-instigated nuclear war threatens humanity's survival. MSM propaganda increases the possibility.

So does public indifference. Anti-war activism is absent. More than ever needed to stop America's hegemonic madness.

Its "long war" rages. No end in sight looms. Either we find a way to end it or it'll end us.

A Final Comment

On Thursday, EU foreign ministers met in Brussels. Extended economic/financial sanctions on Russia through September.

Agreed to consider additional ones. To be decided when ministers meet on February 9. A statement issued lied.

Blaming Russia for "continued and growing" support for Donbas rebels. Saying Moscow shares "responsibility" for escalated conflict.

Russia and Donbas freedom fighters are consistently blamed for Kiev's crimes. Greece's new government expressed phony rhetorical opposition to renewed sanctions.

Its Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias approved them. Brussels unity was required to do so. "We are not the bad boy," Kotzias maintained.

Saying one thing. Doing another shows what ordinary Greeks can expect from its new government.

A previous article called it business as usual wrapped in populist rhetoric. Betrayal after promising real change.

Moscow's EU ambassador Vladimir Chizhov commented saying:

"By acting in such a narrow-minded way, the EU in essence is subjecting to additional tests our partnership - the partnership between Russia and the European Union, which is regrettable."

"(B)esides selective assessments of these or those events, sweeping criticism of Russia is the dominating element."

"As if Russia, and not the Kiev authorities with the connivance of the EU, had unfolded the bloodbath in eastern Ukraine."

"The call for implementation of the Minsk agreements contrasts with statements heard in the past few days from the Ukrainian capital that they are no longer content with the Minsk agreements and it’s necessary to seek another format."

"But while these conversations can be heard, shelling of residential districts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Gorlovka continue."

EU foreign policy chief Federica "Mogherini, while summing up the meeting on Thursday, selected three components in the EU's reaction to deterioration of the situation in eastern Ukraine. Unfortunately, all three are wrong."

On Thursday, Putin said Russia "must overcome the pressure of external factors by means of strengthening its economic and financial sovereignty."

"The current period is not easy," he explained. "(B)ut nothing unexpected has happened. The crisis developments were expected."

Russia won't surrender its political and economic sovereignty. Putin promised new measures for "additional stability against external shocks…"

Including "diversification, the growth of non-energy, high technology, agriculture, and the national financial and banking sector."

At the same time, he intends confronting major Western challenges diplomatically. Given America's rage for regime change, he'll need tough-minded policies with teeth.

The only thing US lunatics running things understand.

-###-

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

The voices of our youths

The voices of our youths 

Minden emberi élet egy egy külön történet egy egy regény,
Minden egyes élet érdekes tartalmakat rejt,Lehet az ember 50 éves vagy akár 20,35 egy igaz szabály akad mindegyikre,
Vannak akik több évet éltek meg mint én,Ez vitathatatlan tény,de vannak olyanok is akik a kis 20 évük alatt több dolgot éltek meg mint mondjuk egy 30 éves,Személy szerint én kíváncsi lennék ha egy ember elé oda állnék és átadnék neki egy könyvet az élete történetével kíváncsi lenne e a végére!?

All human life is a story of a special one novel,
Each hidden life interesting content might be the man 50 years old or even a true rule 20.35 for each of them there are,
There are people who have lived more than a year on, this is an indisputable fact, but there are also those who have lived it as, say, a 30-year-old, personally, I'd be curious if you stand there in front of a man and I will give him a book about several things during the year, the small 20 wondering whether it would be the end of his life story!?


Editoral Szerkesztőség: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005215398478&fref=ufi

The Police State Is Upon Us

The Police State Is Upon Us



 Anyone paying attention knows that 9/11 has been used to create a police/warfare state. Years ago NSA official William Binney warned Americans about the universal spying by the National Security Agency, to little effect. Recently Edward Snowden proved the all-inclusive NSA spying by releasing spy documents, enough of which have been made available by Glenn Greenwald to establish the fact of NSA illegal and unconstitutional spying, spying that has no legal, constitutional, or “national security” reasons.Yet Americans are not up in arms. Americans have accepted the government’s offenses against them as necessary protection against “terrorists.”
Neither Congress, the White House, or the Judiciary has done anything about the wrongful spying, because the spying serves the government. Law and the Constitution are expendable when the few who control the government have their “more important agendas.”

Bradley Manning warned us of the militarization of US foreign policy and the murderous consequences, and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks posted leaked documents proving it.

Were these whistleblowers and honest journalists, who alerted us to the determined attack on our civil liberty, rewarded with invitations to the White House and given medals of honor in recognition of their service to American liberty?

