What’s in a Name Change? Politics, Some at George Mason University Fear

 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the 40th anniversary luncheon for the Legal Services Corporation in Washington in September 2014. 

 

Credit Chip Somodevilla

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the 40th anniversary luncheon for the Legal Services Corporation in Washington in September 2014. Credit Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — For years, students and faculty at George Mason University paid little attention as Charles G. Koch and other conservatives helped transform their once sleepy commuter school in the suburbs of the nation’s capital into a leading producer of free-market scholarship. The effort, after all, was focused on a few specific departments like economics and law and attracted little attention outside conservative circles.

But the announcement last month that George Mason would rename its law school in honor of Justice Antonin Scalia, the longtime voice of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing who died in February, abruptly ended that indifference.

The name change — and that it was tied to a $30 million combined gift from the Charles Koch Foundation and an anonymous conservative donor — focused attention for the first time in a serious way on whether the administration and trustees at George Mason had allowed Virginia’s largest public university to become an ideological outpost.

The university administration insists that the answer is no. But a drumbeat of public letters, social media posts and campus debates expressing concerns about the gift suggests a vocal group of faculty, students and state legislators are not convinced.

“Many of us have been watching this happening for a long time,” said Bethany Letiecq, a professor of human development and family science, “but this just renews interest in the bigger picture, which is the Kochs’ influence in higher education and the decreasing influence of the faculty over decision making.”

On Wednesday, the university’s faculty senate passed a resolution urging the board of visitors and administration to address concerns about the renaming. A more pointed resolution to delay the name change will be revisited next week, faculty members said.

University administrators say that naming the law school after Justice Scalia was meant to honor a highly influential figure in American public life and that the gift behind it will allow the school to expand. Suggestions otherwise, they say, including that the university has ceded academic control to a donor’s interests, amount to little more than politics.

Law School Renamed for Antonin Scalia, Again. Blame Acronym. APRIL 5, 2016
At Memorial, Scalia Remembered as Happy Combatant MARCH 1, 2016
Antonin Scalia, Justice on the Supreme Court, Dies at 79 FEB. 13, 2016

“You need to really cut to the chase and ask: Is the naming of the Scalia Law School a signal to students that you have to have a particular viewpoint to attend,” said David K. Rehr, the law school’s senior associate dean. “I think emphatically and overwhelmingly the answer is no.”

But the debate has raised questions about how, as the university’s growth has outpaced the state of Virginia’s support for it, conservative donors have become increasingly important.

“Public universities are just desperate for money. And if it’s not coming from the state, it has to come from some place,” said David A. Kravitz, a professor of management who sits on the faculty senate. “What’s left is people like the Koch brothers and others, and quite often they provide money that goes toward things that support their interests.”

Over the course of nearly three decades, Mr. Koch, the billionaire industrialist who has pumped millions into conservative causes, and foundations affiliated with him have put a distinct imprint on key segments of the university. Those foundations have given more than $50 million over the past decade, most of it funneled to pet initiatives affiliated with the university, like the Mercatus Center, an economic think tank that churns out libertarian policy research, and the Institute for Humane Studies, which promotes libertarian philosophy. Mr. Koch sits on the boards of both.

Mr. Koch’s foundation has also given generously to the Law and Economics Center, the law school’s flagship program, which emphasizes the economic impact of the law. The school’s dean, Henry N. Butler, used to run the center and has had close ties to the family for decades.

But until the March gift, longtime faculty members said, the conservative influence seemed to stop there. Now, they worry, the university has publicly linked itself to a justice whose views on affirmative action, reproductive rights and same-sex marriage are inappropriate for a university that educates more than 30,000 students from diverse backgrounds.

29scalia-web02-master675

Charles Koch in his office at Koch Industries in Wichita, Kan., in 2012. Credit Bo Rader/The Wichita Eagle, via Associated Press

“To name the school after Scalia is so egregious,” said Craig Willse, a cultural studies professor at George Mason who has helped lead the opposition to the change. “He was racist and homophobic. What does it mean for us to associate ourselves with a figure like that — especially when his views on education run counter to a public university?”

Even at the law school, where the faculty’s ideology and curriculum are widely known, some said the renaming had gone too far.

“I think it’s a really important distinction to make that having conservative faculty and learning about Antonin Scalia and his opinions is an important part of the education here,” said Rebecca Bucchieri, a 2015 graduate of the law school. “But branding the entire school and student body with his views is another thing.”

Ms. Bucchieri, who works for a reproductive rights nonprofit, helped organize a letter from more than 275 law students and alumni opposing the change.

Grant agreements released by the faculty senate show that in addition to the renaming and the creation of scholarships trumpeted by the university, the gift from the Koch Foundation is contingent upon the school hiring 12 new faculty members and creating two new centers that will expand on its Law and Economics focus.

The gift, which will be paid out over several years based on the university carrying out the agreement, also requires that the school “retain focus” on Law and Economics and stipulates that the foundation be notified immediately should Mr. Butler step down.

Those provisions have led to concerns from some faculty members that big donors like Mr. Koch are slowly encroaching on the university’s academic independence.

