Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘United States’


“My administration has been closely monitoring the situation in Egypt, and I know that we will be learning more tomorrow when day breaks.  As the situation continues to unfold, our first concern is preventing injury or loss of life.  So I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors.

 

The people of Egypt have rights that are universal.  That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny.  These are human rights.  And the United States will stand up for them everywhere.”

 

- U.S. President Barack Obama, January 28, 2011

 

The events in Ferguson, Missouri went from what could have been just another all too common and tragic incident in which an unarmed black man is killed by an overly aggressive and unprofessional police force, to what may be a historically significant event in American history. So how did this transformation occur and what does it mean going forward? Those are the two questions I intend to address in this post.

There are two primary factors that have collided to create the current out of control situation in a suburb roughly 15 miles northwest of St. Louis, which before this past weekend, almost no one had ever heard of. The first factor is the underlying tension in American society that I have been writing about for several years now. Nowhere is this tension more apparent than in the minority majority inner cities or their outskirts. Being a privileged person, I have thankfully never experienced the dehumanization and oppression felt by so many in these disenfranchised communities, but I can still understand the fact that these neighborhoods are ground zero in the civil unrest that is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.

The second factor is the entirely inappropriate and dangerous militarization of police forces throughout these United States. While extreme tension between impoverished communities and the police has been well documented for decades and expressed through music and movies (I grew up with NWA’s Fuck Tha Police and Colors), the cops were generally speaking merely men and women driving around in patrol cars with guns and batons. Not to dismiss the violence that can and has been inflicted through those means, but the police in recent years have taken things to a whole new frightening level: Total Militarization.

I consider this trend to be such an existential threat to freedom and civil liberties that I have expended a considerable deal of time and energy over the past several years highlighting it. I have covered the topic too many times to list here (I will provide a compilation at the end of this post), but there is one in particular I want to mention. The post was published two months ago and was titled: The Militarization of Police Continues…Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Silencers and More. In it I quoted the following from a New York Times article:

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

 

The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units. Police SWAT teams are now deployed tens of thousands of times each year, increasingly for routine jobs. Masked, heavily armed police officers in Louisiana raided a nightclub in 2006 as part of a liquor inspection. In Florida in 2010, officers in SWAT gear and with guns drawn carried out raids on barbershops that mostly led only to charges of “barbering without a license.”

I then concluded the post with the following observation:

Of all the bad ideas currently being implemented in these United States, turning the police into soldiers is certainly near the top of the list

More@ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-14/ferguson-bundy-ranch-dancing-night-away-obamas

Read Full Post »


This may be some good reading to some ppl. I think it is a must read.
Hope u all like it. Stop being nice it is a demonic word. Look it up. Don’t let anyone call u nice and you accept it anymore. Grammer and Glamorous mean the same thing. You learn to spell in grammer schooling and to accept other demonic spells as reality. Verbs and all that noun crap is as demonic as hell is hot. Mind control l0l.  English is a bag of trick language and is required to be altered and even removed from societies. Easy come easy go you know. We must let all this BS go once and for all and stand up-right. The truth can not be altered at all ever.  TIP must be listened too or we all suffer the consequences right.
Thanks


by Howard Freeman

The information is this article is not intended in any manner to replace qualified legal advice.

Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that King George III’s government forced upon them, in common declared their independence from England in 1776. They were not expected to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed people had backed England for two major reasons. First, our forefathers wanted a rigid, written Constitution “set in concrete.” They were familiar with the so-called Constitution of England which consisted largely of customs, precedents, traditions, and understandings, often vague and always flexible. They wanted the principle of English common law, that an act done by any official person or lawmaking body beyond his or its legal competence was simply void. Second, the thirteen little colonies desired to base their union on substance (gold and silver) — real money. They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe were mortgaged to the hilt — lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the people, everything — to certain wealthy men who controlled the banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not loan gold and silver!

The United States of America was made up of a union of what is now fifty sovereign States, a three-branch (legislative, executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States of America, or as termed in this article, the Continental United States. Its citizenry live in one of the fifty States, and its laws are based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law. It has become an administrative (bureaucratic) legislative democracy via the obligation of contract being extended by duplicity and deception.

Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league with the international bankers. They realized that a separate nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This “United States” is a Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its Citizenry, the residents of the District of Colombia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a Citizen by way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized Citizens).

Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both nations. One “United States,” the Republic of fifty States, has the “stars and stripes” as its flag, but without any fringe on it. The Federal United States’ flag is the stars and stripes with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations of the States of the Continental United States are, with or without the zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, etc. (without any periods).

Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the Continental United States provides for legal cases

  1. at Law,
  2. in Equity, and
  3. in Admiralty:

(l) Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone else. Law does not compel performance. Today’s so-called laws (ordinances, statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are often erroneously perceived as law, but just because something is called a “law” does not necessarily make it a law. [There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful." Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be lawful.]

(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in a particular situation. The term “equity” denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You have no rights other than what is specified in your contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.

(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty, a civil contract with a criminal penalty.

By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal, equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international bankers) who now owned everything — the Congress, the Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.

The remainder of this article explains how this happened, where we are today, and what remedy we have to protect ourselves from this system.

Our Present Commercial System of “Law” and the REMEDY Provided for Our Protection

The present commercial system of “law” has replaced the old and familiar Common Law upon which our nation was founded. The following is the legal thread which brought us from sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to discharge our debts with limited liability instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.

The change in our system of law from public law to private commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were officially blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law — or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are based upon what is termed public policy.

Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the Negotiable Instrument’s Law, which is a branch of the international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of the Congress of the United States (which “United States” has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as distinguished from the “United States,” which is the Union of the fifty States).

In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for education, highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound all the States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the Federal United States (as distinguished from the Continental United States). The fifty States accepted the “benefits” offered by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial agreement between the Federal United States and each of the corporate States. The corporate States were then obligated to obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume their portion of the equitable debts of the Federal United States to the international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants, was predicated upon equitable paper.

This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and is what has altered our court system from one under the Common Law to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of commercial law. Those persons brought before this court are held to the letter of every statute of government on the federal, state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the REMEDY provided for them within that system of Commercial Law whereby, when forced to use a so-called “benefit” offered, or available, to them, from government, they may reserve their former right, under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

This is exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to distinguish it from the Continental United States, whose origin was in the Union of the Sovereign States.

The same national Congress rules the Continental United States pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it legislates for the Federal United States.

With the above information, we may ask: “How did we, the free Preamble citizenry of the Sovereign States, lose our guaranteed unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of the equitable debt obligations of the Federal United States, and also become subject to that entity of government, and divorced from our Sovereign States in the Republic, which we call here the Continental United States?” We do not reside, work, or have income from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of the Federal United States. These are questions that have troubled sincere, patriotic Americans for many years. Our lack of knowledge concerning the cunning of the legal profession is the cause of that divorce, but a knowledge of the truth concerning the legal thread, which caught us in its net, will restore our former status as a free Preamble citizen of the Republic.

The answer follows:

Our national Congress works for two nations foreign to each other, and by legal cunning both are called The United States. One is the Union of Sovereign States, under the Constitution, termed in this article the Continental United States. The other is a Legislative Democracy which has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here termed the Federal United States. Very few people, when they see some “law” passed by Congress, ask themselves, “Which nation was Congress working for when it passed this or that so-called law?” Or, few ask, “Does this particular law apply to the Continental citizenry of the Republic, or does this particular law apply only to residents of the District of Columbia and other named enclaves, or territories, of the Democracy called the Federal United States?”

Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for “cunning” political leadership to seek more power and authority over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of “legalese.” Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide a medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in harmony with its Constitutional mandate. Instead, it created an abundance of commercial credit money for the Legislative Democracy, where it was not bound by Constitutional limitations. Then, after having created an emergency situation, and a tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its emergency authority to remove the remaining substance (gold and silver) from the medium of exchange belonging to the Republic, and made the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative Democracy (Federal United States) a legal tender for Continental United States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts.

At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the two nations the “benefit” of limited liability in the discharge of all debts by telling the citizenry that the gold and silver coins of the Republic were out of date and cumbersome. The citizens were told that gold and silver (substance) was no longer needed to pay their debts, that they were now “privileged” to discharge debt with this more “convenient” currency, issued by the Federal United States. Consequently, everyone was forced to “go modern,” and to turn in their gold as a patriotic gesture. The entire news media complex went along with the scam and declared it to be a forward step for our democracy, no longer referring to America as a Republic.

From that time on, it was a falling light for the Republic of 1776, and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Democracy, which overcame the depression, which was caused by a created shortage of real money. There was created an abundance of debt paper money, so-called, in the form of interest-bearing negotiable instrument paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and other forms of paperwork credit instruments.