No. Bradley Manning is in federal prison, and so would be Julian Assad and Edward Snowden if Washington could get its hands on them.

Binney escaped the Police State’s clutches, because he did not take any documents with which to prove his allegations, and thus could be dismissed as “disgruntled” and as a “conspiracy kook,” but not arrested as a “spy” who stole “national secrets.”

Greenwald, so far, is too prominent to be hung for reporting the truth. But he is in the crosshairs, and the Police State is using other cases to close in on him.

These are only five of the many people who have provided absolute total proof that the Bill of Rights has been overthrown. Washington continues to present itself to the world as the “home of the free,” the owner of the White Hat, while Washington demonstrates its lack of mercy by invading or bombing seven countries on false pretenses during the past 14 years, displacing, killing, and maiming millions of Muslims who never raised a fist against the US.

Many commentators have written articles and given interviews about government’s ever expanding police powers. The totality of the American Police State is demonstrated by its monument in Utah, where an enormous complex has been constructed in which to store every communication of every American. Somehow a son or daughter checking on an aged parent, a working mother checking on her children’s child care, a family ordering a pizza, and sweethearts planning a date are important matters of national security.

Some educated and intelligent people understand the consequences, but most Americans perceive no threat as they “have nothing to hide.”

The Founding Fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights and attached it to the US Constitution did not have anything to hide, but they clearly understood, unlike modern day Americans, that freedom depended completely on strictly limiting the ability of government to intrude upon the person.

Those limits provided by the Founding Fathers are gone. The hoax “war on terror” demolished them.

Today not even the relationships between husband and wife and parents and children have any protection from arbitrary intrusions by the state.

Essentially, government has destroyed the family along with civil liberty.

Those insouciant Americans who do not fear the police state because they “have nothing to hide” desperately need to read: Home-schooled Children Seized By Authorities Still In State Custody: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/gary-north/homeschool-children-kidnapped/

In Police State America, authorities can enter your home on the basis of an anonymous “tip” that you are, or might be, somehow, abusing your children, or exposing them to medicines that are not in containers with child-proof caps or to household bleach that is not under lock and key, and seize your children into state custody on the grounds that you present a danger to your children.

The government does not have to tell you who your accuser is. It can be your worst enemy or a disgruntled employee, but the tipster is protected. However, you and your family are not.

The authorities who receive these tips treat them as if they are valid. A multi-member goon squad shows up at your house. This is when the utterly stupid “I have nothing to hide” Americans discover that they have no rights, regardless of whether they have anything to hide.

We owe this police power over parents and children to “child advocates” who lobbied for laws based on their fantasies that all parents are serial rapists of children, and if not, are medieval torturers, trained by the CIA, who physically and psychologically abuse their children.

In the opinion of “child advocates,” children are brought into the world in order to be abused by parents. Dogs and cats and the fish in the fishbowl are not enough. Parents need children to abuse, too, just as the Police and the Police State need people to abuse.

Of course, sometimes real child abuse occurs. But it is not the routine event that the Child Protective Services Police assume. A sincere investigation, such as was missing in the report on the home-schooled children, would have had one polite person appear at the door to explain to the parents that there had been a complaint that their children were being exposed to a poisonous substance in the home. The person should have listened to the parents, had a look at the children, and if there was any doubt about the water purifier, ask that its use be discontinued until its safety could be verified.

But nothing sensible happened, because the Police State does not have to be sensible.

Instead, a half dozen goon thugs show up. The parents are put outside in the snow for 5 hours while the children are scared to death with questions and then carried away from their home, mother, and father.

In Police State America, this is called Protecting Children. We owe this tyranny to the idiot “child advocates.”

It is no longer important to protect children from homosexuals, unless the homosexuals are Catholic child pedophiles. But it is absolutely necessary to protect children from their parents.

So, yes, dear insouciant American fool, whether you have anything to hide or not, you are in grave danger, and so are your children, in Police State America.

You can no longer rely on the Constitution to protect you.


This is the only way that you can protect yourself: grovel before your neighbors, your co-workers, your employees and employers, and, most definitely, before “public authority” and your children, as your children can report you. Don’t complain about anything. Do not get involved in protests. Don’t make critical comments on the Internet or on your telephone calls. Don’t homeschool. Don’t resist vaccines. Turn your backs to leaders who could liberate you as it is too dangerous to risk the failure of liberation. Be an abject, cowardly, obedient, servile member of the enserfed, enslaved American population. Above all, be thankful to Big Brother who protects you from terrorists and Russians.