In their view, they have good reason to be wary. The Charles Koch Foundation usually insists on some say in how its money is used, going as far as asking for the right to have a committee it appointed sign off on hires to a new economics program it funded in 2011 at Florida State University.

David L. Kuebrich, an English professor who is preparing a faculty senate task force report on private donor influence on campus, said there is no need for that kind of explicit direction at George Mason.

“Both the funders and the faculty and staff at these centers share the same libertarian outlook and goals, so they work together well,” said Mr. Kuebrich, who stressed he was not speaking for the task force. “Detailed agreements are likely unnecessary.

The foundation maintains that its gifts do not encroach on academic independence. John Hardin, the foundation’s director of university relations, said that it makes grants based on specific proposals from schools like George Mason. As long as the school is carrying out the agreed-upon vision, the foundation largely stands back, he said.

“We want to ensure that the school retains all authority in determining who the faculty are going to be, what questions they are pursuing, what conclusions they arrive at,” Mr. Hardin said.

With the university’s leadership unlikely to reverse course and Virginia’s governor, Terry McAuliffe, unwilling to intervene, according to a spokesman, opponents of the change have rested their hopes on the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, a board appointed by the governor that must approve the renaming.

The staff of the board, which has not blocked a name change of this sort in recent memory, is reviewing George Mason’s proposal.

 

Hillary Clinton: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them.”

 

 

 

In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR

 

Endless wars are certain no matter who succeeds Obama. Clinton’s finger on the nuclear trigger should terrify everyone. ~ Oliver Stone filmmaker

 

By Stephen Lederman

Note: This piece which is of extreme relevance to the US election campaign was originally published in July 2015.

On July 3, 2015, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event. She lied calling Iran an “existential threat to Israel… I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear weapons program.”

Even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran. They are the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism.

They use proxies like Hezbollah to sow discord and create insurgencies to destabilize governments. They are taking more and more control of a number of nations in the region and they pose an existential threat to Israel.

We…have to turn our attention to working with our partners to try to reign in and prevent this continuing Iranian aggressiveness.

Fact: US and Israeli intelligence both say Iran’s nuclear program has no military component. No evidence whatever suggests Tehran wants one. Plenty indicates otherwise.

As a 2008 presidential aspirant, she addressed AIPAC’s annual convention saying:

The United States stands with Israel now and forever. We have shared interests….shared ideals….common values. I have a bedrock commitment to Israel’s security.

(O)ur two nations are fighting a shared threat” against Islamic extremism. I strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense (and) believe America should aid in that defense.

I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats. I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas’ campaign of terror.

No such campaign exists. The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents.

Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas’ charter “calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel.”

“I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”

She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense.

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

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 


The Clintons: We Came, We Stole, Haitians Died

 

 

 
Michel-Hillary-400x300

Michel and Hilary

The Haitian people’s furious resistance to yet another fraudulent presidential election has scuttled U.S. plans to replace “Sweet Mickey” Martelly with another flunky named the “Banana Man.” The aborted fraud is a reminder that Secretary of State Clinton was an imperial bully who rigged the previous presidential election in Haiti and stole the country blind, along with her accomplice and husband, Bill. Those chickens may yet come home to roost.

The island nation of Haiti is on the verge of finally ejecting the criminal President Michel “Sweet Mickey” Martelly, the dance hall performer and gangster who was foisted on the Haitian people by the United States through the bullying of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, back in 2011. Martelly’s term is up, and he is constitutionally required to leave office by February 7. Martelly and his American, French and Canadian backers had hoped to use rigged elections and strong-arm tactics to install another puppet politician, Jovenel “The Banana Man” Moise, in the presidential palace. The “Banana Man” – who wants to turn Haiti into a real banana-exporting republic, to the further impoverishment of its small farmers – came in first in an October election that was so blatantly stolen, even the thoroughly corrupt Haitian elite could not endorse the outcome.

In fact, virtually no one in Haitian society except the “Banana Man” and “Sweet Mickey” and the tens thousands of Haitians who were paid to vote, repeatedly, at different polling places in October, considered the election to be valid. Jude Célestin, the candidate that came in second in the October electoral farce – and who was also cheated of victory by “Sweet Mickey” Martelly in the election five years ago – refused to go along with the travesty. Célestin said he would not take part in the bogus run-off election that was scheduled for this past Sunday – meaning, the “Banana Man” would have been the only candidate.

But, even the prospect of a one-man contest could not stop the Americans from insisting on going ahead with the run-off. The U.S., which pays for the Haitian elections and, therefore, believes it has the right to decide who wins and who loses, growled that Haiti should go along with the fraudulent process. The Americans were upset that they might have no reliable replacement for their loyal puppet, “Sweet Mickey.” Plus, the discrediting of the elections would also reflect very badly on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who claims to have brought stability to Haiti when she was at the State Department but, in fact, is culpable for all of the Haitians who were murdered by the Martelly regime. The truth is that Hillary and Bill were the Bonnie and Clyde of Haiti, robbing the country for their own and other corporate criminals’ benefit. The teams of FBI agents that are now matching Hillary’s emails with contributions to the Clinton Foundation are tapping a Mother Lode of corruption that may yet bring her down before Election Day in the United States.