Since all contracts since Roosevelt’s time have the colorable consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth."]

Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon the term colorable contract was changed to the term commercial agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction, which is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. This jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied consent, rather than full knowledge, as it is with the enforcement of contracts under the Common Law.

All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so-called “statutes” of legislative bodies being enforced in these Legislative Tribunals are not “statutes” passed by the legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as “commercial obligations” to the Federal United States for anyone in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States and who has accepted the “benefit,” or “privilege,” of discharging his debts with the limited liability “benefit” offered to him by the Federal United States … EXCEPT those who availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of law, which remedy is today found in Book 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 207.

When used in conjunction with one’s signature, a stamp stating “Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207″ is sufficient to indicate to the magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals (called “courts”) that the signer of the document has reserved his Common Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case in any Common Law contract.

Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement, must now be construed in harmony with the old Common Law of America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does not apply to the individual who is wise enough and informed enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law. He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the Republic, while those about him “curse the darkness” of Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed to free themselves from a slave status under the Federal United States, even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue.

Editor’s note: the following excerpts are from letters in which Mr. Freeman further clarifies the REMEDY, as given to us in UCC 1-207, and the distinctions between Public Policy and Public Law:

Dear:

“There is an important “right” available to you. The name of the right is “Allocution”. It is presumed to have been waived if it is not requested! The purpose in demanding it is to preserve the “legal issues” brought up in the case, and overruled by the trial court. Otherwise, one’s appeal from a criminal conviction to a higher Court will only be a review of the “Fact Issues” decided in the lower Court, the Law Issues of the case are presumed to have been waived by the accused, unless those issues have been preserved though the right of “allocution.”

There is more that can follow one’s exercise of that right, and I will cover that, but first, let me explain what allocution is.

Once the Court, or a Jury, has found you guilty of disobedience to a commercial statute demanding, or prohibiting, performance in a specified manner, you, the accused, have the right of “Allocution”, which right, consists of having the Court (Judge) ask you on the record of the case (be sure that the Court Reporter is including this in the case transcript) “Is there any reason why this Court should not sentence you at this time?”

Being asked that question by the Court, in the Court Record is all there is to your right of Allocution, but a proper response upon the Court Record by the accused shows that same has not waived dispute upon the legal issues of the case, which were overruled by the trial Court, and now those issues may be brought up on appeal. The proper response of the accused upon being confronted with this question from the Judge, which allocution requires of him, is “Your Honor, the accused, in this criminal case, coming as it does from a colorable jurisdiction over his person and property, does object to being sentenced by this court at this time, because conviction in this case has been base upon The Facts of the case, while the Law Issues are still in dispute – namely – the Courts’ Colorable Jurisdiction in this Criminal charge, which lacks the essence of a substantial claim by a damaged party.”

At this point, your right of Allocution has preserved for you your right to bring Law Issues into your Appeal. Now, I will bring to your attention an additional benefit of exercising your right of Allocution, which I alluded to earlier in this letter: After you have placed the above response to the Judge’s question in the record, I would suggest that you continue on in the following manner: “Your Honor, the accused in this case would like to put this Court ON NOTICE, that if it DOES pronounce sentence at this time, over the OBJECTIONS of the accused, that the accused will formulate his objection, before a higher Court, IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF ERROR (see Supervisory Control in Black’s 5th Law Dictionary).”

The reason for the remark above is that the Court will tell you that WRITS OF ERROR have been done away with in modern Courts. In that situation, point out to the Judge that you do NOT intend to file a GENUINE WRIT OF ERROR, which is not recognized in colorable Jurisdictions, but that you stated on the record of the court that your OBJECTION to being sentenced at this time on FACT ISSUES while the LAW ISSUES of the case are still in dispute would be: IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF ERROR which is a Colorable Objection recognized under the name of Supervisory Control in Black’s 5th.

The advantage of an objection in the nature of a writ of error is that the Judge (not you) must bring forth the Transcript, or Record, of the case to the higher panel of Judges, and, the burden of proof is upon that Judge to show that the Jurisdiction that he exercised over your person and property existed AS A FACT OF LAW, and further, he must show the legal basis for EACH RULING ON ISSUES OF LAW that the Transcript shows that an objection thereto was made by the accused.

Now you know the benefit of stating your objection in the nature of a Writ of Error, over making an appeal, wherein the expense of bringing forth the transcript is on you, as well as, the burden of proof on all the law issues in dispute.”

Sincerely,
Howard Freeman

Dear:

“What has public policy to do with Commercial Law? To grasp that you must understand that the US Constitution being based upon the Common Law and the Common Law being based upon substance (silver & gold) made it impossible for Congress when working for the 3-branch government created by the Union of States to borrow anything but silver or gold for what I will call the Continental United States , but Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution gave the same Congress exclusive rule of the District of Columbia and other territories and enclaves mentioned in Clause 17. This entity I will call for our purposes here Federal United States. With that exclusive rule of that legislative democracy, called here Federal United States, Congress was able to borrow non-substance (bank credit) from International Banking Houses in the name of Federal United States which loans began in Civil War times and continues today to the point that the paper debt exceeds 3 Trillion in loans of bank credit. Federal United States was long ago a bankrupt nation so it no longer legislated “public law” pursuant to the interests of the people it served, but since 1938 it legislates “public policy” in the interests of the nation’s creditors. It is not in the interest of the people for Congress to give billions to Russia or Israel so that becomes “public policy” in the interest of the nation’s creditors. Now the Commercial Code comes into play when the Congress of the bankrupt Federal United States, in its duty to pass public policy statutes in the interest of the creditors of Federal United States, failed in its duty to coin gold or silver as a medium of exchange for Continental United States creating a depression therein, through a shortage of real money (genuine dollars). Then Franklin Roosevelt declared gold a barbaric metal, and with emergency powers given to him, brought America “up to date” by making colorable Federal Reserve Notes legal tender throughout Continental United States. Since colorable dollars, based upon the debt obligations of Federal United States, are now employed as a medium of exchange for Continental United States through the neglect of Congress in its duty to Continental United States, and the so called “blessings” of executive orders of FDR under his emergency powers, Continental United States is in a contract relationship with Federal United States and the debts of Federal United States are now equally, the debts of Continental United States and all of the inhabitants thereof UNLESS the inhabitants thereof in doing business in colorable dollars (commercial paper) reserve their Common Law Rights under the REMEDY provided for them in that system of Commercial Law called: The Uniform Commercial Code. I hope this brief summary of events answers your questions.

Most cordially yours,
Howard Freeman.

ADDENDUM

U.C.C. 1-207:4 Sufficiency of reservation.

Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is sufficient, such as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” “under reservation,” or “with reservation of all our rights.”

The Code states an “explicit” reservation must be made. “Explicit” undoubtedly is used in place of “express” to indicate that the reservation must not only be “express” but it must also be “clear” that such a reservation was intended.

The term “explicit” as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means “that which is so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning.” ….

U.C.C. 1-207:7 Effect of reservation of rights.
The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel ….

U.C.C. 1-207:9 Failure to make reservation.
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its assertion at a later date ….

U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.
The Code is “Complementary” to the common law which remains in force except where displaced by the Code ….

A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law…. “The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law action.”

EXAMPLE

Your Honor, my use of “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207″ above my signature on this document indicates that I have exercised the “Remedy” provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1 at Section 207, whereby I may reserve my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And, that reservation serves notice upon all administrative agencies of government — national, state and local — that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the “compelled” benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement.

The Three United States!
Back to Political Corrections

Read Full Post »


An armed anti-Kiev protester guards the barricades on a road leading into Slavyansk, eastern Ukraine, May 5, 2014.

An armed anti-Kiev protester guards the barricades on a road leading into Slavyansk, eastern Ukraine, May 5, 2014.
Sat May 10, 2014 1:18AM GM
By William Blum, CounterPunch

So, what do we have here? In Libya, in Syria, and elsewhere the United States has been on the same side as the al-Qaeda types. But not in Ukraine. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that in Ukraine the United States is on the same side as the neo-Nazi types, who – taking time off from parading around with their swastika-like symbols and calling for the death of Jews, Russians and Communists – on May 2 burned down a trade-union building in Odessa, killing scores of people and sending hundreds to hospital; many of the victims were beaten or shot when they tried to flee the flames and smoke; ambulances were blocked from reaching the wounded. Try and find an American mainstream media entity that has made a serious attempt to capture the horror.And how did this latest example of American foreign-policy exceptionalism come to be? One starting point that can be considered is what former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Robert Gates says in his recently published memoir: “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, [Defense Secretary Dick Cheney] wanted to see the dismemberment not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.” That can serve as an early marker for the new cold war while the corpse of the old one was still warm. Soon thereafter, NATO began to surround Russia with military bases, missile sites, and NATO members, while yearning for perhaps the most important part needed to complete the circle – Ukraine.In February of this year, US State Department officials, undiplomatically, joined anti-government protesters in the capital city of Kiev, handing out encouragement and food, from which emanated the infamous leaked audio tape between the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and the State Department’s Victoria Nuland, former US ambassador to NATO and former State Department spokesperson for Hillary Clinton. Their conversation dealt with who should be running the new Ukraine government after the government of Viktor Yanukovich was overthrown; their most favored for this position being one Arseniy Yatsenuk.