You, dear insouciant, stupid, American are back on the Plantation. Perhaps that is your natural home. In his masterful A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn documents that despite their best efforts the exploited and abused American people have never been able to prevail against the powerful private interests that control the government. Whenever in American history the people rise up they are struck down by brute force.

Zinn makes totally clear that “American freedom, democracy, liberty, blah-blah” are nothing but a disguise for the rule over America by money.

Wave the flag, sing patriot songs, see enemies where the government tells you to see them, and above all, never think. Just listen. The government and its presstitute media will tell you what you must believe.

More evidence of Police State America: http://www.globalresearch.ca/notes-on-police-violence-in-america-police-shoot-and-kill-two-teenage-girls-within-two-weeks/5428432

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

Capitalism Killing the Earth and its People

Capitalism Killing the Earth and its People

‘I see a bad moon rising

I see trouble on the way

I see earthquakes and lightning

I see hard times today’

John Fogerty, Bad Moon Rising (1969)

John Fogerty’s classic rock song ‘Bad Moon Rising’, from the 1960s, could be the foreboding soundtrack for what is rumbling in America’s Midwest today.

Earthquakes have now become a daily occurrence in Oklahoma and other Midwest states. In the past, a baseline incidence of quakes was two or so a year. Now, the region is experiencing over 500 a year, according to official seismological records. So far, there hasn’t been “a big one”. Most of the quakes have registered around 3 to 5 on the Richter Scale. But it seems only a matter of time before the Earth lashes back with deadly force.

A report this week in the Washington Post tells of widespread structural damage and personal injuries from the “swarm of earthquakes” that residents in Oklahoma are having to endure. With trepidation, ordinary people are fearing that a final calamity is crescendoing.

“The earthquakes come nearly every day now, cracking drywall, popping floor tiles and rattling kitchen cabinets. On Monday, three quakes hit this historic land-rush town [Guthrie] in 24 hours, booming and rumbling like the end of the world,” reports Lori Montgomery for the Post.

“After a while, you can’t even tell what’s a pre-shock or an after-shock. The ground just keeps moving,” says one resident. “People are so frustrated and scared.”

The oil and gas industry will, of course, deny any link between the new geological phenomenon and its increased drilling activity. But self-serving capitalists are hardly a reliable source. They claim that the surge in seismological tremors across America’s Midwest is just part of a “natural cycle” of more frequent quakes. That’s not much comfort to millions of people living in dense cities and towns, with their homes mortgaged to the hilt, or their workplaces nestled in high-rise buildings.

No matter what the industry capitalists and their bribed politicians may say, there seems little doubt that the Earth is quaking from the so-called enhanced recovery techniques of hydraulic fracturing. This is where chemical fluids are injected under extremely high pressure into subterranean wells to break up shale rock layers and release untapped reserves of natural gas or oil.

The injection-wells can penetrate the earth to a depth of 10,000 ft (3 kilometers) and the high-pressure fracking fluid contains hundreds of organic chemicals to punch out the raw fuel from the rock fissures. Hydrocarbons and profits may be gushing anew for the American industry, but it is humans and the environment that are subsidizing the system by bearing the huge costs of collateral damage.

Fracking has become the new El Dorado for the oil and gas industry, promising lucrative profits and a revival of flagging economies. The US is a world leader in the practice, where rejuvenation of the oil and gas industry is touted as the savior of a stagnant capitalist economy and as a strategic lever for American global power.

The crisis in Ukraine, for example, is very much predicated on American ambitions to displace Russia as the main energy supplier to Europe. Fracking is thus the holy grail for Washington’s global ambitions.

But as with many best-laid plans, there is a snag. Actually, several potentially fatal snags. Not only is the proliferation of hydraulic fracturing in the US unleashing seismological spasms; the industrial activity is creating massive contamination of groundwater. Fracking fluid can contain up to 600 chemicals, such as mercury and ethylene glycol, some of which are known carcinogens.

Millions of barrels of chemical fluid have to be pumped into the Earth in order to retrieve the same number of barrels of gas or oil equivalent. These chemicals are seeping into freshwater aquifers and thence into drinking-water infrastructure. Also, the natural methane gas released from the fracking process is not always recovered by the industry. Instead, it finds its way into unintended fissures and eventually home water supplies, to the point where some households in America’s Midwest can now ignite water coming out of their kitchen taps.