If that happens, the Haitian people will deserve some of the credit for saving the U.S. from another period of rule by the Crooked Clintons, in the process of saving Haiti’s sovereignty and self-respect. The Haitians’ furious grassroots resistance forced the cancellation of Sunday’s run-off election; “Sweet Mickey” is slated to leave office in less than two weeks; and negotiations are underway to form an interim government that would hold clean elections. The struggle now is for Haiti’s poor majority to make its voice heard above the growling of the U.S. imperialist occupiers and their hired Haitian flunkies – some of whom are real killers, whose names aren’t funny at all.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.

Stream the radio show here

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Sorry, Hillary: Women care more about their president than his (or her) gender

455722978

Hillary Clinton speaks in Washington. Photo: Getty Images

 

Hillary Clinton was counting on voters — particularly American women — to salivate at the prospect of shattering the highest glass ceiling by electing a woman president. She’ll need a backup plan. It turns out women aren’t nearly as gender-obsessed as Hillary thinks they are, or wants them to be.

Clinton’s strategy does make some sense. After all, President Obama was buoyed by the widespread sense that his election wasn’t just his personal triumph, but all of ours, in burying the vestiges of America’s racist past. Given that women were also once treated as second-class citizens, why shouldn’t Hillary expect a similar wave of excitement and sense of history?

Perhaps the string of female secretaries of state and Supreme Court justices, as well as presidential candidates like Carly Fiorina and Clinton herself, has made the idea of a female president seem less than revolutionary. The feminist movement — which appears unwilling to acknowledge women’s gains — may also have overplayed its victim status. Young men with few job prospects and a lifetime of being bested by female schoolmates may not be overjoyed to applaud yet another sign of women’s ascendance.

The person of Hillary Clinton herself undoubtedly helps dampen enthusiasm about the prospect of a female president, and not just among Republicans who disagree with her political philosophy. The media is currently pondering how the re-emergence of her husband’s brutal treatment of ex-lovers impacts voters’ opinion of Hillary.

But Mrs. Clinton’s role as the long-suffering first lady to a roguish leading man is just one of her problems; her reputation as a scandal-drenched, corporate-backed and largely failed public servant has always made her an awkward feminist heroine.

Regardless of the explanation, the simple fact is most voters aren’t particularly anxious to see a woman — let alone Hillary Clinton — in the Oval Office.

Pew Research Center’s new report explored attitudes about women in leadership, and found that most Americans see women as just as capable political leaders as men. Women scored about equally on some key leadership traits such as intelligence and capacity for innovation, and received higher marks on attributes such as honesty, ability to compromise, compassion and organization.

Pew found big differences between how Democrats and Republicans viewed the sexes as potential political leaders. But before liberals start lamenting sexist conservatives’ “war on women,” Republicans didn’t see women as less capable, rather Republicans “are more inclined to say there isn’t any difference between men and women,” while “Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to say that women do a better job than men.” In other words, Republicans were more likely to truly see women and men as equals, while Democrats see one sex — men — as inferior.

But just because Americans see women as just as qualified and capable political leaders doesn’t mean they’re eagerly awaiting a female president. Just four in 10 (38 percent) of all adults “say they hope the US will elect a female president in their lifetime,” while a majority (57 percent) “say it doesn’t matter to them.”

Women are more likely to want to see a female president, but even that doesn’t translate into big support for Hillary. Take New Hampshire, where the latest poll shows just 38 percent of Democratic women voters plan to vote for Hillary compared to 52 who favor Sen. Bernie Sanders. Clinton is losing women’s support not just in Iowa and New Hampshire: A nationwide poll just released by Monmouth University found that Clinton’s edge among women has fallen from plus-45 percentage points in December to just 19 now.

Feminists may take the lack of excitement as more evidence that the deck is stacked against women. But this phenomenon can also be seen as progress: Women have come so far that it’s no longer big news for women to advance to a higher level of power. People really are judging others based on the content of their character and the skills they bring to the position rather than as a representative of any particular demographic group.

This makes it more likely that when we get a woman president (and three out of four surveyed by Pew expect to see it during their lifetime) she’ll have reached that position based on her qualifications, not out of a sense of obligation among voters. Now that’s something to be excited about.

Carrie Lukas is the managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum and vice president for policy of the Independent Women’s Voice.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s).  Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

God Wants A Regime Change, Not In Syria, But In The U.S. To Appoint A Good Shepherd Because The Antichrist Is Coming

 

 

2015-10-05-1444055100-4354253-ScreenShot20151005at9.37.30AM-thumb

We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender.” – Winston Churchill – August 20, 1940

BY SHOEBAT.COM – AWARENESS AND ACTION

Why does man ignore, that God is in control, despite Obama’s tyranny, before the man of sin arises to cause destruction upon the earth, God will raise “seven righteous shepherds” (leaders) who will utterly destroy the man of sin:

and this one shall be peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land, and when he treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princely men. They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; thus he shall deliver us from the Assyrian (Micah 5)

How at times Americans forget: God, not Obama, is in control of this nation.