My dear, and recently departed, Washington friend, John Judge, liked to say that if you want to call him a “conspiracy theorist” you have to call others “coincidence theorists”. Thus it was by the most remarkable of coincidences that Arseniy Yatsenuk did indeed become the new prime minister. He could very soon be found in private meetings and public press conferences with the president of the United States and the Secretary-General of NATO, as well as meeting with the soon-to-be new owners of Ukraine, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, preparing to impose their standard financial shock therapy. The current protestors in Ukraine don’t need PHDs in economics to know what this portends. They know about the impoverishment of Greece, Spain, et al. They also despise the new regime for its overthrow of their democratically-elected government, whatever its shortcomings. But the American media obscures these motivations by almost always referring to them simply as “pro-Russian”.

An exception, albeit rather unemphasized, was the April 17 Washington Post which reported from Donetsk that many of the eastern Ukrainians whom the author interviewed said the unrest in their region was driven by fear of “economic hardship” and the IMF austerity plan that will make their lives even harder: “At a most dangerous and delicate time, just as it battles Moscow for hearts and minds across the east, the pro-Western government is set to initiate a shock therapy of economic measures to meet the demands of an emergency bailout from the International Monetary Fund.”

Arseniy Yatsenuk, it should be noted, has something called the Arseniy Yatsenuk Foundation. If you go to the foundation’s website you will see the logos of the foundation’s “partners”.  Among these partners we find NATO, the National Endowment for Democracy, the US State Department, Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs in the UK), the German Marshall Fund (a think tank founded by the German government in honor of the US Marshall Plan), as well as a couple of international banks. Is any comment needed?

Getting away with supporting al-Qaeda and Nazi types may be giving US officials the idea that they can say or do anything they want in their foreign policy. In a May 2 press conference, President Obama, referring to Ukraine and the NATO Treaty, said: “We’re united in our unwavering Article 5 commitment to the security of our NATO allies”. (Article 5 states: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all.”) Did the president forget that Ukraine is not (yet) a member of NATO? And in the same press conference, the president referred to the “duly elected government in Kyiv (Kiev)”, when in fact it had come to power via a coup and then proceeded to establish a new regime in which the vice-premier, minister of defense, minister of agriculture, and minister of environment, all belonged to far-right neo-Nazi parties.

The pure awfulness of the Ukrainian right-wingers can scarcely be exaggerated. In early March, the leader of Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) called upon his comrades, the infamous Chechnyan terrorists, to carry out further terrorist actions in Russia.

There may be one important difference between the old Cold War and the new one. The American people, as well as the world, cannot be as easily brainwashed as they were during the earlier period.

Over the course of a decade, in doing the research for my first books and articles on US foreign policy, one of the oddities to me of the Cold War was how often the Soviet Union seemed to know what the United States was really up to, even if the American people didn’t. Every once in a while in the 1950s to 70s a careful reader would notice a two- or three-inch story in the New York Times on the bottom of some distant inside page, reporting that Pravda or Izvestia had claimed that a recent coup or political assassination in Africa or Asia or Latin America had been the work of the CIA; the Times might add that a US State Department official had labeled the story as “absurd”. And that was that; no further details were provided; and none were needed, for how many American readers gave it a second thought? It was just more commie propaganda. Who did they think they were fooling? This ignorance/complicity on the part of the mainstream media allowed the United States to get away with all manner of international crimes and mischief.

It was only in the 1980s when I began to do the serious research that resulted in my first book, which later became Killing Hope, that I was able to fill in the details and realize that the United States had indeed masterminded that particular coup or assassination, and many other coups and assassinations, not to mention countless bombings, chemical and biological warfare, perversion of elections, drug dealings, kidnappings, and much more that had not appeared in the American mainstream media or schoolbooks. (And a significant portion of which was apparently unknown to the Soviets as well.)

But there have been countless revelations about US crimes in the past two decades. Many Americans and much of the rest of the planet have become educated. They’re much more skeptical of American proclamations and the fawning media.

President Obama recently declared: “The strong condemnation that it’s received from around the world indicates the degree to which Russia is on the wrong side of history on this.”  Marvelous … coming from the man who partners with jihadists and Nazis and has waged war against seven nations. In the past half century is there any country whose foreign policy has received more bitter condemnation than the United States? If the United States is not on the wrong side of history, it may be only in the history books published by the United States.

Barack Obama, like virtually all Americans, likely believes that the Soviet Union, with perhaps the sole exception of the Second World War, was consistently on the wrong side of history in its foreign policy as well as at home. Yet, in a survey conducted by an independent Russian polling center this past January, and reported in the Washington Post in April, 86 percent of respondents older than 55 expressed regret for the Soviet Union’s collapse; 37 percent of those aged 25 to 39 did so. (Similar poll results have been reported regularly since the demise of the Soviet Union. This is from USA Today in 1999: “When the Berlin Wall crumbled, East Germans imagined a life of freedom where consumer goods were abundant and hardships would fade. Ten years later, a remarkable 51% say they were happier with communism.”)

Or as the new Russian proverb put it: “Everything the Communists said about Communism was a lie, but everything they said about capitalism turned out to be the truth.”

A week before the above Post report in April the newspaper printed an article about happiness around the world, which contains the following charming lines: “Worldwide polls show that life seems better to older people – except in Russia.” … “Essentially, life under President Vladimir Putin is one continuous downward spiral into despair.” … “What’s going on in Russia is deep unhappiness.” … “In Russia, the only thing to look forward to is death’s sweet embrace.”

No, I don’t think it was meant to be any kind of satire. It appears to be a scientific study, complete with graphs, but it reads like something straight out of the 1950s.

The views Americans hold of themselves and other societies are not necessarily more distorted than the views found amongst people elsewhere in the world, but the Americans’ distortion can lead to much more harm. Most Americans and members of Congress have convinced themselves that the US/NATO encirclement of Russia is benign – we are, after all, the Good Guys – and they don’t understand why Russia can’t see this.

The first Cold War, from Washington’s point of view, was often designated as one of “containment”, referring to the US policy of preventing the spread of communism around the world, trying to block the very idea of communism or socialism. There’s still some leftover from that – see Venezuela and Cuba, for example – but the new Cold War can be seen more in terms of a military strategy. Washington thinks in terms of who could pose a barrier to the ever-expanding empire adding to its bases and other military necessities.

Whatever the rationale, it’s imperative that the United States suppress any lingering desire to bring Ukraine (and Georgia) into the NATO alliance. Nothing is more likely to bring large numbers of Russian boots onto the Ukrainian ground than the idea that Washington wants to have NATO troops right on the Russian border and in spitting distance of the country’s historic Black Sea naval base in Crimea.

The myth of Soviet expansionism

One still comes across references in the mainstream media to Russian “expansionism” and “the Soviet empire”, in addition to that old favorite “the evil empire”. These terms stem largely from erstwhile Soviet control of Eastern European states. But was the creation of these satellites following World War II an act of imperialism or expansionism? Or did the decisive impetus lie elsewhere?

Within the space of less than 25 years, Western powers had invaded Russia three times – the two world wars and the “Intervention” of 1918-20 – inflicting some 40 million casualties in the two wars alone. To carry out these invasions, the West had used Eastern Europe as a highway. Should it be any cause for wonder that after World War II the Soviets wanted to close this highway down? In almost any other context, Americans would have no problem in seeing this as an act of self-defense. But in the context of the Cold War such thinking could not find a home in mainstream discourse.

The Baltic states of the Soviet Union – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – were not part of the highway and were frequently in the news because of their demands for more autonomy from Moscow, a story “natural” for the American media. These articles invariably reminded the reader that the “once independent” Baltic states were invaded in 1939 by the Soviet Union, incorporated as republics of the USSR, and had been “occupied” ever since. Another case of brutal Russian imperialism. Period. History etched in stone.