There are now reckoned to be 500,000 of these injection-wells operating across the US, mainly in the Midwest states of Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio and Arkansas. So far, the oil and gas industry has enjoyed a boom in profits and stock market exuberance; and certainly several states have gained revenues and jobs as a result. But the steep human and environmental costs are looming, and, increasingly, are no longer hidden. Millions of people living in quaking homes and offices is a harbinger of even bigger “costs.”

That’s capitalism for you. The pursuit of private financial profit is the only objective that over-rules all other considerations. Poisoning water and people, destroying the Earth and natural ecosystems are all irrelevant where capitalism is concerned. Profit is the only decision-maker, no matter how absurd, unjust or calamitous.

The state of Oklahoma was reportedly hit with over 550 quakes in the past year.  In the 1930s, the red-dirt state was clobbered with another ecological crisis, known as the “dust bowl era.” Millions of families were uprooted, dispossessed and displaced because new intensive farming practices in preceding years had ruined the soil structure, making it blow away in huge waves of dust. Farms were shuttered by banks foreclosing on bankrupt families. Industrial agriculture and the reckless pursuit of capitalist profit was the primary cause of the Dust Bowl.

In his classic novel, The Grapes of Wrath (1939), John Steinbeck wrote about the anguish and suffering of the droves of people from Oklahoma and other Midwest states, who during the Great Depression had to migrate to California to eke out a living as farm laborers. They endured heartrending poverty, sickness, hunger, death, and brutality from truncheon-wielding cops along the way.

Eight decades on, America still hasn’t learnt anything. Capitalism is killing the Earth and its people, again and again. How many calamities must be endured under this barbaric, irrational system? When will we finish with it, before it finishes us?

And it’s not just about oil and gas, or agriculture. Capitalism mandates imperialism, which in turn mandates conflict and war. Anyone must see that America’s collision course with Russia over the trumped-up Ukraine crisis is a direct function of US imperialism and its European vassals. Ultimately, this capitalist logic, unchecked, could lead to nuclear war, just as American imperialist-capitalist logic was behind the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Part of the reason for subjugating Eastern Ukraine is to make way for oil and gas fracking in Novorossiya by the company Burisma, whose executive board members include Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden, the US vice president.

So there you have the complete circle. Killing people at home and around the world, and all for the making of tacky bits of paper called dollars. Surely human beings can do better than that.



By Finian Cunningham
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism.

Who’s the “Low Life Scum:” Kissinger or CODEPINK?

Who’s the “Low Life Scum:” Kissinger or CODEPINK?



A very angry Senator John McCain denounced CodePink activists as “low-life scum” for holding up signs reading “Arrest Kissinger for War Crimes” and dangling handcuffs next to Henry Kissinger’s head during a Senate hearing on January 29. McCain called the demonstration “disgraceful, outrageous and despicable,” accused the protesters of “physically intimidating” Kissinger and apologized profusely to his friend for this “deeply troubling incident.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=85114404&x-yt-ts=1422579428&v=yP9In2fNs84

But if Senator McCain was really concerned about physical intimidation, perhaps he should have conjured up the memory of the gentle Chilean singer/songwriter Victor Jara. After Kissinger facilitated the September 11, 1973 coup against Salvador Allende that brought the ruthless Augusto Pinochet to power, Victor Jara and 5,000 others were rounded up in Chile’s National Stadium. Jara’s hands were smashed and his nails torn off; the sadistic guards then ordered him to play his guitar. Jara was later found dumped on the street, his dead body riddled with gunshot wounds and signs of torture.

Despite warnings by senior US officials that thousands of Chileans were being tortured and slaughtered, then Secretary of State Kissinger told Pinochet, "You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende."http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/

Rather than calling peaceful protesters “despicable,” perhaps Senator McCain should have used that term to describe Kissinger’s role in the brutal 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which took place just hours after Kissinger and President Ford visited Indonesia. They had given the Indonesian strongman the US green light—and the weapons—for an invasion that led to a 25-year occupation in which over 100,000 soldiers and civilians were killed or starved to death. The UN's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR) stated that U.S. "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation" of East Timor.