Even the nations that dig traps for other nations to make regime changes forget that it is God who monitors the affairs of man.

He does a much better job in monitoring the world than the CIA, the FBI or the Pentagon.

Obama wanted a regime change in Syria, but the way things seem these days, perhaps the Almighty does not want a regime change in Syria, but a regime change in the U.S. instead.

Can anyone explain why Americans, on both sides of the isle, are becoming more ticked-off by the day, and they want a regime change, not in Syria, but here in the United States?

They are sick of political parties.

Today President Sissy Obama says the U.S.-led coalition is hitting ISIS “harder than ever”. But Americans are not buying it. They all know too well that Russia is hitting ISIS, and if Putin had a U.S. birth-certificate, he too (had he run) might surge in the poles.

Everyone these days know that the real name of that sissy U.S. President is Obama Ben Lyin.

 

Who can truly explain why Donald Trump is surging in the polls, and while we have a mess in the Middle East where even Putin looks like a savior?

While everyone thinks that a candidate rises or falls in the polls for being nice to Muslims, Trump surged even higher for saying “stop Muslims from coming in”.

And for saying that, Donald Trump (according to Monmouth University poll released today) has crossed the 40 percent threshold in a new national poll, giving the Republican presidential candidate the largest lead he’s held in any survey so far.

If perhaps next time Trump says “screw Allah” his ratings in the polls might just hit the roof.

The explanation to Trump’s success is simpler than what these analysts try to tell us on Fox News: Americans want an all-American burger and hating falafel is not racism, its culture.

This is by far the strangest election in American history. Who knows, it could be that the Almighty wants regime change, not in Syria, as Obama wants, but a regime change in the U.S., the planning headquarters of all regime-changes.

The American love for apple-pie is why I rarely if ever, focus on what falafel-loving Muslim groups like CAIR say or do. I never worry about all the crude things I say at times on my blog. Trump is just as crude,  rude, and belligerent as I can be, and he is still soaring like an American bald eagle.

I knew long ago that in every nice American there is also a hidden General Patton inside, carrying a baseball bat.

I have been hanging out long enough with Americans, and besides Muslims, I can easily profile them too. It is easy to expose American hypocrisy. No matter how often Americans count calories or endure Obama’s camel-faced wife saying that we ought to “solve the epidemic of childhood obesity,” Americans know they are being hypocritical. The Hot Dog and Hamburger is the American idol while Michelle Ben Lying will always secretly be viewed by Americans as “butt-ugly” and “wholly stupid”.

and this one shall be peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land, and when he treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princely men. They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; thus he shall deliver us from the Assyrian (Micah 5)

How at times Americans forget: God, not Obama, is in control of this nation.

Even the nations that dig traps for other nations to make regime changes forget that it is God who monitors the affairs of man.

He does a much better job in monitoring the world than the CIA, the FBI or the Pentagon.

Obama wanted a regime change in Syria, but the way things seem these days, perhaps the Almighty does not want a regime change in Syria, but a regime change in the U.S. instead.

Can anyone explain why Americans, on both sides of the isle, are becoming more ticked-off by the day, and they want a regime change, not in Syria, but here in the United States?

They are sick of political parties.

Today President Sissy Obama says the U.S.-led coalition is hitting ISIS “harder than ever”. But Americans are not buying it. They all know too well that Russia is hitting ISIS, and if Putin had a U.S. birth-certificate, he too (had he run) might surge in the poles.

Everyone these days know that the real name of that sissy U.S. President is Obama Ben Lyin.

Who can truly explain why Donald Trump is surging in the polls, and while we have a mess in the Middle East where even Putin looks like a savior?

While everyone thinks that a candidate rises or falls in the polls for being nice to Muslims, Trump surged even higher for saying “stop Muslims from coming in”.

And for saying that, Donald Trump (according to Monmouth University poll released today) has crossed the 40 percent threshold in a new national poll, giving the Republican presidential candidate the largest lead he’s held in any survey so far.

If perhaps next time Trump says “screw Allah” his ratings in the polls might just hit the roof.

The explanation to Trump’s success is simpler than what these analysts try to tell us on Fox News: Americans want an all-American burger and hating falafel is not racism, its culture.

This is by far the strangest election in American history. Who knows, it could be that the Almighty wants regime change, not in Syria, as Obama wants, but a regime change in the U.S., the planning headquarters of all regime-changes.

The American love for apple-pie is why I rarely if ever, focus on what falafel-loving Muslim groups like CAIR say or do. I never worry about all the crude things I say at times on my blog. Trump is just as crude,  rude, and belligerent as I can be, and he is still soaring like an American bald eagle.

I knew long ago that in every nice American there is also a hidden General Patton inside, carrying a baseball bat.

In this war on ISIS, perhaps if we take Donald Trump acting as Longshanks in the movie Braveheart. Braveheart and his rebels could be viewed as Al-Baghdadi and ISIS, Longshanks’ son as Obama, the scenario where Obama claims he is “doing something” would fit perfectly. Braveheart (ISIS) after sacking York, sends a head to Longshanks, and his son tells the king that he is addressing ISIS “I’ve sent conscriptions” to only see the obvious, Obama was more of a sissy-homosexual than a real man. America will never have love for a sissy.