The three countries, it happens, were part of the Russian empire from 1721 up to the Russian Revolution of 1917, in the midst of World War I. When the war ended in November 1918, and the Germans had been defeated, the victorious Allied nations (US, Great Britain, France, et al.) permitted/encouraged the German forces to remain in the Baltics for a full year to crush the spread of Bolshevism there; this, with ample military assistance from the Allied nations. In each of the three republics, the Germans installed collaborators in power who declared their independence from the new Bolshevik state which, by this time, was so devastated by the World War, the revolution, and the civil war prolonged by the Allies’ intervention, that it had no choice but to accept the fait accompli. The rest of the fledgling Soviet Union had to be saved.

To at least win some propaganda points from this unfortunate state of affairs, the Soviets announced that they were relinquishing the Baltic republics “voluntarily” in line with their principles of anti-imperialism and self-determination. But is should not be surprising that the Soviets continued to regard the Baltics as a rightful part of their nation or that they waited until they were powerful enough to reclaim the territory.

Then we had Afghanistan. Surely this was an imperialist grab. But the Soviet Union had lived next door to Afghanistan for more than 60 years without gobbling it up. And when the Russians invaded in 1979, the key motivation was the United States involvement in a movement, largely Islamic, to topple the Afghan government, which was friendly to Moscow. The Soviets could not have been expected to tolerate a pro-US, anti-communist government on its border any more than the United States could have been expected to tolerate a pro-Soviet, communist government in Mexico.

Moreover, if the rebel movement took power it likely would have set up a fundamentalist Islamic government, which would have been in a position to proselytize the numerous Muslims in the Soviet border republics.

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World’s Only Super Power. His latest book is: America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/10/362009/the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming/

 

Read Full Post »


With Mass Incarceration, U.S. is Guilty of a Slow Motion Genocide | ATV 004
If this were happening anywhere else in the world, Americans would be justifiably horrified:

1 out of every 100 adults are living behind bars in the United States, with 1 in 31 in some sort of correctional control, including prison, jail, parole, and probation.

The United States, with 5% of the world’s population, has 25% of the worlds prison population.

Private prisons are operating around the country at the local and state level, and a majority of them include “occupancy requirements mandating that local or state government keep those facilities between 80 and 100 percent full. In other words, whether crime is rising or falling, the state must keep those beds full.”

Thousands are serving life sentences for non-violent crimes.

The School to Prison Pipeline is still funneling mostly black and brown children into the juvenile and adult criminal legal systems.

Solitary confinement, defined as torture by the UN, is commonly practiced in both Guantanamo Bay prison and in mainland US prisons.

Police can murder suspects, and then claim they shot themselves in the head and get away with it, even if the suspect is handcuffed behind their back.

You get the picture.

According to Carl Dix, the co-founder (along with Cornel West) of The Stop Mass Incarceration Network, all of this and more are tantamount to genocide. As he tells Dennis Trainor, Jr. in the embedded episode of Acronym TV:

“Genocide is not a final act of putting people in gas chambers (…) Genocide is a process. A process by which groups of people are identified, targeted, demonized, separated, and then as this process goes on, the question of mass killings comes up later. That has been going on in this country. Black people in particular have been historically targeted, demonized, segregated (…) the definition of genocide flowing from the United Nations is when a group of people are put (in whole or in part) in circumstances that make it impossible for them to thrive and survive as a people. That is the situation with Mass Incarceration and all of its consequences in this country.”
Joining Carl on the program is Juanita Young. Ms. Young relates her story as the mother of an unarmed young man who was murdered by the NYPD, and how that fuels her life as an anti-police brutality activist.

The two discuss plans for a month of nationwide resistance to Mass incarceration, police terror, repression, and the criminalization of a generation.

The call for an October month of resistance put forth by Dix and Cornel West (and is supported by a growing list of endorsing groups and individuals) states:
“The malignancy of mass incarceration did not arise from a sudden epidemic of crime. Nor did it result from people making poor personal choices. Instead it arose from cold political calculations made in response to the massive and heroic struggle for the rights of Black and other minority peoples that took place in the 1960’s and 70’s, and in response to the enormous economic and social changes brought about by globalized production. This cancer of mass incarceration has been, from the beginning, nothing but a new Jim Crow in place of the old one. Like the old Jim Crow, it drew on, fed off and reinforced the deep-seated roots of the racism that grew up with slavery. Like the old Jim Crow, it has been, from the beginning, unjustifiable, utterly immoral and thoroughly illegitimate…

It is not enough to oppose this in the privacy of your own conscience or the company of like-minded people. It is not enough to curse this out, but then tell yourself nothing can be done. If you live your life under this threat, you MUST act. If you understand how wrong this is and how much it devastates the lives of so many millions, you MUST act.”

Read Full Post »


This is an interesting outlook on a possible, or even likely course of events that fits the imagined picture of the New World Order establishing control of America. Before this, it was easy to view the NWO movement as dangerous but more difficult to visualize the actual processes involved. Also very easy to see that America is well on the skids, but where to then? This spells out a possible scenario.

Hopefully wrong, but believable!

An impressive post from ‘The Common Sense Show’, by Dave Hodges.

 

Parts One and Two of this series described how the United Nations is poised to take over the United States. The border crisis with tens, if not hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens is threatening to paralyze several un vehicles 2federal agencies. When this number grows to millions, this country and its resources will be paralyzed in terms of responding the holocaust which is underway. Part Two, in particular, demonstrated how the United Nations is prepositioning resources in anticipation of being able to assume a policing duty with regard to the border crisis, which has totally been manufactured in order that the UN has a pretext to function as a force. Because the UN will be responding to a “humanitarian need” the American military will have a very difficult time objecting and opposing the takeover by the UN. The policing of the US by the UN is merely a move to gain a foothold for control over this country. When one looks at the wholesale movement of UN military vehicles, it is easy to conclude that their mission will not be humanitarian, in its totality, but this is lining up to be a military mission. As bad as the crisis on the border will be, this is just the opening act. What follows will allow the UN to assume complete policing powers in all 50 states and the assumption of jurisdictional control over all state and federal agencies.

What Will Give the UN the Justification to Assume Control Over the Entire US?

The one element that binds together all the local, state and federal agencies is the economy. The border crisis will provide the UN the opportunity to have a presence in the border states. However, there will be 46 states that will not be under UN control. Therefore, how does the UN overcome this challenge in order to assume complete control of the United States?

Food riots are coming

When the American economy collapses, food riots will commence. The average American will have enough food and water for about three days, with the majority of Americans not possessing the means to protect their individual supplies from the hording bands of desperate people. Banks will collapse, business inventories will be looted and police will abandon their posts just like they did during Hurricane Katrina. From a law enforcement perspective, America will lose the ability to respond to the crisis within 3-5 days. Within 10 days, there will absolute and total anarchy. Nobody will be safe. However, the UN “Peacekeepers” will be present and will be willing and able to assume control. And if they assume control, as they did, in Bosnia, Serbia, the West Bank, Lebanon and Rwanda, Americans are in a lot of trouble. northcomMy military sources have told me that this has already been rehearsed, the UN takeover of America, as far back as the 1990′s version of NORTHCOM and in combination with the UN have engaged in urban warfare drills. Again, in Bosnia, urban occupation was coordinated between foreign troops and US soldiers, under UN command in this war torn country. The removal of 260+ American military senior grade military officers should make a lot more sense because our loyal military leaders would not approve of this loss of sovereignty. An economic collapse will be the second leg of the UN takeover of this country following an international response by the UN at the border. And what will that mean? It will mean gun confiscation and seizure of private assets.

I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR. WHEN THE UN ASSUMES CONTROL OF THE EMERGING AND PLANNED BORDER CRISIS, THIS WILL MARK THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE UNITED STATES. AND WHEN THE ECONOMY COLLAPSES, THIS WILL MARK THE END OF AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY. THE UN MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A POLICING AUTHORITY ON OUR SOIL FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER!

For those who are indifferent to a planned UN intervention in this country, I would ask you to please tell me when has the United Nations ever intervened in a crisis without having its presence create genocide type conditions? Since class is in session, let me provide for you with the poster child answer to the previous question. Look at what the UN did not do in the Rwanda crisis. These yellow-bellied blue helmets watched as people were pulled from their cars, their wagons and their homes and were subsequently murdered.

Read the source article here.

Read Full Post »


If this were happening anywhere else in the world, Americans would be justifiably horrified:

1 out of every 100 adults are living behind bars in the United States, with 1 in 31 in some sort of correctional control, including prison, jail, parole, and probation.

The United States, with 5% of the world’s population, has 25% of the worlds prison population.

Private prisons are operating around the country at the local and state level, and a majority of them include “occupancy requirements mandating that local or state government keep those facilities between 80 and 100 percent full. In other words, whether crime is rising or falling, the state must keep those beds full.”

Thousands are serving life sentences for non-violent crimes.