If McCain could stomach it, he could have read the report by the UN Commission on Human Rights describing the horrific consequences of that invasion. It includes gang rape of female detainees following periods of prolonged sexual torture; placing women in tanks of water for prolonged periods, including submerging their heads, before being raped; the use of snakes to instill terror during sexual torture; and the mutilation of women’s sexual organs, including insertion of batteries into vaginas and burning nipples and genitals with cigarettes. Talk about physical intimidation, Senator McCain!http://nautilus.org/apsnet/indonesia-and-east-timor-against-impunity-for-justice/

You might think that McCain, who suffered tremendously in Vietnam, might be more sensitive to Kissinger’s role in prolonging that war. From 1969 through 1973, it was Kissinger, along with President Nixon, who oversaw the slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos—killing perhaps one million during this period. He gave the order for the secret bombing of Cambodia. Kissinger is heard on tape saying, “[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn't want to hear anything about it. It's an order, to be done. Anything that flies or anything that moves.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

Senator McCain could have taken the easy route by simply reading the meticulously researched book by the late Christopher Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Writing as a prosecutor before an international court of law, Hitchens skewers Kissinger for ordering or sanctioning the destruction of civilian populations, the assassination of “unfriendly” politicians and the kidnapping and disappearance of soldiers, journalists and clerics who got in his way. He holds Kissinger responsible for war crimes that range from the deliberate mass killings of civilian populations in Indochina, to collusion in mass murder and assassination in Bangladesh, the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile, and the incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor.

McCain could have also perused the warrant issued by French Judge Roger Le Loire to have Kissinger appear before his court. When the French served Kissinger with summons in 2001 at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, Kissinger fled the country. More indictments followed from Spain, Argentina, Uruguay—even a civil suit in Washington DC.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/25/france.warrants/index.html?related

Hitchens was disgusted by the way Henry Kissinger was treated as a respected statesman. He would have been appalled by Senator McCain’s obsequious attitude. “Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded,” Hitchens said. “No more dinners in his honor; no more respectful audiences for his absurdly overpriced public appearances; no more smirking photographs with hostesses and celebrities; no more soliciting of his worthless opinions by sycophantic editors and producers.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/12/how_can_anyone_defend_kissinger_now.html

Rather than fawning on him, Hitchens suggested, “why don't you arrest him?”

Hitchens’ words were lost on Senator McCain, who preferred fawning to accountability. That’s where CodePink comes in. If we can’t get Kissinger before a court of law, at least we can show—with words and banners—that there are Americans who remember, Americans who empathize with the man’s many victims, Americans who have a conscience.
http://www.codepink.org/kissinger_arrest_attempt_news_coverage

While McCain called us disgraceful, what is really disgraceful is the Senate calling in a tired old war criminal to testify about “Global Challenges and the U.S. National Security Strategy.” After horribly tragic failed wars, not just in Vietnam but over the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s time for the US leaders like John McCain to bring in fresh faces and fresh ideas. We owe it to the next generation that will be cleaning up the bloody legacy left behind by Kissinger for years to come.



Jimmy Carter Hands John McCain His Ass

Clip from the Friday, November 21st 2014 edition of The Kyle Kulinski Show

By Medea Benjamin

‘Group-Thinking’ the World into a New War

‘Group-Thinking’ the World into a New War



The armchair warriors of Official Washington are eager for a new war, this time with Russia over Ukraine, and they are operating from the same sort of mindless “group think” and hostility to dissent that proved so disastrous in Iraq, reports Robert Parry.


If you wonder how the lethal “group think” on Iraq took shape in 2002, you might want to study what’s happening today with Ukraine. A misguided consensus has grabbed hold of Official Washington and has pulled in everyone who “matters” and tossed out almost anyone who disagrees.

Part of the problem, in both cases, has been that neocon propagandists understand that in the modern American media the personal is the political, that is, you don’t deal with the larger context of a dispute, you make it about some easily demonized figure. So, instead of understanding the complexities of Iraq, you focus on the unsavory Saddam Hussein.

This approach has been part of the neocon playbook at least since the 1980s when many of today’s leading neocons – such as Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan – were entering government and cut their teeth as propagandists for the Reagan administration. Back then, the game was to put, say, Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega into the demon suit, with accusations about him wearing “designer glasses.” Later, it was Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and then, of course, Saddam Hussein.

Instead of Americans coming to grips with the painful history of Central America, where the U.S. government has caused much of the violence and dysfunction, or in Iraq, where Western nations don’t have clean hands either, the story was made personal – about the demonized leader – and anyone who provided a fuller context was denounced as an “Ortega apologist” or a “Noriega apologist” or a “Saddam apologist.”

So, American skeptics were silenced and the U.S. government got to do what it wanted without serious debate. In Iraq, for instance, the American people would have benefited from a thorough airing of the complexities of Iraqi society – such as the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shiite – and the potential risks of invading under the dubious rationale of WMD.

But there was no thorough debate about anything: not about international law that held “aggressive war” to be “the supreme international crime”; not about the difficulty of putting a shattered Iraq back together after an invasion; not even about the doubts within the U.S. intelligence community about whether Iraq possessed usable WMD and whether Hussein had any ties to al-Qaeda.