To top it all off for sissy Obama’s war on ISIS, Germany has denied US requests to provide additional support for the US-led mission against ISIS (Germans would not obey a sissy), with the federal chancellor stressing that “at the moment” Berlin is already doing enough for its part in the combined anti-terror effort.

Strange, even a woman snubs Obama: “I believe Germany is fulfilling its part and we don’t need to talk about new issues related to this question at the moment,” Angela Merkel told the ZDF.

With Obama, even the stale sauerkraut snubbed him.

article-2684147-1F77DA6E00000578-342_634x672

The American answer to terrorism

Remember we are the greatest!

Under Obama, terrorism became rampant to the point that even UN Security Council rejected a Russian motion to condemn a terrorist attack in the city of Homs where at least 22 people were killed and more than 70 injured.

Why did they reject it? Because it says: “The Syrian government reiterated that most of the terror attacks “would not have happened without … generous support with money, weapons and ammunition to the terrorist organizations as well as the political and media support provided by known countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” the Ministry said, reported official news agency Sana.”

To say “Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar” are the main instigators of terror is an anathema. Under Obama, its not only ISIS that gets special protection, but the beast of Turkey and the whores of Arabia, cannot be pointed as the culprits for spilling the blood of saints.

And just to show how messed up the foreign policies are, here, I will explain the small-nail on what sparked the rise of this Muslim beast.

There was once a little nail that held this humpty-dumpty named Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. He was elected with 90% of the vote on 25 October 2009. On 18 December 2010 a revolution sprang which led to the ousting of longtime president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011.

It eventually led to a thorough democratization of the country and to supposedly free democratic elections. Instead of democracy, Tunisia saw the victory of a coalition of the Islamist Ennahda Movement (sister of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood).

The vent caused a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil unrest in the Arab world.

The hoopla was not much different from the demonstrations caused by the Muhammad-mocking movie, Innocence of Muslims.

Had everyone ignored the Muslims, things would have calmed down. In reality, it was Muslims who wanted what is called the Turkish Model of Islam as an ideal.

So on January 14, 2011, taking refuge in Muslim Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration quickly adapted, expressing its support for the demonstrations. The U.S. could live without the Tunisian regime.

In Egypt, the 2011 uprising was effectively internationalized, with foreign media devoting countless hours to covering every turn and, in the process, putting the issue at the top of the Western policy agenda.

The United States, making use of longstanding military-to-military ties, pressured the Egyptian army to refrain from using force against Muslim protesters.

Then Obama supported an intervention by NATO forces in Libya, which ultimately led to the end of the revolution and death of leader Muammar Qadhafi.

The naive Americans were jubilant, of course.

Non-politicians who had experience with foreigners overseas like businessman mogul Donald Trump knew better. Just as any kabob stand in the Middle East knew, the hoopla wasn’t about dictators, it was about Islam, stupid.

The U.S. condemned the governments of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen for their actions in dealing with the Islamist demonstrators.

However, it has stopped short of calling for regime change in Bahrain alone among those states. Why? Because Saudi Arabia knew that the majority in Bahrain are Shiites and with democracy, it would end up as a Shiite government allied to Iran.

And if Shiite-happens, in Egypt Sunni-happens.

It was no different from the Shiite Iranian Khomeni revolution in Iran than it was in Sunni Egypt. The Persians were for the revolution. The government of Iran condemned the Egyptian government’s response to protests during the Arab Spring even though Egypt is Sunni. They too, in Iran, wanted an Islamic revolution despite the Sunni-Shiite divide.

As a result, Sunni-happened, especially, approximately 10,000 Egyptians took part in The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID training in social media and nonviolent organizing techniques.

For example, one former Egyptian policeman named Omar Afifi Suleiman. He was coordinating the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo from his office in Washington DC. According to Wikileaks, NED paid Suleiman a yearly stipend of $200,000 between 2008-2011.

The tactics of the Arab Spring was introduced by one American non-violent guru, a son of a Protestant minister, Gene Sharp, the godfather of nonviolent revolution. His links with the Pentagon and US intelligence which played the major role. His work was reportedly taught in training workshops for Egyptian revolutionaries long before the events in Tahrir Square. And it has been used by activists in Zimbabwe, Estonia, Serbia, Vietnam, Burma and Lithuania.

The US goal in the Arab Spring revolutions was supposedly to replace unpopular despotic dictators while taking care to maintain the autocratic US-friendly infrastructure that had brought them to power. All initially followed the nonviolent precepts Sharp outlines in his 1994 book From Dictatorship to Democracy. In Libya, Syria and Yemen, the US and their allies were clearly prepared to introduce paid mercenaries when their Sharpian “revolutions” failed to produce regime change.