The School to Prison Pipeline is still funneling mostly black and brown children into the juvenile and adult criminal legal systems.

Solitary confinement, defined as torture by the UN, is commonly practiced in both Guantanamo Bay prison and in mainland US prisons.

Police can murder suspects, and then claim they shot themselves in the head and get away with it, even if the suspect is handcuffed behind their back.

You get the picture.

According to Carl Dix, the co-founder (along with Cornel West) of The Stop Mass Incarceration Network, all of this and more are tantamount to genocide. As he tells Dennis Trainor, Jr. in the embedded episode of Acronym TV:

“Genocide is not a final act of putting people in gas chambers (…) Genocide is a process. A process by which groups of people are identified, targeted, demonized, separated, and then as this process goes on, the question of mass killings comes up later. That has been going on in this country. Black people in particular have been historically targeted, demonized, segregated (…) the definition of genocide flowing from the United Nations is when a group of people are put (in whole or in part) in circumstances that make it impossible for them to thrive and survive as a people. That is the situation with Mass Incarceration and all of its consequences in this country.”

Joining Carl on the program is Juanita Young. Ms. Young relates her story as the mother of an unarmed young man who was murdered by the NYPD, and how that fuels her life as an anti-police brutality activist.

The two discuss plans for a month of nationwide resistance to Mass incarceration, police terror, repression, and the criminalization of a generation.

The call for an October month of resistance put forth by Dix and Cornel West (and is supported by a growing list of endorsing groups and individuals) states:

“The malignancy of mass incarceration did not arise from a sudden epidemic of crime. Nor did it result from people making poor personal choices. Instead it arose from cold political calculations made in response to the massive and heroic struggle for the rights of Black and other minority peoples that took place in the 1960’s and 70’s, and in response to the enormous economic and social changes brought about by globalized production. This cancer of mass incarceration has been, from the beginning, nothing but a new Jim Crow in place of the old one. Like the old Jim Crow, it drew on, fed off and reinforced the deep-seated roots of the racism that grew up with slavery. Like the old Jim Crow, it has been, from the beginning, unjustifiable, utterly immoral and thoroughly illegitimate…

It is not enough to oppose this in the privacy of your own conscience or the company of like-minded people. It is not enough to curse this out, but then tell yourself nothing can be done. If you live your life under this threat, you MUST act. If you understand how wrong this is and how much it devastates the lives of so many millions, you MUST act.”

Read Full Post »


This is a serious warning of nuclear radiation dangers in the US and exposes the lack of responsibility of authorities to protect the public.

From the ‘Activist Post‘:

Dr. Rima Laibow
Natural Solutions Foundation

US policy to hide US radiation levels – BEFORE AND AFTER Fukushima – would make Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin and Joseph Goebbels proud Champions of public ignorance and manipulating populations through propaganda, they would applaud the government’s lies about the deadly radiation levels already poisoning you. While the US and its agencies continue to intone the “No Harm To Human Health” lie, as does the government of Japan, the truth is very different indeed. The bald-faced lies are offered to protect the interests of, in this case, the Nuclear Mafia and its political cronies. Because, simply put, if you knew what the radiation dangers you are living in really were, you and I, together, could bring about the shut-down of every nuclear power station in the US.

So the government agencies work together with the uninsurable and unspeakably deadly nuclear industry to convince you that your cancer, your child’s heart disease or diabetes, your husband’s leukemia, your wife’s infertility, are unrelated to the hidden fact that you have been living in an area so contaminated by your local nuclear power station that mandatory population relocation – evacuation – was required years ago. But never mentioned.

It makes no difference to the crony capitalists and their political shills, of course, what the cost is to the people they control – and whose lives they destroy.

Recently I decided to investigate the radiation levels of various areas in the US were BEFORE Fukushima, given that there are 296 publicly acknowledged civilian, educational and military nuclear reactors in the US. All of them can, and do, emit radiation. Often.

And, with each release, we hear that there is “No Harm to Human Health”, the same encouraging chant that Fukushima residents, indeed, the people of Japan, are hearing.

What I discovered shocked me, and will, I am afraid, shock you, too. I fervently hope that it shocks you enough to take action to end the madness of nuclear power once and for all.

The complete article here.

Read Full Post »


This is information important to all Americans and world-wide citizens. Absolutely vital that it is read and understood.

From ‘GeoEngineering Watch':

While mainstream media and the disinformation propagandists have so far done their best to marginalize any who had the courage to state the facts about what is unfolding around us, such denial and spin are no longer able to hide reality. The new Pentagon study outlined in the article below should be extremely alarming to anyone that is even partially awake. Connotations are made in the report that indicate even “non violent activists” (peaceful citizens that don’t agree with their completely out of control government) are likely to be considered “terrorists”. Its time to wake up, now. Those that rule over the military industrial complex do not care about you. They are not here to protect you. They are spraying you with toxic metals and chemicals day in and day out with the ongoing climate engineering programs. All of us are not only “expendable” to the military rulers, we are a “liability”, that they are preparing to deal with. Let us hope that our brothers and sisters in the US military awaken to the fact that they are being used as pawns against their own countryman.
Dane Wigington
geoengineeeringwatch.org

Pentagon preparing for mass civil breakdown

Social science is being militarised to develop ‘operational tools’ to target peaceful activists and protest movements

pentagon

A US Department of Defense (DoD) research programme is funding universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world, under the supervision of various US military agencies. The multi-million dollar programme is designed to develop immediate and long-term “warfighter-relevant insights” for senior officials and decision makers in “the defense policy community,” and to inform policy implemented by “combatant commands.”

Launched in 2008 – the year of the global banking crisis – the DoD ‘Minerva Research Initiative’ partners with universities “to improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US.”

Among the projects awarded for the period 2014-2017 is a Cornell University-led study managed by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research which aims to develop an empirical model “of the dynamics of social movement mobilisation and contagions.” The project will determine “the critical mass (tipping point)” of social contagians by studying their “digital traces” in the cases of “the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey.”

Twitter posts and conversations will be examined “to identify individuals mobilised in a social contagion and when they become mobilised.”

Another project awarded this year to the University of Washington “seeks to uncover the conditions under which political movements aimed at large-scale political and economic change originate,” along with their “characteristics and consequences.” The project, managed by the US Army Research Office, focuses on “large-scale movements involving more than 1,000 participants in enduring activity,” and will cover 58 countries in total.

Last year, the DoD’s Minerva Initiative funded a project to determine ‘Who Does Not Become a Terrorist, and Why?’ which, however, conflates peaceful activists with “supporters of political violence” who are different from terrorists only in that they do not embark on “armed militancy” themselves. The project explicitly sets out to study non-violent activists:

“In every context we find many individuals who share the demographic, family, cultural, and/or socioeconomic background of those who decided to engage in terrorism, and yet refrained themselves from taking up armed militancy, even though they were sympathetic to the end goals of armed groups. The field of terrorism studies has not, until recently, attempted to look at this control group. This project is not about terrorists, but about supporters of political violence.”

The project’s 14 case studies each “involve extensive interviews with ten or more activists and militants in parties and NGOs who, though sympathetic to radical causes, have chosen a path of non-violence.”

I contacted the project’s principal investigator, Prof Maria Rasmussen of the US Naval Postgraduate School, asking why non-violent activists working for NGOs should be equated to supporters of political violence – and which “parties and NGOs” were being investigated – but received no response.

Similarly, Minerva programme staff refused to answer a series of similar questions I put to them, including asking how “radical causes” promoted by peaceful NGOs constituted a potential national security threat of interest to the DoD.

Among my questions, I asked:

“Does the US Department of Defense see protest movements and social activism in different parts of the world as a threat to US national security? If so, why? Does the US Department of Defense consider political movements aiming for large scale political and economic change as a national security matter? If so, why? Activism, protest, ‘political movements’ and of course NGOs are a vital element of a healthy civil society and democracy – why is it that the DoD is funding research to investigate such issues?”

Minerva’s programme director Dr Erin Fitzgerald said “I appreciate your concerns and am glad that you reached out to give us the opportunity to clarify” before promising a more detailed response. Instead, I received the following bland statement from the DoD’s press office:

“The Department of Defense takes seriously its role in the security of the United States, its citizens, and US allies and partners. While every security challenge does not cause conflict, and every conflict does not involve the US military, Minerva helps fund basic social science research that helps increase the Department of Defense’s understanding of what causes instability and insecurity around the world. By better understanding these conflicts and their causes beforehand, the Department of Defense can better prepare for the dynamic future security environment.”

In 2013, Minerva funded a University of Maryland project in collaboration with the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to gauge the risk of civil unrest due to climate change. The three-year $1.9 million project is developing models to anticipate what could happen to societies under a range of potential climate change scenarios.