All the American people heard was that Saddam Hussein was “a bad guy” and it was America’s right and duty to get rid of “bad guys” who supposedly had dangerous WMDs that they might share with other “bad guys.” To say that this simplistic argument was an insult to a modern democracy would be an understatement, but the propaganda worked because almost no one in the mainstream press or in academia or in politics dared speak out.

Those who could have made a difference feared for their careers – and they were “right” to have those fears, at least in the sense that it was much safer, career-wise, to run with the herd than to stand in the way. Even after the Iraq War had turned into an unmitigated disaster with horrific repercussions reaching to the present, the U.S. political/media establishment undertook no serious effort to impose accountability.

Almost no one who joined in the Iraq “group think” was punished. It turns out that there truly is safety in numbers. Many of those exact same people are still around holding down the same powerful jobs as if nothing horrible had happened in Iraq. Their pontifications still are featured on the most influential opinion pages in American journalism, with the New York Times’ Thomas L. Friedman a perfect example.

Though Friedman has been wrong again and again, he is still regarded as perhaps the preeminent foreign policy pundit in the U.S. media. Which brings us to the issue of Ukraine and Russia.

A New Cold War

From the start of the Ukraine crisis in fall 2013, the New York Times, the Washington Post and virtually every mainstream U.S. news outlet have behaved as dishonestly as they did during the run-up to war with Iraq. Objectivity and other principles of journalism have been thrown out the window. The larger context of both Ukrainian politics and Russia’s role has been ignored.

Again, it’s all been about demonized “bad guys” – in this case, Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych and Russia’s elected President Vladimir Putin – versus the “pro-Western good guys” who are deemed model democrats even as they collaborated with neo-Nazis to overthrow a constitutional order.

Again, the political is made personal: Yanukovych had a pricy sauna in his mansion; Putin rides a horse shirtless and doesn’t favor gay rights. So, if you raise questions about U.S. support for last year’s coup in Ukraine, you somehow must favor pricy saunas, riding shirtless and holding bigoted opinions about gays.

Anyone who dares protest the unrelentingly one-sided coverage is deemed a “Putin apologist” or a “stooge of Moscow.” So, most Americans – in a position to influence public knowledge but who want to stay employable – stay silent, just as they did during the Iraq War stampede.

One of the ugly but sadly typical cases relates to Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen, who has been denounced by some of the usual neocon suspects for deviating from the “group think” that blames the entire Ukraine crisis on Putin. The New Republic, which has gotten pretty much every major issue wrong during my 37 years in Washington, smeared Cohen as “Putin’s American toady.”

And, if you think that Cohen’s fellow scholars are more tolerant of a well-argued dissent, the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies further proved that deviation from the “group think” on Ukraine is not to be tolerated.

The academic group spurned a fellowship program, which it had solicited from Cohen’s wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, because the program’s title included Cohen’s name. “It’s no secret that there were swirling controversies surrounding Professor Cohen,” Stephen Hanson, the group’s president, told the New York Times.

In a protest letter to the group, Cohen called this action “a political decision that creates serious doubts about the organization’s commitment to First Amendment rights and academic freedom.” He also noted that young scholars in the field have expressed fear for their professional futures if they break from the herd.

He mentioned the story of one young woman scholar who dropped off a panel to avoid risking her career in case she said something that could be deemed sympathetic to Russia.

Cohen noted, too, that even established foreign policy figures, ex-National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, have been accused in the Washington Post of “advocating that the West appease Russia,” with the notion of “appeasement” meant “to be disqualifying, chilling, censorious.” (Kissinger had objected to the comparison of Putin to Hitler as unfounded.)https://consortiumnews.com/2014/11/12/when-henry-kissinger-makes-sense/

In other words, as the United States rushes into a new Cold War with Russia, we are seeing the makings of a new McCarthyism, challenging the patriotism of anyone who doesn’t get into line. But this conformity of thought presents a serious threat to U.S. national security and even the future of the planet.

It may seem clever for some New Republic blogger or a Washington Post writer to insult anyone who doesn’t accept the over-the-top propaganda on Russia and Ukraine – much as they did to people who objected to the rush to war in Iraq – but a military clash with nuclear-armed Russia is a crisis of a much greater magnitude.

Botching Russia

Professor Cohen has been one of the few scholars who was right in criticizing Official Washington’s earlier “group think” about post-Soviet Russia, a reckless and mindless approach that laid the groundwork for today’s confrontation.

To understand why Russians are so alarmed by U.S. and NATO meddling in Ukraine, you have to go back to those days after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Instead of working with the Russians to transition carefully from a communist system to a pluralistic, capitalist one, the U.S. prescription was “shock therapy.”

As American “free market” experts descended on Moscow during the pliant regime of Boris Yeltsin, well-connected Russian thieves and their U.S. compatriots plundered the country’s wealth, creating a handful of billionaire “oligarchs” and leaving millions upon millions of Russians in a state of near starvation, with a collapse in life expectancy rarely seen in a country not at war.

Yet, despite the desperation of the masses, American journalists and pundits hailed the “democratic reform” underway in Russia with glowing accounts of how glittering life could be in the shiny new hotels, restaurants and bars of Moscow. Complaints about the suffering of average Russians were dismissed as the grumblings of losers who failed to appreciate the economic wonders that lay ahead.

As recounted in his 2001 book, Failed Crusade, Cohen correctly describes this fantastical reporting as journalistic “malpractice” that left the American people misinformed about the on-the-ground reality in Russia. The widespread suffering led Vladimir Putin, who succeeded Yeltsin, to pull back on the wholesale privatization, to punish some oligarchs and to restore some of the social safety net.

Though the U.S. mainstream media portrays Putin as essentially a tyrant, his elections and approval numbers indicate that he commands broad popular support, in part, because he stood up to some oligarchs (though he still worked with others). Yet, Official Washington continues to portray oligarchs whom Putin jailed as innocent victims of a tyrant’s revenge.

Last October, after Putin pardoned one jailed oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, neocon Freedom House sponsored a Washington dinner in his honor, hailing him as one of Russia’s political heroes. “I have to say I’m impressed by him,” declared Freedom House President David Kramer. “But he’s still figuring out how he can make a difference.”

New York Times writer Peter Baker fairly swooned at Khodorkovsky’s presence. “If anything, he seemed stronger and deeper than before” prison, Baker wrote. “The notion of prison as cleansing the soul and ennobling the spirit is a powerful motif in Russian literature.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/world/europe/mikhail-khodorkovsky-ex-oil-tycoon-plans-to-lead-political-movement.html?_r=0

Yet, even Khodorkovsky, who is now in his early 50s, acknowledged that he “grew up in Russia’s emerging Wild West capitalism to take advantage of what he now says was a corrupt privatization system,” Baker reported.

In other words, Khodorkovsky was admitting that he obtained his vast wealth through a corrupt process, though by referring to it as the “Wild West” Baker made the adventure seem quite dashing and even admirable when, in reality, Khodorkovsky was a key figure in the plunder of Russia that impoverished millions of his countrymen and sent many to early graves.

In the 1990s, Professor Cohen was one of the few scholars with the courage to challenge the prevailing boosterism for Russia’s “shock therapy.” He noted even then the danger of mistaken “conventional wisdom” and how it strangles original thought and necessary skepticism.

“Much as Russia scholars prefer consensus, even orthodoxy, to dissent, most journalists, one of them tells us, are ‘devoted to group-think’ and ‘see the world through a set of standard templates,’” wrote Cohen. “For them to break with ‘standard templates’ requires not only introspection but retrospection, which also is not a characteristic of either profession.”

A Plodding Pundit

Arguably, no one in journalism proves that point better than New York Times columnist Friedman, who is at best a pedestrian thinker plodding somewhere near the front of the herd. But Friedman’s access to millions of readers on the New York Times op-ed page makes him an important figure in consolidating the “group think” no matter how askew it is from reality.

Friedman played a key role in lining up many Americans behind the invasion of Iraq and is doing the same in the current march of folly into a new Cold War with Russia, including now a hot war on Russia’s Ukrainian border. In one typically mindless but inflammatory column, entitled “Czar Putin’s Next Moves,” Friedman decided it was time to buy into the trendy analogy of likening Putin to Hitler.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html

“Last March, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine, supposedly in defense of Russian-speakers there, was just like ‘what Hitler did back in the ‘30s’ — using ethnic Germans to justify his invasion of neighboring lands. At the time, I thought such a comparison was over the top. I don’t think so anymore.”

Though Friedman was writing from Zurich apparently without direct knowledge of what is happening in Ukraine, he wrote as if he were on the front lines: “Putin’s use of Russian troops wearing uniforms without insignia to invade Ukraine and to covertly buttress Ukrainian rebels bought and paid for by Moscow — all disguised by a web of lies that would have made Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels blush and all for the purpose of destroying Ukraine’s reform movement before it can create a democratic model that might appeal to Russians more than Putin’s kleptocracy — is the ugliest geopolitical mugging happening in the world today.

“Ukraine matters — more than the war in Iraq against the Islamic State, a.k.a., ISIS. It is still not clear that most of our allies in the war against ISIS share our values. That conflict has a big tribal and sectarian element. It is unmistakably clear, though, that Ukraine’s reformers in its newly elected government and Parliament — who are struggling to get free of Russia’s orbit and become part of the European Union’s market and democratic community — do share our values. If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine’s new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger.”

If Friedman wished to show any balance – which he clearly didn’t – he might have noted that Goebbels would actually be quite proud of the fact that some of Hitler’s modern-day followers are at the forefront of the fight for Ukrainian “reform,” dispatched by those Kiev “reformers” to spearhead the nasty slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

But references to those inconvenient neo-Nazis, who also spearheaded the coup last February ousting President Yanukovych, are essentially verboten in the U.S. mainstream media. So, is any reference to the fact that eastern Ukrainians have legitimate grievances with the Kiev authorities who ousted Yanukovych who had been elected with strong support from eastern Ukraine.

But in the mainstream American “group think,” the people of eastern Ukraine are simply “bought and paid for by Moscow” – all the better to feel good about slaughtering them. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Seeing No Neo-Nazi Militias in Ukraine.”]
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/08/seeing-no-neo-nazi-militias-in-ukraine/

We’re also not supposed to mention that there was a coup in Ukraine, as the New York Times told us earlier this month. It was just white-hat “reformers” bringing more U.S.-sponsored good government to Ukraine. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine.”]
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/

In his column, without any sense of irony or awareness, Friedman glowingly quotes Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine’s new finance minister (leaving out that Jaresko is a newly minted Ukrainian citizen, an ex-American diplomat and investment banker with her own history of “kleptocracy.”)

Friedman quotes Jaresko’s stirring words: “Putin fears a Ukraine that demands to live and wants to live and insists on living on European values — with a robust civil society and freedom of speech and religion [and] with a system of values the Ukrainian people have chosen and laid down their lives for.”

However, as I noted in December, Jaresko headed a U.S. government-funded investment project for Ukraine that involved substantial insider dealings, including $1 million-plus fees to a management company that she also controlled.

Jaresko served as president and chief executive officer of Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), which was created by the U.S. Agency for International Development with $150 million to spur business activity in Ukraine. She also was cofounder and managing partner of Horizon Capital which managed WNISEF’s investments at a rate of 2 to 2.5 percent of committed capital, fees exceeding $1 million in recent years, according to WNISEF’s 2012 annual report.
http://www.horizoncapital.com.ua/files/2012/WNISEF%20eng.pdf

In the 2012 report, the section on “related party transactions” covered some two pages and included not only the management fees to Jaresko’s Horizon Capital ($1,037,603 in 2011 and $1,023,689 in 2012) but also WNISEF’s co-investments in projects with the Emerging Europe Growth Fund [EEGF], where Jaresko was founding partner and chief executive officer. Jaresko’s Horizon Capital also managed EEGF.http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=28386716

From 2007 to 2011, WNISEF co-invested $4.25 million with EEGF in Kerameya LLC, a Ukrainian brick manufacturer, and WNISEF sold EEGF 15.63 percent of Moldova’s Fincombank for $5 million, the report said. It also listed extensive exchanges of personnel and equipment between WNISEF and Horizon Capital.

Though it’s difficult for an outsider to ascertain the relative merits of these insider deals, they involved potential conflicts of interest between a U.S.-taxpayer-funded entity and a private company that Jaresko controlled.

Based on the data from WNISEF’s 2012 annual report, it also appeared that the U.S. taxpayers had lost about one-third of their investment in WNISEF, with the fund’s balance at $98,074,030, compared to the initial U.S. government grant of $150 million.

In other words, there is another side of the Ukraine story, a darker reality that Friedman and the rest of the mainstream media don’t want you to know. They want to shut out alternative information and lead you into another conflict, much as they did in Iraq.

But Friedman is right about one thing: “Ukraine matters.” And he’s even right that Ukraine matters more than the butchery that’s continuing in Iraq.

But Friedman is wrong about why. Ukraine matters more because he and the other “group thinkers,” who turned Iraq into today’s slaughterhouse, are just as blind to the reality of the U.S. military confronting Russia over Ukraine, except in the Ukraine case, both sides have nuclear weapons.




By Robert Parry
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.