Sharp, contrary to the claim, was not simply a “practitioner of nonviolent movements” but rather a “theorist of power”. Some participated in the same State Department trainings as the Middle East opposition activists and instigated nonviolent Facebook and Twitter protests to coincide with the 2011 uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

Others, in exile, underwent guerrilla training sponsored by the CIA and a few months after Gaddafi’s assassination, some of these same militants would lead Islamic militias attempting to overthrow Assad in Syria.

How much mess can happen as result of the disobedience of God?

I will give just two simple biblical instructions. The first was to believe that the Protestant support for contraception was wiser than the Pope’s. The second was that “civil disobedience” and “non-violent protesting” is a God-given right.

Making contraception halal, and we have Protestant Germany and Protestant England in population-decline with more old geezers demanding to be taken care of by Muslim immigrants who will supposedly take on the work-force in Europe.

The reality was that these Muslims did not mind impregnating European girls and produce more Muslims and more welfare.

The other bad instruction was that we all have the right of “civil disobedience” which resulted is the worst tyranny in recent history: the Arab Spring.

The Bible never taught “civil disobedience” just for simply opposing a kingdom or a dictator. On the contrary, Christians are to obey the rules of the government so long they are allowed to observe God’s mandates and be allowed to worship Jesus freely.

God never told Moses to oust the Pharaoh. He simply wanted to be worshiped freely. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s does to mean we stop rendering unto God what is God’s.

You take away that second duty (rendering unto God what is God’s), and the second amendment kicks in with “violence” if reason and non-violence fails.

This is America. This is that apple-pie that can never be taken away. America will never have a love for Allah and will turn on any politician when they start dictating how we theologically believe to render unto Allah and Islam some burnt incense.

In fact, it was the condemnation of Trump on his Muslim comments that ticked off many Americans who are afraid to come out of the closet and confess his/her hypocrisy.

I profile Americans daily. An American is a hypocrite. He will never tell you that he hates falafel after you give them a taste. They will simply say that trying falafel “was interesting”. They will never say that they hate Islam, they will simply say they do not want Syrian immigrants when what they truly mean “Muslim” immigrants. An American is not an Arab where burping is polite and women open the door for men is the norm.

Besides Donald Trump, every Republican candidate, to cover his utter-hypocrisy had to bend the knee for Allah and the Muslim.

Trump was brilliant. Trump made them all work like the chicken-pecking on Trump’s head for saying the word “Muslim”. Fortunately, his pure golden hair cut their beaks and the Americans are responding in the polls, while Obama sought to differentiate Islam from the practices and beliefs of terrorists.

“[ISIS] does not speak for Islam,” Obama said. “They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology.”

Alright then, perhaps if Al-Baghdadi does not speak for Islam, who then does? Al-Azhar University in Egypt? The Wahhabist Saudis? Turkey?

There is no one on the face of the earth who can deny that every major Muslim institution that speaks for Islam is not void of teaching that Jihad is a holy-war against the infidel.

And while Obama fiddles around with ISIS, Erdogan of Turkey insists to “change set-times and laws”. While Turkey can undertake separate referenda for a new Constitution and a switch to an executive-style presidential system (in reality a Caliphate) President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan told reporters on his private plane en route from an official visit to Turkmenistan.

There are all sorts of foreign policy messes at hand and they are all as result of U.S. Administration. Messing with Syria caused Russia to intervene. Russia intervening messed up Turkey’s plans for a Neo-Ottoman hegemony which caused Turkey to mess with Russia. Turkey messing with Russia caused a rift where Turkey is not looking to change it dependency on Russian gas. Changing Turkey’s dependency on Russian gas made Turkey look to the Central Asian countries like Azarbeijan and Turkmenistan that holds the world’s fourth- or fifth-largest natural gas reserves. All this is helping create a new Muslim block with Turkey and the Muslim states in the Caucasus. These, including Iran would constitute tens of Nazi Germanies. All this was caused because some supposed genius wanted “democracy” in the Middle East.

However, Russia is building a natural gas route to China that could rival Turkmenistan’s. This leaves the Trans-Caspian pipeline as the last option for diversifying Turkmenistan’s customer base which will ease the need of Turkey to depend on Russia’s gas.

And now Erdogan wants to become Caliph.

“If they [opposition] want to take this [proposal] to the people they can do so. I believe that a huge proportion of the people will say ‘yes’ to a new Constitution,” Erdogan said.

“The people” will finally give him “allegiance” and the dead-man of Europe will arise from the dead.

But technically, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) would need the support of 367 of the 550 deputies to amend the Turkish Constitution directly, and only 330 to take the proposal to a nationwide referendum.

But in August, Erdoğan argued that Turkey’s government had already been changed into a “de facto” presidential system, as he called for a constitutional framework to “finalize” this transition.

“You can either accept it or not. Turkey’s government system has been de facto changed in this regard. What should be done now is to finalize the legal framework of this de facto situation with a new Constitution,” Erdoğan said during a speech in his hometown of Rize.

Turkey has enjoyed nearly 140 years of constitutional experience since the inception of the Ottoman Constitution of 1876, known in Turkish as the Kanûn-u Esâsî, and the parliamentary system has been the defining characteristic of all constitutions to follow.