From the outset, the Minerva programme was slated to provide over $75 million over five years for social and behavioural science research. This year alone it has been allocated a total budget of $17.8 million by US Congress.

An internal Minerva staff email communication referenced in a 2012 Masters dissertation reveals that the programme is geared toward producing quick results that are directly applicable to field operations. The dissertation was part of a Minerva-funded project on “counter-radical Muslim discourse” at Arizona State University.

The internal email from Prof Steve Corman, a principal investigator for the project, describes a meeting hosted by the DoD’s Human Social Cultural and Behavioural Modeling (HSCB) programme in which senior Pentagon officials said their priority was “to develop capabilities that are deliverable quickly” in the form of “models and tools that can be integrated with operations.”

Although Office of Naval Research supervisor Dr Harold Hawkins had assured the university researchers at the outset that the project was merely “a basic research effort, so we shouldn’t be concerned about doing applied stuff”, the meeting in fact showed that DoD is looking to “feed results” into “applications,” Corman said in the email. He advised his researchers to “think about shaping results, reports, etc., so they [DoD] can clearly see their application for tools that can be taken to the field.”

Many independent scholars are critical of what they see as the US government’s efforts to militarise social science in the service of war. In May 2008, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) wrote to the US government noting that the Pentagon lacks “the kind of infrastructure for evaluating anthropological [and other social science] research” in a way that involves “rigorous, balanced and objective peer review”, calling for such research to be managed instead by civilian agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The following month, the DoD signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the NSF to cooperate on the management of Minerva. In response, the AAA cautioned that although research proposals would now be evaluated by NSF’s merit-review panels. “Pentagon officials will have decision-making power in deciding who sits on the panels”:

“… there remain concerns within the discipline that research will only be funded when it supports the Pentagon’s agenda. Other critics of the programme, including the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, have raised concerns that the programme would discourage research in other important areas and undermine the role of the university as a place for independent discussion and critique of the military.”

According to Prof David Price, a cultural anthropologist at St Martin’s University

in Washington DC and author of Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State, “when you looked at the individual bits of many of these projects they sort of looked like normal social science, textual analysis, historical research, and so on, but when you added these bits up they all shared themes of legibility with all the distortions of over-simplification. Minerva is farming out the piece-work of empire in ways that can allow individuals to disassociate their individual contributions from the larger project.”

Prof Price has previously exposed how the Pentagon’s Human Terrain Systems (HTS) programme – designed to embed social scientists in military field operations – routinely conducted training scenarios set in regions “within the United States.”

Citing a summary critique of the programme sent to HTS directors by a former employee, Price reported that the HTS training scenarios “adapted COIN [counterinsurgency] for Afghanistan/Iraq” to domestic situations “in the USA where the local population was seen from the military perspective as threatening the established balance of power and influence, and challenging law and order.”

One war-game, said Price, involved environmental activists protesting pollution from a coal-fired plant near Missouri, some of whom were members of the well-known environmental NGO Sierra Club. Participants were tasked to “identify those who were ‘problem-solvers’ and those who were ‘problem-causers,’ and the rest of the population whom would be the target of the information operations to move their Center of Gravity toward that set of viewpoints and values which was the ‘desired end-state’ of the military’s strategy.”

Such war-games are consistent with a raft of Pentagon planning documents which suggest that National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance is partially motivated to prepare for the destabilising impact of coming environmental, energy and economic shocks.

James Petras, Bartle Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University in New York, concurs with Price’s concerns. Minerva-funded social scientists tied to Pentagon counterinsurgency operations are involved in the “study of emotions in stoking or quelling ideologically driven movements,” he said, including how “to counteract grassroots movements.”

Minerva is a prime example of the deeply narrow-minded and self-defeating nature of military ideology. Worse still, the unwillingness of DoD officials to answer the most basic questions is symptomatic of a simple fact – in their unswerving mission to defend an increasingly unpopular global system serving the interests of a tiny minority, security agencies have no qualms about painting the rest of us as potential terrorists.

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, ZERO POINT. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @nafeezahmed.

Source: The Guardian

Acknowledgments to ‘GeoEngineering Watch‘  where the complete article can be read here.

Read Full Post »


This is probably a very fair question and raises a few possible responses. Any generalization can always be shown to be wrong in some aspects. The point of highlighting this particular article, by , of ‘Lions of Liberty’ is that the answer is more likely “Yes” than “No”.

Besides that, a very worthwhile overview of American history is presented, together with discussion on all the main wars and some history of other countries who gained their “independence” without fighting.

All this in a light-hearted approach and in an entertaining manner.

by Bionic Mosquito 

Memorial Day is a US federal holiday wherein the men and women who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces are remembered.

This weekend and continuing through Monday Americans will witness countless varied acts of praise for those who have died in America’s wars.  Ball games, parades, pancake breakfasts, even Sunday church service (Laurence Vance, be on alert) – one or more of these will offer opportunities for just about any patriotic American looking for an opportunity to worship.

Apparently, about 1.3 million Americans died in the wars since 1775 (not counting suicides, apparently one every 65 seconds since 1999).  It is worth considering: for what did they die?  Was any of it worth it?

(Note: I will not, in this post, examine the costs and devastation for those victims of American military aggression, more by orders of magnitude – Memorial Day does not recognize those who died on the other side….For the most part, apparently, Americans don’t care.  There is no American holiday for you!)

Revolutionary War

I will spend the most digits on this war, as even the most principled anti-war critic might consider it an appropriate war.

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the American War of Independence, or simply the Revolutionary War in the United States, was the successful military rebellion against Great Britain of Thirteen American Colonies…

Certainly, if there was one war worthwhile in the history of the United States, it would have to be this one.  Who on earth could possibly disagree (well, besides King George)?

“Hey, back here…I have a question: Whose independence was won?”

It seems fair to ask if the war was worth it.  What if the war wasn’t fought?  What was this “independence”?  “Independence” for whom?  Was life for the average American different than life for the average Brit twenty years after the war?  One hundred years?  Two hundred years?  Was life for the average American different after the war than it might have been had this war not been fought at all, if the colonies remained part of the empire?  What of the path of Canada or Australia?  Did the American Revolutionary War result in a vastly different life for the average American than it did for the average Canadian or Australian?

I don’t recall reading about a Canadian war for independence.  Let’s check:

Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal statutory holiday celebrating the anniversary of the July 1, 1867, enactment of the British North America Act, 1867 (today called the Constitution Act, 1867), which united three colonies into a single country called Canada within the British Empire.

Frequently referred to as “Canada’s birthday”, particularly in the popular press, the occasion marks the joining of the British North American colonies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Province of Canada into a federation of four provinces (the Province of Canada being divided, in the process, into Ontario and Quebec) on July 1, 1867. Canada became a kingdom in its own right on that date, but the British parliament and Cabinet kept limited rights of political control over the new country that were shed by stages over the years until the last vestiges were surrendered in 1982, when the Constitution Act patriated the Canadian constitution.

Canada Day?  What?  It sounds so…passive.  No war, no blood, no glory?  They just, kind of, decided?  No rockets’ red glare?  What do they do in place of fireworks?  Trade pens?  They call it a “birthday”!  It is so…non-violent.  No war, plus they got the greatest rock band of all time out of the deal.

What about the Aussies?  Hold onto your vegemite sandwich; you won’t believe this. They don’t even know when they got independence; well not exactly anyway:

We only became independent of Britain on this day [March 3] in 1986.

You might think this statement absurd. Surely Australia has been independent for a lot longer than that? Let me provide a lawyer’s answer: yes and no. Yes, Australia as a nation became independent at some unknown date after 1931. By 1931 it had the power to exercise independence but chose not to do so for some time.

An unknown date?  Don’t they care?

They could have done it in 1931, but didn’t?  No bullets, no crossing the Murrumbidgee covered in ice, no Valley Styx, no nothing?  Were they upset that they didn’t get to fight a war?  Did they declare a war, and Britain forgot to attend?

The Australian states, however, did not gain their independence from Britain at that time. Bizarrely, they remained colonial dependencies of the British crown, despite being constituent parts of an independent nation. This meant state governors were appointed by the Queen on the advice of British ministers and that it was the Queen of the United Kingdom (not the Queen of Australia) who gave royal assent to state bills.

So what happened in 1986?

On March 3, 1986, these acts, the Australia Acts, came into force. They state that the British government is no longer responsible for the government of any state and that the Westminster parliament can no longer legislate for Australia. Most important, they transferred into Australian hands full control of all Australia’s constitutional documents. So March 3, 1986, is the day Australia achieved complete independence from Britain. Happy Australian Independence Day.

That’s it?  What wimps!

Well, unlike the Canadians and Australians, at least the Americans got to stay out of the British wars for the intervening 200 years…wait, check that.  More on this later, I think.

Back to the American Revolution: Will we ever know the true behind-the-scenes story?

Read the complete article here.

Related Post: Iraq: The biggest petroleum heist in history?

Read Full Post »


A political commenter says the United States is providing arms to the “terrorist organizations” that attempt to fuel the political unrest gripping Venezuela, Press TV reports.

In an interview with Press TV on Sunday, Gloria Estela La Riva, a Latin American political expert, criticized the US for threatening to impose sanctions on Venezuela under the pretext of human rights violations in the country and said Washington “believes that it is the arbiter or the policeman of the world.”

“While the US demands democracy and so on in Venezuela, the United States is arming these terrorist organizations which have set fire to public buildings, kill dozens of people, build huge barricades in the streets, and use fascist gangs that are proven to be financed from abroad, specifically the United States government,” added the analyst.

The analyst further downplayed Washington’s sanctions threat and said the US cannot impose a “blockade” on the Latin American country as it is “dependent” on Venezuela’s rich oil resources.

A US congressional committee has approved a bill that would impose sanctions on Venezuelan officials believed to be responsible for rights abuses against anti-government protesters. The US Senate foreign relations committee is also mulling a similar measure.

On Sunday, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro censured the recent decision by American lawmakers to adopt punitive measures against Venezuela as a “stupid idea.”

Venezuela has been the scene of pro- and anti-government protests since February 4.

However, the protests have lost momentum since April 7, when the government and opposition leaders held talks for the first time aimed at ending street protests in Venezuela.

Caracas says the opposition seeks to launch a coup d’état against the government with the backing of the United States.

link with video

 

Read Full Post »


US President Barack Obama (left) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

 US President Barack Obama (left) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
 

Reports show Israel is pressing the United States for an increase in Washington’s military aid after 2017 when a 10-year deal between the two allies will expire.

Under the current 10-year deal with Israel which was signed in 2007 by the previous Republican administration in Washington, $3 billion of American taxpayers’ money is flowing to Israel every year.

A US official briefed on talks over an increase in Washington’s military aid to Tel Aviv after 2017 has told Reuters that Israel is seeking an overall increase to between $3.2 billion and $3.5 billion a year.

The official, who spoke with Reuters on condition of anonymity, has said that the administration of US President Barack Obama has spoken of $2.8 billion a year.

Obama, a Democrat, and his administration officials have sparred with Tel Aviv over the suspension of the so-called peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority which Washington blames mostly on Israel.

In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ynet, anonymous members of the US negotiating team who were involved in US Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to resume the stalled negotiations said last week that a big share of blame for the failure of the talks goes to Tel Aviv for its illegal settlement-building activities.

“There are a lot of reasons for the peace effort’s failure, but people in Israel shouldn’t ignore the bitter truth – the primary sabotage came from the settlements,” said one of the officials.

Speaking Thursday at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s annual forum, US special envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Martin Indyk, also blamed Israel for the collapse of the talks, saying Israel could lose its “Jewish future” if it refuses to freeze its settlement activities.

Last month, a Daily Beast report also said Kerry lashed out against Israel’s illegal settlement activities in a closed-door meeting with senior officials from the US, Western Europe, Russia, and Japan and warned that Israel could become “an apartheid state” if the so-called peace talks with the Palestinian Authority fail.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration has explicitly stated that during Obama’s years in office security cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv has reached “unprecedented levels.”

“Our two nations are forever bound by our shared history and our shared values. And every American dollar spent on Israel’s security is an investment in protecting the many interests that our nations share,” said Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice during her recent visit to Israel on Friday.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/10/362083/israel-pressing-us-for-more-military-aid/

 

Read Full Post »


10352588_10152840041413312_7847524412502643101_n

This week marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected leader of what is now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Lumumba’s pan-Africanism and his vision of a united Congo gained him many enemies. Both Belgium and the United States actively sought to have him killed. The CIA ordered his assassination but could not complete the job. Instead, the United States and Belgium covertly funneled cash and aid to rival politicians who seized power and arrested Lumumba. On January 17, 1961, after being beaten and tortured, Lumumba was shot and killed. [includes rush transcript]

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZALEZ: This week marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. He was the first democratically elected leader of what is now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Congo had been a colony of Belgium since the late 1800s, which ruled over it with brutality while plundering its rich natural resources. Patrice Lumumba rose as a leader of the Congo’s independence movement and, in 1960, was elected as the first prime minister of the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Lumumba’s pan-Africanism and his vision of a united Congo gained him many enemies. Both Belgium and the United States actively sought to have Lumumba overthrown or killed. The CIA ordered his assassination but could not complete the job. Instead, the United States and Belgium covertly funneled cash and aid to rival politicians who seized power and arrested President Lumumba. This is how it was reported in a Universal Studios newsreel in December of 1960.

UNIVERSAL STUDIOS NEWSREEL: A new chapter begins in the dark and tragic history of the Congo with the return to Leopoldville of deposed premier Lumumba, following his capture by crack commandos of strongman Colonel Mobutu. Taken to Mobutu’s headquarters past a jeering, threatening crowd, Lumumba — Lumumba, but promised the pro-red Lumumba a fair trial on charges of inciting the army to rebellion. Lumumba was removed to an army prison outside the capital, as his supporters in Stanleyville seized control of Orientale province and threatened a return of disorder. Before that, Lumumba suffered more indignities, including being forced to eat a speech, which he restated his claim to be the Congo’s rightful premier. Even in bonds, Lumumba remains a dangerous prisoner, storm center of savage loyalties and equally savage opposition.

AMY GOODMAN: On January 17th, 1961, after being beaten and tortured, the Congolese prime minister, Patrice Lumumba, was shot and killed.

For more, we go to Adam Hochschild. He’s the author of King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa and the forthcoming book To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion. He teaches at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, is co-founder of Mother Jones magazine, had an op-ed in the New York Times this week called “An Assassination’s Long Shadow.” Adam Hochschild is joining us from San Francisco.

Explain this “long shadow,” Adam.

ADAM HOCHSCHILD: Well, Amy, I think the assassination of Lumumba was something that was felt by many people to be a sort of pivotal turning point in the saga of Africa gaining its independence. In the 1950s, there were movements for independence all over Africa. There was a great deal of idealism in the air. There was a great deal of hope in the air, both among Africans and among their supporters in the United States and Europe, that at last these colonies would become independent. And I think people imagined real independence — that is, that these countries would be able to set off on their own and control their own destiny economically as well as politically. And the assassination of Lumumba really signaled that that was not to be, because, for Belgium, as for the other major European colonial powers, like Britain and France, giving independence to an African colony was OK for them as long as it didn’t disturb existing business arrangements. As long as the European country could continue to own the mines, the factories, the plantations, well, OK, let them have their politics.

But Lumumba spoke very loudly, very dramatically, saying Africa needs to be economically independent, as well. And it was a fiery speech on this subject that he gave at the actual independence ceremonies, June 30th, 1960, where he was replying to an extremely arrogant speech by King Baudouin of Belgium. It was a speech he gave on this subject that I think really began the process that ended two months later with the CIA, with White House approval, decreeing that he should be assassinated.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, for most Americans, who — we’re not, perhaps, as familiar with African colonialism, since that was basically a European project throughout the 19th century — the role of Belgium and the importance of the Congo as really the jewel of Africa in terms of its wealth and resources — how did the Congo suffer before Lumumba came to power?

ADAM HOCHSCHILD: Well, the story really begins, in the modern era, in 1885, when — or 1884 to ’85, when all the major countries of Europe led — preceded by the United States, actually; we were the very first — recognized the Congo not as a Belgian colony, but as the private, personally owned colony of King Leopold II of Belgium, a very greedy, ambitious man who wanted a colony of his own. At that point, Belgium was not sure that it wanted a colony. Leopold ruled this place for 23 years, made an enormous fortune, estimated at over a billion in today’s American dollars. Finally, in 1908, he was forced to give it up to become a Belgian colony, and then he died the following year. And the Belgians ran it for the next half-century, extracting an enormous amount of wealth, initially in ivory and rubber, then in diamonds, gold, copper, timber, palm oil, all sorts of other minerals. And as with almost all European colonies in Africa, this wealth flowed back to Europe. It benefited the Europeans much more than the Africans.