Even in the 60-odd years of multi-party politics Turkey has seen, witnessing four military coups and even having a prime minister executed, Turkey has never taken a step to change its system of governance to a presidential one.

Erdoğan has emphasized the superiority of the presidential system (Caliph-Erdogan) many times in the past and said that he wants to change the current parliamentary system of government to a strong presidential system (Sultan-Erdogan).

Claiming that most developed countries are governed by a presidential system, although this is not actually the case, he said in January: “That shows that this [system] produces [better] results. Given this, why should we put shackles on our feet [by sticking with a parliamentary system]?”

The next argument will be that if Catholics have a Pope, why the Muslims cannot have a “Caliph”?

This will be as if Caliph-Baghdadi of ISIS, but he is running the second largest and most powerful army in NATO after the U.S.

Anyone else (besides Obama) dare say that Islam is not the most dangerous religion on earth?

Anyone wants to ignore that God is in control and that He might have Trump win? God even chose Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, to spend three days in His grave. God does not hate the rich man just because he is rich.

In the end, somethings just never change. Especially when it comes to my three decade observation of Americans. From its discovery of the Hamburger, Americans will always stand in long lines because they love the Hamburger and is why they stand in long lines to see Donald Trump.

 

Author: God in heaven

The Rise of a ‘Democratic’ Fascism

Ukraine fascists

Ukraine fascists

Traditional fascism is defined as a right-wing political system run by a dictator who prohibits dissent and relies on repression. But some analysts believe a new form of fascism has arisen that has a democratic façade and is based on relentless propaganda and endless war, as journalist John Pilger describes.

The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.

“To initiate a war of aggression…,” said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, “is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.

Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya.

In 2011, Nato launched 9,700 “strike sorties” against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that “most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten.”

Gaddafi’s Torture/Lynching

The public sodomizing of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a “rebel” bayonet was greeted by the then U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: “We came, we saw, he died.” His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning “genocide” against his own people.

“We knew … that if we waited one more day,” said President Barack Obama, “Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”

This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.” Reported on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for NATO’s inferno, described by David Cameron as a “humanitarian intervention.”

Secretly supplied and trained by Britain’s SAS, many of the “rebels” would become ISIS, whose latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city destroyed on their behalf by NATO bombers.

For Obama, Cameron and Hollande, Gaddafi’s true crime was Libya’s economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa’s greatest oil reserves in U.S. dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power.

Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the U.S. as it prepared to “enter” Africa and bribe African governments with military “partnerships.”

Following NATO’s attack under cover of a Security Council resolution, Obama, wrote Garikai Chengu, “confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency.”

The Kosovo Model

The “humanitarian war” against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent NATO to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing “genocide” against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo.

David Scheffer, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as “225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59″ might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and “the spirit of the Second World War.”

The West’s heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.

With the NATO bombing over, and much of Serbia’s infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the “holocaust.” The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing “a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines.”

A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide. The “holocaust” was a lie. The NATO attack had been fraudulent.

Expanding Markets

Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its “natural market” in the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia.

By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991 to lay their plans for the disastrous eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognize Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.

In Washington, the U.S. saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. NATO, then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo “peace” conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer’s duplicitous tactics.

The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the U.S. delegation inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia — a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation — and the implementation of a “free-market economy” and the privatization of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; NATO bombs fell on a defenseless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.

American Interventions

Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations – 69 countries – have suffered some or all of the following at the hands of America’s modern fascism. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege known as “sanctions.” The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. In every case, a big lie was deployed.

“Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over.” These were opening words of Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment.

“The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion,” said Obama. In fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records. The majority have been killed — civilians and soldiers — during Obama’s time as president.

The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the godfather of U.S. policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because “the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion. . . . Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” He is right.

As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, demonstrated his point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan’s first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?

Afghan’s Shining Moment

In the 1960s, a popular revolution swept Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, eventually overthrowing the vestiges of the aristocratic regime in 1978. The People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) formed a government and declared a reform program that included the abolition of feudalism, freedom for all religions, equal rights for women and social justice for the ethnic minorities. More than 13,000 political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.

The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan’s doctors, a third of civil servants and the majority of teachers.

“Every girl,” recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon, “could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest music. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West supported.”

The PDPA government was backed by the Soviet Union, even though, as former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance later admitted, “there was no evidence of any Soviet complicity [in the revolution].” Alarmed by the growing confidence of liberation movements throughout the world, Brzezinski decided that if Afghanistan was to succeed under the PDPA, its independence and progress would offer the “threat of a promising example.”

On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorized support for tribal “fundamentalist” groups known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan’s first secular, reformist government.

In August 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul reported that “the United States’ larger interests … would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.” The italics are mine.

The mujaheddin were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA. Hekmatyar’s specialty was trafficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London, he was lauded by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a “freedom fighter.”

Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and “destabilize” the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, “a few stirred up Muslims.”

His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them.

Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called “Operation Cyclone.” Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah — who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help — was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.

The “blowback” of Operation Cyclone and its “few stirred up Muslims” was September 11, 2001. Operation Cyclone became the “war on terror,” in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer’s message was and remains: “You are with us or against us.”

Threads of Fascism

The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam had its “free fire zones,” “body counts” and “collateral damage.” In the province of Quang Ngai, where I reported from, many thousands of civilians (“gooks”) were murdered by the U.S.; yet only one massacre, at My Lai, is remembered.

bombinginvietnam-246x300

Air Force F-105s bomb a target in the southern panhandle of North Vietnam on June 14, 1966. (Photo credit: U.S. Air Force)”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.

Today, the world’s greatest single campaign of terror entails the execution of entire families, guests at weddings, mourners at funerals. These are Obama’s victims. According to the New York Times, Obama makes his selection from a CIA “kill list” presented to him every Tuesday in the White House Situation Room. He then decides, without a shred of legal justification, who will live and who will die. His execution weapon is the Hellfire missile carried by a pilotless aircraft known as a drone; these roast their victims and festoon the area with their remains. Each “hit” is registered on a faraway console screen as a “bugsplat.”

“For goose-steppers,” wrote the historian Norman Pollock, “substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarization of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while.”

American Exceptionalism

Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the 1930s.

As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt, who said, “The sovereign is he who decides the exception.” This sums up Americanism, the world’s dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognized as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an equally unrecognized brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, its conceit insinuates western culture.

I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, U.S. losses, including in the Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.

The difference now is that cinema audiences are invited to wring their hands at the “tragedy” of American psychopaths having to kill people in distant places — just as the President himself kills them. The embodiment of Hollywood’s violence, the actor and director Clint Eastwood, was nominated for an Oscar this year for his movie, American Sniper, which is about a licensed murderer and nutcase. The New York Times described it as a “patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days.”

There are no heroic movies about America’s embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America (and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens — as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America.

Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the U.S.; many were pampered and their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the “father” of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the U.S. space program.

In the 1990s, as former Soviet republics, eastern Europe and the Balkans became military outposts of NATO, the heirs to a Nazi movement in Ukraine were given their opportunity. Responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian fascism was rehabilitated and its “new wave” hailed by the enforcer as “nationalists.”

The Ukraine Coup

This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the “Moscow-Jewish mafia” and “other scum,” including gays, feminists and those on the political left.

These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda. On Feb. 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington to get “the USA to give us highly precise modern weaponry.” If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion.

 

 

 

 

 

No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe — with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the U.S. arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defense Minister as “the minister for defeatism.”

It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert Kagan, a leading “neo-con” luminary who was a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, which began pushing for the invasion of Iraq in 1998. She was a foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Nuland’s coup in Ukraine did not go to plan. NATO was prevented from seizing Russia’s historic, legitimate, warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea — illegally annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 — voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s. The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.

At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleaning. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions.

More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping “the violence” caused by the “Russian invasion.” The NATO commander, General Breedlove — whose name and actions might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove — announced that 40,000 Russian troops were “massing.” In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.

Repressing Ethnic Russians

These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine – a third of the population – have long sought a federation that reflects the country’s ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are not “separatists” but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland and oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous “states” are a reaction to Kiev’s attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences.

On May 2, 2014, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as “another bright day in our national history.” In the American and British media, this was reported as a “murky tragedy” resulting from “clashes” between “nationalists” (neo-Nazis) and “separatists” (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine).

The New York Times buried the story, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington’s new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the victims – “Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says.” Obama congratulated the junta for its “restraint.”

If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained “pariah” role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On Jan. 29, Ukraine’s top military commander, General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for U.S. and EU sanctions on Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: “The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian Army.” There were “individual citizens” who were members of “illegal armed groups,” but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news.

Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev’s Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for “full scale war” with nuclear-armed Russia.

On Feb. 21, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would authorize American arms for the Kiev regime. In his Senate presentation, Inhofe used photographs he claimed were of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine, which have long been exposed as fakes. It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s fake pictures of a Soviet installation in Nicaragua, and Colin Powell’s fake evidence to the UN of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America’s most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, “No European government, since Adolf Hitler’s Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West’s media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established. …

“If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three – much as it did into world war one a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason.”

Nuremberg Lessons

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: “The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack. …

“In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons.”

In the Guardian on Feb. 2, Timothy Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, called, in effect, for a world war. “Putin must be stopped,” said the headline. “And sometimes only guns can stop guns.” He conceded that the threat of war might “nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement”; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that “America has the best kit.”

In 2003, Garton-Ash repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, “has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying to get nuclear ones.” He lauded Blair as a “Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist.” In 2006, he wrote, “Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran.”

The outbursts — or as Garton-Ash prefers, his “tortured liberal ambivalence” — are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader.

The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash’s piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: “The F-35. GREAT For Britain.” This American “kit” will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world. In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.

Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev’s new Finance Minister, Natalie Jaresko, is a former senior U.S. State Department official who was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship.

They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden’s son is on the board of Ukraine’s biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine’s rich farming soil.

Above all, they want Ukraine’s mighty neighbor, Russia. They want to Balkanize or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia’s long Arctic land border.

Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country’s economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.

The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilization to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.

John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist based in London.