And the hope that many people had when independence came all over Africa, for the most part, you know, within a few years on either side of 1960, people had the hope that at last African countries would begin to control their own destiny and that they would be the ones who would reap the profits from the mines and the plantations and so on. Lumumba put that hope into words. And for that reason, he was immediately considered a very dangerous figure by the United States and Belgium. The CIA issued this assassination order with White House approval. And as was said at the beginning, they couldn’t get close enough to him to actually poison him, but they got money under the table to Congolese politicians who did see that he was assassinated, with Belgian help. It was a Belgian pilot who flew the plane to where he was killed, a Belgian officer who commanded the firing squad.

And then, the really disastrous thing that followed was this enthusiastic United States backing for the dictatorial regime of Mobutu, who seized total power a couple years later and ran a 32-year dictatorship, enriched himself by about $4 billion, and really ran his country into the ground, was greeted by every American president, with the sole exception of Jimmy Carter, who was in office during those 32 years. And he left the country a wreck, from which it has still not recovered.

AMY GOODMAN: Adam Hochschild, I want to play a clip of the former CIA agent John Stockwell talking about the CIA’s plans to assassinate the prime minister of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba.

JOHN STOCKWELL: The CIA had developed a program to assassinate Lumumba, under Devlin’s encouragement and management. The program they developed, the operation, didn’t work. They didn’t follow through on it. It was to give poison to Lumumba. And they couldn’t find a setting in which to get the poison to him successfully in a way that it wouldn’t appear to be a CIA operation. I mean, you couldn’t invite him to a cocktail party and give him a drink and have him die a short time later, obviously. And so, they gave up on it. They got cold feet. And instead, they handled it by the chief of station talking to Mobutu about the threat that Lumumba posed, and Mobutu going out and killing Lumumba, having his men kill Lumumba.

INTERVIEWER: What about the CIA’s relationship with Mobutu? Were they paying him money?

JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, indeed. I was there in 1968 when the chief of station told the story about having been, the day before that day, having gone to make payment to Mobutu of cash — $25,000 — and Mobutu saying, “Keep the money. I don’t need it.” And by then, of course, Mobutu’s European bank account was so huge that $25,000 was nothing to him.

AMY GOODMAN: That was former CIA agent John Stockwell talking about the CIA’s plans to assassinate Lumumba. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Adam, I’d like to ask you — you were in the Congo shortly after Lumumba’s death. Could you talk about — we have about a minute — could you talk about your personal experiences there and what you saw?

ADAM HOCHSCHILD: Yes, I was there. I was just a college student at the time. And I wish I could say that I was smart and politically knowledgeable enough to realize the full significance of everything I was seeing. I was not, and it was really only in later years that I began to understand it. But what I do remember — and this was, as I say, six months or so after he was killed — was the sort of ominous atmosphere in Leopoldville, as the capital was called then, these jeeps full of soldiers who were patrolling the streets, the way the streets quickly emptied at dusk, and then two very, very arrogant guys at the American embassy who were proudly talking over drinks one evening about how this person, Lumumba, had been killed, whom they regarded, you know, not as a democratically elected African leader, but as an enemy of the United States. And so, of course, I, as a fellow American, they expected to be happy that he had been done away with. There was something quite chilling about that, and it stuck with me. But I think it’s only in much later years that I fully realized the significance.

AMY GOODMAN: Adam Hochschild, I want to thank you very much for being with us, author of several books, including King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed.

more with video@ http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/21/patrice_lumumba_50_years_later_remembering#.UsOgRFg8d_A.email

Read Full Post »


Dr Jim Willie has been talking about the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa) being joined by other nations to take down the dollar. He says there are now 80 nations in the BRICS alliance who have joined together to end the dollar’s reign as the international reserve currency. China could have taken down the US economy any time it wanted to after it had accumulated more than a trillion dollars in US Treasury bonds. All it had to do was to sell them and buy real assets until the US government collapsed and surrendered.

The Chinese are playing a much more sophisticated game. Their goal is to take down the dollar and the British pound but not to hurt their customers in Africa, Latin America, Australia and elsewhere. He thinks a Northern euro will emerge leaving southern Europe and France far behind. Italy’s future was hurt when they mistakenly decided to send half of their gold to New York. That gold is in Asia along with the bullion from the Netherlands and Germany. Dr Willie agrees with Jim Rickards who says the dollar will be devalued 80%. This will make imported goods 500% more expensive. And it will also enable foreigners to buy food off the shelves of America and Great Britain. Please note that the British pound is being targeted by the BRICS 80 as well.

Dr Willie also believes that J P Morgan and other financial firms in the US and the UK are helping China to manipulate gold and silver. The Chinese want to buy gold for a low price and spend it at a much higher price when everything goes to hell and Americans have to sell off their few remaining assets to feed themselves. He says the London and New York banks have been sending a thousand tons of gold to China every month since April of 2012. The dollar will collapse and the price of gold will skyrocket when there is no gold left in London and New York to send to China.

The Federal Reserve balance sheet has grown from $800 billion in 2009 to $3.9 trillion today. That is almost a 500% increase in less than 5 years. You would think that would be inflationary. But the federal government lies about employment, economic outlook and inflation. John Williams at Shadow Stats says the inflation rate is really almost 9%. Since GDP is flat, the real economy after factoring in the inflation rate is contracting at 9%.

Read more@ http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/jim-willie-brics-80-preparing-to-take-down-the-dollar/

Read Full Post »


Read Full Post »


“With origins shrouded in the mystery of ancient Indian history, Chaturanga or Shaturanga is one of the oldest versions of Chess that has ever been found. Indeed it is possible that Chaturanga is the original version of Chess and all the modern two player variants all derive from it – although older two player Chess games have been found.”

http://www.mastersgames.com/cat/board/chaturanga.htm

Originally there were four players with each controlling eight pieces. Traditionally this involved needing partnerships to win. As time passed the more traditional form became the norm, with sixteen pieces for each of the two players. But the chessboard has remained virtually unchanged since the 6th century.
From time immemorial, various “leaders” have thought of chess as the ultimate template for leadership and military policies, which is how “Brzezinski’s Chessboard” came to prominence. The problem is that chess bears no relationship to life or military policies because it is totally confined to an artificial playing field. Life on the other hand is not bound by artificial restraints of any kind.
So when the world speaks of ‘the politics of ‘the chessboard’ you know that what’s being referred to is usually just a medieval pipe-dream based on nothing but illusions that can have no real basis in fact. To counter that end I created a new variation on both the chessboard and the number of pieces. It’s called “Z” which stands of Zoi which means ‘life’.
Kirwan: All rights reserved
I expanded the original chess board adding 76 squares and 8 circles with an additional two pieces to the back row for each player. The new pieces begin from inside the circles. This game totally destroys the ability in the four player version, to pre-determine or to plan moves, because players not in direct opposition can play through the other players on the board. All players are subject to being taken by one of the other players at any time. The only way that anyone can ‘survive’ is by talking with the others and coming to understandings, just as in life to obtain the desired result. Four way chess continues until there is only one player standing.
In the game for two, on the same board, it’s possible to get behind the back rows of your opponent which completely changes the limitations invoked in traditional chess. It’s this ability of an opponent in life, to surround attackers, which is why formal chess is just a child’s game, in Brzezinski’s version, when compared with the reality of actual power and loss that’s possible: In the world today.
When reality enters the restricted world of chessboards, there’s an expansion of possibilities in “Z” over the totally artificial “war plans” that no longer work in today’s war zones. So, laying out any plan that employs “the Chessboard” is not only an out of date exercise, but its asinine in the extreme…
When in fact real plans are made for the types of war that will be fought between the mercenary Stazi-State against the people of the USA: What will be employed will be far more like Asymmetrical Warfare, than anything related to the long-dead Middle Ages.
In a 360 degree battle-zone, there is a whole lot more at risk than most people tend to remember. As this resistance progresses, those that will resist will become a new breed of individual and that is long overdue. The scavengers we’ll be opposing are not smart enough to fight against a determined people, especially when technically we have nothing left to lose!
For the last thirteen years we’ve tried to paint our capture as something that could have some possibly constructive aspects: It’s clear that we were wrong: As wrong as it is possible to sometimes be. It’s time to fight them to the end of it.
Once our fighters realize that this war must be fought from above and behind as well as from below and within; Then people might just begin to figure out how they can hurt these primitive barbarians of the old-world-order, masquerading as something new, when in reality they are no different than the Knight’s Templar or the modern variation of Genghis Kahn. They ride around now in brand-new vehicles pretending to be our ultimate predator-guards: Yet they’re nothing but hyenas on the prowl ­ and soon we’ll deal with that too!
Bear this in mind when reviewing the actualities on the ground today, all around the world, that’s in need of a total makeover now…

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

original link by Jim Kirwan @ http://www.rense.com/general96/mythchess.html   ….@ Rense.com

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,167 other followers

%d bloggers like this: