Bulletin
N° 853
Subject :
The
Violent Death of ‘Representative Democracy’
and
The
Spawning of ‘Direct Democracy’ against Reactionary Plutocrats
July 9, 2019
Grenoble, France
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
The now obsolete ideology of “Utilitarianism,” which was successfully introduced by Jeremy Bentham (1750-1830) in England at the end of the 18th century, during the first Industrial Revolution, is no longer à la mode. It seems to have briefly been given new life by neo-liberal forces around the world at the start of this new millenium but failed to attain a level approaching “cultural hegemony” before it collapsed into dust. “The greatest happiness for the greatest number” was the catchphrase that animated liberal Anglophone ideologues for the better part of two centuries. The young Karl Marx, in the mid-19th century, suggested the possibility of another political economy, governed by a different principle: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."
The failure of Bentham's pragmatic feel-good philosophy in its post-world-war-two reincarnation is nowhere better illustrated than in the Paul L. Williams’ history, Operation Gladio, The Unholy Alliance between The Vatican, The CIA, and The Mafia (New York, 2015 & 2018). In Chapter 6, of this unauthorized history of international banking and political covert actions to suppress egalitarian social movements during the cold-war and post-cold-war period, Williams discusses “The Rise of Michele Sindona,” an Italian banker and convicted felon, known in international banking circles as “The Shark”. Sindona (1920-1986) was 36 years old when he attended the mob gathering in Palermo, Italy to discuss the advantages of expanding drug trafficking in the United States.
In 1957, Michele Sindona attended a mob gathering at the Grand Hotel
des Plames in Palermo with such criminal luminaries
at Luchy Luciano, Joseph
–“Joe Bananas”) Bonanno, Carmine Galante,
Frank Costello, Don Giuseppe Genco Russo (the head
boss of the Sicilian families), Salvatore Ciaschiteddu
(“Little Bird”) Greco and the La Barbera brothers.
The three-day event, which was held from October 3-5, resulted in the
organization of a Sicilian Commission that would oversee all aspects of the
multimillion dollar heroin trade. “The Sicilians,” according to FBN agent
Martin F. Pera, “gave the Americans an ultimatum at
Palermo. They knew there were a number of rebellious young hoods in America, so
they told their bosses, ‘If you don’t deal with us, we’ll deal with them.’ Not
having control over narcotics would have put all their other rackets at risk,
so the Americans had no choice but to go along.”
Little Bird Greco emerged from the
conference as primus inter pares (“first among equals”). The elevation
of Greco was prompted by his pivotal role in the narcotics trade. He owned a
fleet of ships that sailed under the Honduran flag and, through Frank Coppola,
moved heroin to Santo Trafficante, Jr. in Cuba via
food shipments. But no one benefited from the gathering more than Sindona, who gained complete control of the flow of cash
from the mean streets of America’s inner cities to the Vatican Bank.(pp.79-80)
. . .
While Sindona
was purchasing banks with the funding from the Mafia, the Vatican, and the CIA,
Paul E. Hemmowell and Meyer Lansky were setting up
Castle Bank & Trust in Miami and the Bahama.
Unlike Sindona’s banks, which were used to mount
attacks in Italy, Turkey and Western Europe, Castle Bank & Trust became
“the conduit for millions of dollars earmarked by the CIA for the funding of
clandestine operations directed at countries in Latin America and the Far
East.”
The appearance of these firms testifies
not only to the expanding covert activities of the CIA but also the enormous
growth of the heroin industry. In 1967, the Haight-Ashbury Medical Clinic in San
Francisco opened a special section for heroin addicts. Of the addicts served by
the clinic, about 25 percent (classed as “old-style junkies”) had first used
heroin before January 1964; about 20 percent (classed as “transitional
junkies”) first used heroin between then and January 1967; and the remaining 55
percent or so were “new junkies,” who began to use heroin after January 1967.
Heroin was also the drug at the heart of the problem that President Nixon cited
in 1969, when he laid out a ten-point plan for reducing illegal drug use – an
effort for which New York was the proving ground. “New York City alone has
records of some 40,000 heroin addicts, and the number rises between 7,000 and
9,000 a year,” Nixon wrote in his July 14, 1969, message to Congress. “These
official statistics are only the tip of an iceberg whose dimensions we can only
surmise.”(pp.85-86)
. . .
In June 1967, Internal Revenue Service
agents became aware that Sindona was involved in the
drug trafficking of the Gambino-Inzerillo-Spatola
clan. The case came to center not on heroin but ‘the illicit movement of
depressant, stimulant and hallucinogenic drugs between Italy, the United States
and possibly other European countries?” But the investigation, thanks to the
CIA’s intervention, came to a dead end.
. . .
1969 proved to be a banner year for Sindona. He stood as the most powerful financial figure in
Italy. The “Gruppo Sindona”
included six banks, the international CIGA hotel chain, and five hundred other
companies. He controlled the stock market in Milan, where 40 percent of the
shares traded on any given day were under his control. His ability to influence
Italy’s financial condition was so profound that former Prime minister Giulio Andeootti, a former member of P2 [Propaganda Massonica Due], proclaimed him “the savior of the
lira.”
In the spring of that year, Sindona was summoned late at night to the pope’s private
study on the fourth floor of the Apostolic Palace. The short, slender, and
well-spoken Mafia don wore a meticulously tailored navy blue suit, a white
shirt with gold cuff links, and a gray silk tie. He appeared fresh and
confident. The pope was seated in one of his satin-covered chairs. His body was
best forward , and he appeared tired and ill. The Holy
Father did not offer his ring for Michele to kiss; instead they greeted each
other with the handshake of old friends.
“There is a terrible problem,” Paul VI
told Sindona. He was referring to the collapse of the
“first republic” and the long reign of the Christian Democratic Party. The new
government had moved to discard the Larteran Treaty
of 1929 and the tax-exempt status of Catholic holdings throughout the country.
The measure spelled financial destitution for the Church and an annual tax bill
in excess of $250 million. Even worse, the measure could prompt other countries
to follow suit, leaving the Holy Mother Church stripped naked of her vast
wealth. “No matter,” the pope said, “is of greater importance.”
Sindona replied
by proposing a strategy to move Vatican resources out of Italy into the United
States and the tax-free Eurodollar market through a network of offshore
financial firms. This move would not only cloak the Vatican’s holdings in omertà – a quality the Holy See valued as much as
the Mafia – but it would also demonstrate to other countries that the Roman
Catholic Church as financially powerful and that any interference with the
Vatican’s finances could produce dire consequences for national economies.
Upon hearing the proposal, Pope Paul
handed Sindona an agreement he already had prepared.
The agreement was even more than the Mafiosi could hope for or dare to suggest.
It named Sindona Mercator Senesis
Romanam Curiam, “the
leading banker of the Roman Curia,” and granted him complete control over the
Vatican’s foreign and domestic investment with Bishop Marcinkus,
who now became secretary of the IOR, and Cardinal Sergio Guerri,
governor of Vatican City. However, both clerics remained merely his advisors.
The agreement placed the Vatican’s billions at Sindona’s
disposal.
When the Mafia chieftain turned to the last
page, he looked up at the Holy Rather and smiled. The pope already had signed
and sealed the document. It was the highest display of trust anyone could hope
to receive from the Vicar of Christ. Such trust, of course, was not blind. It
was based on the pope’s awareness that Sindona
remained in almost sole control of the billions of black funds that were
flowing into the Holy See.
Before Sindona
took control of its assets, the Vatican held major interests in the Rothschild
Bank in France, the Chase Manhattan Bank with its fifty-seven branches in
forty-five countries, Credit Swiss in Zurich and also in London, the Morgan
Bank, the Bankers Trust, General Motors, General Electric, Shell Oil, Gulf Oil,
the Bethlehem Steel, Vatican officials sat on the board of Finsider,
which, with its capital of 195 million lire spread through twenty-four
companies, produced 90 percent of Italian steel. The Holy See controlled two
shipping lines and the Alfa Romeo car manufacturing company. What’s more,
controlling shares of the Italian luxury hotels, including the Rope Hilton,
were in the Vatican portfolio.
But the Vatican’s central holding was Società Generale Immobiliare, a construction
company that had produced a fortune in earnings for the Holy See since it had
been acquired in 1934. In 1969 Immobiliare shares
were selling for 350 lire. Sindona purchased 143
million shares from the Vatican at double the market price – 700 lire per share
– with money that had been illegally converted to his account from deposits at Banca Privata Finanziaria.
Sindona was willing to pay double the market value.
The money, after all, would be spent, in part, to bring about significant
changes in the political order.
In
the same way, Sindona purchased the Vatican’s
majority ownership of Condotte d’Acqua,
Italy’s water company, and Ceramica Pozzi, a chemical and porcelain company.
To spare the pope any embarrassment, he also bought Serono,
the Vatican’s pharmaceutical company that produced contraceptive pills.
These transactions were conducted with
extreme secrecy in order to escape the attention of Italy’s tax collectors. The
shares of Immobiliare were transferred first to Paribas
Transcontinental of Luxembourg, a subsidiary of the Banque
de Paris et des Pay-Bas, and next to Fasco AG in
Liechtenstein. Paribas Transcontinental was closely linked with Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi
businessman, who was later convicted of fraud in a $504 million corruption
scandal that centered on the French oil company Elf Aquitaine. Auchi, like Sindona, possessed
strong ties to the intelligence community and, for many years, served as the
“bagman” for Saddam Hussein. In recent years, the Baghdad billionaire became a
major contributor to the political campaign of Barack Obama. Along with Auchi, David Rockefeller, another financier and former US
intelligence official, and members of Rockefeller’s family, were shareholders
in Paribas.
Despite Sindona’s
diversionary tactics, the press got word of the sales of the Vatican companies
and pressured the Holy See for a response. Through a spokesman, Pope Paul said:
“Our policy is to avoid maintaining control of our companies as in the past. We
want to improve investment performance, balance, of course, against what must
be a fundamentally conservative investment philosophy. It wouldn’t do for the
Church to lose its principle in speculation.” When Sindona
was asked about the sales, he refused to comment, saying that he was obliged to maintain the confidentiality of his client,
Holy Mother Church.
Sindona proceeded to liquidate the Church’s
remaining holdings in Italian companies to buyers ,
including Hambros Bank, Continental Illinois and the American conglomerate Gulf
& Western. He invested much of the Vatican’s revenue from the sales in
American companies, such as Chase Manhattan, Standard Oil, Westinghouse,
Colgate, Proctor and Gamble, and Dan River. Several of these firms remained
under the control of David Rockefeller.
The liquidation of the Vatican’s holdings,
as engineered by Sindona, produced a disastrous
effect on the Italian economy. The shares of the Italian companies in which the
Holy See had invested plummeted to record low levels. The lira dropped
precipitously in value. Unemployment rose. The cost of living increased. The
savings of millions of families were wiped out almost overnight.(pp.88-92)
Toward the end of his book, Operation Gladio, in chapter 22, Williams discusses the “The Taliban Trouble” as perceived by US policy makers in January 2000, twenty months before 9/11/2001.
Heroin
by the turn of the twenty-first century had become one of the world’s most
valuable resources – a resource that could generate over $100,000 billion (sic) a year
in revenue. [This figure provided in Williams' book is in dispute, and for more information on annual drug revenues please see: "Worldmeters" at: https://www.worldometers.info/drugs/ and the Global Research Report on "The Global Drud Trade" at: https://www.globalresearch.ca/cocaine-heroin-cannabis-ecstasy-how-big-is-the-global-drug-trade-2/5381210.] Without the white powder, there would be no black ops – no means of
obtaining control of Eurasia – no way of molding the global economy and
political relations.
On January 27, 2000, a catastrophe
occurred for covert activity when Mullah Omar and other leaders of the Taliban
announced their plans to ban poppy production within the Islamic Emirate of
Afghanistan. This decision sent shock waves through the US intelligence
community. From 1976 to 2000, the Afghan opium poppy harvest had grown nearly
tenfold, climbing from 250 to 2,000 tons during the covert war of the 1990s.
The country’s economy had transformed from a diverse agricultural system based
on herding, orchids, and sixty-two varieties of field crops into the world’s
first opium monocrop.
Thanks to the Taliban prohibition, the
opium poppy harvest fell from 4,600 tons in 1999 to 81 tons in 2001. The
situation had to be addressed by the military-industrial complex in a forceful
way. With the outbreak of the “war on terror” and the US-led invasion of
Afghanistan in October 2001, the ban came to an immediate end. Within a year,
the UN reported that the poppy crop had redounded to 3,400 tons. By October
2013, thanks to the US occupation, the opium harvest had climbed to an all-time
high of 5,500 tons.
The days when heroin money could be
laundered through a small circle of banks, including the IOR, were long past.
By 2014, $500 billion to $1 trillion in proceeds from criminal activity and
black ops were laundered through the world’s leading banks – half of which were
located in the United States. Narcodollars
became the lifeblood of the nation’s economy.(pp.279-280)
In the Epilogue to the 2018 edition of this important book, Williams sums up the new activities of gladio reincarnated since the debacle of the Soviet Union. The anti-communist raison d’être, he explains, has been replaced by neo-liberal schemes on the part of international financial cartels to amass great fortunes, particularly by means of drug trafficking and by manufacturing “the war against terror” for corporate investors in the arms industry.
The
virtual inventor of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) was Condoleezza
Rice, the former chevron executive who served as Secretary of State under
George W. Bush. In 2006, she called upon the Sunni states to form a Sunni belt
in the Middle East in response to Iran’s attempt to create a Shia belt. Responding to this summon, Prince Bandar bin
Sultan, the secretary general of the Saudi National Security Council, formed
al-Nusra Front, a group affiliated with both al-Qaeda
and ISIS to topple the Assad regime.
The US-NATO military aid to al-Nusra and ISIS was channeled covertly through America’s
close allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. In addition to arms and money, the two
terror groups also received training in Guerilla warfare and religious
indoctrination. To swell the ranks of ISIS, Saudi Arabia took the initiative of
releasing prisoners on death row from the Saudi jails. The offer to the
prisoners was clear-cut: stay and be executed by decapitation or fight against
the government forces in Syria. The deal was sweetened by the Saudi’s offer to
provide a monthly stipend for the prisoners’ families, who would be allowed to
stay in the Sunni Arab kingdom. It was small wonder that the prisons emptied as
thousands of inmates swelled the ranks of ISIS.
Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans
Today, alleges that the ISIS terrorists were organized in Jordan and Syria by Senator
John McCain, US Major General (retired), Paul E. Vallely,
and other military consultants. Vallely is a Fox News military analyst and founder of the US Army
Psychological Warfare Scholl. Support for Duff’s assertion comes from
investigative journalist Aaron Klein, who has unearthed evidence that the ISIS
forces are trained at a secret US military base in the Jordanian town of Safawi. This report has been corroborated by Der Spiegel, Germany’s leading news magazine.
Additional confirmation comes from Edward Snowden, the NSA (National Security
Agency) ,whistleblower, who has produced classified
governmental documents that show that Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, is a CIA operative.
Leaders from the Muslim world uphold these
finding. Nabil Na’eem, the
founder of the Islamic Democratic Party, appeared on the pan-Arab TV station
al-Maydeen to say that all current al-Qaeda
affiliates, including ISIS, work for the CIA. Mr. Na’eem
could be imparting false information, but his claim is upheld by Baha al-Araji, Iraq’s deputy
prime minister, and other leading Iraqi officials. Mr. Araji
is a devout Shia, and Mr. Na’eem is a militant
Sunni. The two men share little in common and have completely different
political and religious agendas.(pp.317-318)
. . .
“The
only thing that is constant is change,” so said Heraclitus 2,500 years ago. Gladio provides proof of this adage. Gladio
began as a covert operation to that the spread of communism and evolved into an
effort to advance the economic hegemony of an Anglo-American money cartel. It
no longer sought to make the world safe for democracy but rather to subject
humankind to the designs of a synarchy. Its activities were no longer confined to
the borders of Western Europe but extended throughout Latin America, the Middle
East, Africa, Australia, and Central Asia.
From the time of its inception, Gladio was fueled by heroin. This reliance produced a
plague that has spread throughout the civilized world. µThe Illicit gains of
the CIA form trafficking were originally washed in the Holy See. But the
Vatican Bank became incapable of handling the flood of revenue that poured into
the Bastion of Nicholas V. New financial institutions were established to serve
as laundries, including the castle Bank and Trust in Miami, the Nugan Hand Bank in Sydney, and the Bank of Commerce and
Credit in Karachi. But even these banks proved insufficient to handle the
billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains, and so the dirty money began to flow
through major American banks, including Citibank, American Express of Beverly
Hills, Manufacturers Bank, the Great American Bank, Chemical Bank, and Chase
Manhattan.
The CIA’s reliance on La Cosa Nostra also changed and the agency, by creating Gladio II, became compelled to forge new alliances
with Latin American cartels, the babas and
Grey Wolves of Turkey, street gangs within American inner cities, and the
Albanian Mafia who emerged almost overnight at “the leading crime outfit in the
United States.”
And so Gladio
goes on to advance the interests of an Anglo-American money cartel. It will
persist on the winds of war as long as the affairs of men are governed by
covetousness and greed. It maters no that a handful
of people might draw back the curtain to reveal figures with bloody swords.(p.320)
We find throughout Paul L. Williams’ historical account of cold-war-and-post-cold-war US foreign policymaking a remarkably detailed catalogue of crimes committed in the name of world order and US hegemony. This past is, indeed, a prologue for things to come, for better or for worse, depending on whether or not necessary lessons have been learned.
The 15 + items below include essays and articles that contribute to our understanding of the crises we have entered and of the private profiteers who continue to manage these crises for their own exclusive gains.
Francis Feeley
---
Professor emeritus of American Studies
University Grenoble-Alpes
Director of Research
University of Paris-Nanterre
Center for the Advanced Study of American Institutions
and Social Movements
The University of California-San Diego
a.
The IMF & World
Bank: Partners In Backwardness
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51875.htm
by Bonnie Faulkner and Michael Hudson
“The purpose of a military conquest is to take control of foreign
economies, to take control of their land and impose tribute. The genius of the
World Bank was to recognize that it’s not necessary to occupy a country in
order to impose tribute, or to take over its industry, agriculture and land.
Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries
play an artificial economic game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is
able to achieve today what used to require bombing and loss of life by
soldiers.”
+
"Confessions Of
An Economic Hitman"
with John Perkins
===========
b.
Andrew Gavin Marshall page
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Andrew_Gavin_Marshall/Andrew_Gavin_Marshall_page.html
===========
c.
Weaponizing the Dollar
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/07/09/patrick-lawrence-weaponizing-the-dollar/
by Patrick Lawrence
The signs are mounting
steadily now. As the Trump administration weaponizes the dollar in defense
of American hegemony, it is prompting many other nations to find alternatives
to the U.S. currency as the default medium of exchange. The long-term
implications of this swiftly advancing trend, evident among allies as well as
those Washington considers adversaries, cannot be overstated: At stake is the
longevity of America’s global preeminence.
The just-concluded Group
of 20 session in Osaka, Japan, was a dramatic
demonstration of how quickly “de-dollarization” efforts are coalescing. And the
pattern could not be clearer: The Trump administration’s incessant use of
unilateral economic and financial sanctions against perceived enemies, which is
almost certainly without precedent, is high among the reasons these efforts now
gather momentum at a pace few in the financial markets or in official circles
anticipated.
===========
d.
Deutsche Bank ‘couldn’t compete w/ the big boys’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-3UGCUF5i8&feature=youtu.be
with Steve Gill
(Published on July 8, 2019)
Former USTR official Steve
Gill joins Scottie Nell Hughes to react to the news of Deutsche Bank’s laying off of thousands of workers. He argues these and
other cost-cutting moves are the “inevitable conclusion” of fines and legal
problems faced by Deutsche Bank for the past several years. But does this
portend a new global financial crisis?
===========
e.
Future Resource Wars
"Who Are the masters of the
universe"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51890.htm
with
Pepe Escobar and Eddie Conway
(Posted July 08, 2019)
Has the fantasy of the USA becoming the first global empire in
history, dissolved in the wake of the Iraq war. Pepe
Escobar and Eddie Conway discuss the coming nexus of global competition and
climate change
+
Trump & Putin will meet on
Friday, during high stakes G20 summit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPvykhDcmro&feature=youtu.be
===========
f.
The Politics of Debt
Federal Reserve System
https://michael-hudson.com/2012/03/federal-reserve-system/
with Michael Hudson
or @
An interview with Michael
Hudson published on the Russian website Terra America (TA).
What is the place of the
Federal Reserve System in the American financial and economic structure?
Prior to the Federal Reserve’s
founding in 1913, U.S. monetary policy was conducted by the Treasury. Like the
Fed, it had district sub-treasuries that performed nearly all the financial
functions that the Fed later took over: providing credit to move the crops in
autumn, managing government debt, and so forth.
But after the severe 1907
financial crisis, a National Monetary Commission was reformed. Under the
then-Republican administration, it recognized a need for more active government
intervention to prevent future financial crises. It also recognized the
desirability of moving away from the Anglo-Dutch-American system of “merchant
banking” based on short-term lending against collateral in place, or for
shipping of goods already produced. The National Monetary Commission’s longest
volumes were on the great German industrial banks, and Republican policy aimed
at bringing banking into the industrial era, to provide long-term funding after
the model of German and other Central European banks.
However, the leading bankers
sought to use the crisis as an opportunity to grab power for Wall Street, away
from the Treasury. In this sense, the Fed was founded in large part to take
monetary control away from Washington’s elected officials and appointees, and
privatize the supply of money and credit.
So its place in the U.S.
financial and economic structure is to allocate credit, primarily to serve Wall
Street financial interests. That explains the insistence on the financial class
here and abroad in insisting on an “independent” central bank. It means that
instead of serving the public interest, it serves the interests of the banking
class. The hoped-for transformation of commercial banking into long-term
industrial banking was not achieved.
Can we imagine the global
economic system without Federal Reserve today? If yes/no,
why?
As David Kinley’s
book for the National Monetary Commission pointed out a century ago, nearly all
the financial functions performed by the Fed already were performed by the
national Treasury. In more recent times, Milton Friedman and his University of
Chicago colleagues suggested that the entire Fed could be reduced to a single
desk inside the Treasury. The “Chicago Plan” of the 1930s urged Treasury
control, as does Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s current bank reform.
There is no inherent need for
a monetary agency to exist outside of the national government, except to serve
the interests of the financial class as distinct from those of government,
industry and labor. And the banking sector’s business plan is to load down real
estate, labor, industry and the government with as much interest-bearing debt
as possible.
+
Who Owns the Federal
Reserve?
https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489
by Helen Brown
===========
g.
Origins of the American
Empire:
Revolution, World Wars
and World Order
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks/GlobalGovt_AmerEmpire.html
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
+
UK envoy to US worries
‘dysfunctional’ Trump is one twitch away from Iran war, leaked memos show
US
President Donald Trump’s erratic policies regarding Iran could lead to war at
the slightest provocation, the UK’s American envoy has been warning his London
superiors in internal memos leaked to media.
+
‘Playing part in anti-Tehran policy?’ UK marines
seize ship with alleged Iranian crude for Syria
https://www.rt.com/news/463379-iran-crude-tanker-gibraltar/
Iran has summoned the British ambassador after the seizure of a
supertanker that was allegedly carrying crude to fuel-starved Syria in defiance
of EU sanctions. It comes as the US is trying to stifle Iranian oil trade to
zero.
The MT Grace 1, a 300,000-ton Very
Large Crude Carrier, was detained in a raid conducted by the British Royal Navy
Marines and Gibraltar law enforcement on Thursday morning. The government of
Gibraltar, a British overseas territory located on the southern tip of the
Iberian Peninsula, said the ship was detained for allegedly violating EU sanctions on Syria.
+
Dogs of War Howl for Blood in Iran
While Americans Cheer US Bombers on
July 4th
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51889.htm
by Medea
Benjamin, Ann Wright
Last week's display was a chilling reminder of the horrific
deaths caused by successive administrations' propensity for war
President Trump’s order to
the Pentagon to have an aerial parade of military aircraft over Washington, DC
on July 4 provided a history lesson of America’s war mongering in the past two
decades, and a terrifying view of what might appear in the skies of Iran if
John Bolton gets his way.
The combat aircraft that were cheered by Trump’s supporters as they
flew low over the monuments in the nation’s capital have not been cheered by
people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Palestine as the
same type of planes fly over their homes—terrifying and killing their children
and wreaking havoc on their lives.
Over those countries, Air Force B-2 Spirit, Air Force F-22 Raptor,
Navy F-35C Joint
Strike Fighter and F/A-18 Hornet
stealth fighters and bombers fly so high they are not seen or heard—until the
massive explosions from their 500- to 2,000-pound bombs hit and obliterate
everything and everyone in their radius. The blast radius of a
2,000-pound bomb is 82 feet, but the lethal fragmentation reaches 1,200 feet.
In 2017, the Trump administration dropped the most massive non-nuclear bomb in
its inventory—the 21,000 pound “mother
of all bombs”—on a cave tunnel complex in Afghanistan.
While most Americans have probably forgotten we are still at war in
Afghanistan, the Trump administration “eased”
the rules of engagement, allowing the military to drop more bombs in 2018 than
in any other year since the war began in 2001. The 7,632 bombs dropped by American
aircraft in 2018 made U.S. weapons makers rich, but hit
1,015 Afghan civilians.
The Boeing-made combat attack Apache helicopters, a crowd pleaser on
July 4, have been used by the U.S. Army to blow up homes and cars filled with
civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Israeli military uses them to kill
Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the Saudi military has killed children in
Yemen with these death machines.
+
"Pretty Please" - Trump
Asked Iran To Allow Him To Bomb It
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51886.htm
by Moon Of Alabama
On June 20 Iran shot down a U.S. spy drone. U.S. President
Trump decided not to retaliate. The White House and the media claimed that
Trump had ordered a strike on Iran but pulled it back at the last minute. We
said that this was likely bullshit:
The whole storyline of "a strike was ordered but Trump
held back and saved the day" might well be fake.
...
A strike in retaliation
for the downed drone may have never been on the table. An alternative
interpretation is that the U.S. sought agreement for a symbolic 'strike' from
Iran. It would hit some empty desert place to allow Trump to save face. Iran
would have disagreed with that plan.
The British ambassador to the U.S., who's
briefings to London leaked
yesterday, agrees with that take:
[Sir Kim Darroch] questioned Trump's recent
claim that he aborted a missile strike on Iran because it would have caused a
predicted 150 casualties, saying it 'doesn't stand up'.
'It's more likely that he was never fully on board and
that he was worried about how this apparent reversal of his 2016 campaign
promises would look come 2020' – at the next Presidential election.
Elijah Magnier reported
that Trump had asked Iran to allow him to strike back, but was rebuffed:
According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US
intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two
or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could
appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically
rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy
beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
An Iranian general yesterday confirmed
Magnier's take (also here):
A senior Iranian general has revealed that Washington, through
diplomatic channels, recently asked Tehran to allow it to conduct a small-scale
operation in the Iranian airspace in order to save its face following the
IRGC’s shoot-down of a US spy drone.
Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, the Head of Iran’s Civil Defence
Organization, said Iran vehemently rejected the US request, saying that it will
respond to any act of aggression.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran responded that it views any operation as
a war and will give a crushing response to it. You may initiate a war but this
is Iran which will finish it,” he said Sunday.
===========
h.
An hour with Chomsky on
fascism, nuclear weapons, climate change and more . . .
+
Disgrace & insult
to Holocaust victims: Noam Chomsky slams anti-Semitism
accusations against Labour
https://www.rt.com/uk/463488-chomsky-labour-holocaust-insult/
+
Burying the Nakba: How Israel systematically
hides evidence of 1948 expulsion of Arabs
www.informationclearinghouse.info/51871.htm
by Hagar Shezaf
===========
i.
How Israeli spies are flooding
Facebook and Twitter
https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-israeli-spies-are-flooding-facebook-and-twitter/27596
+
Facebook May Pose a Greater Danger Than Wall Street
https://blackagendareport.com/facebook-may-pose-greater-danger-wall-street
by Ellen Brown
Facebook reportedly has high hopes that Libra will become the foundation
for a new financial system free of control by Wall Street power brokers and
central banks.
===========
j.
Very good interview of Paul Craig Roberts by the Herland Report
https://thesaker.is/very-good-interview-of-paul-craig-roberts-by-the-herland-report/
===========
k.
The Torture of Julian Assange
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51855.htm
===========
l.
“Sleeping Volcanoes”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/05/cass-mccombs-sleeping-volcanoes/
(6 min video concert)
with Cass McCombs
===========
m.
Is US Capitalism in
Decline?
https://www.democracyatwork.info/eu_is_us_capitalism_in_decline
with Richard Wolff
===========
n.
Obama: Front Man for
Washington’s Imperialism
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51878.htm
by Paul Craig Roberts
Clarity Press is a good publisher for authors willing to
provide real information in place of the officially sanctioned controlled
explanations of our time. A current example is Jeremy
Kuzmarov’s assessment of Obama, Obama’s Unending Wars. The
forty-fourth president comes across as a successful front man for corporate
rule and Washington’s imperialism.
Obama was the “drone king” whose regime bombed 7 Muslim countries,
overthrew the democratic government in Hondurus,
overthrew and murdered Gaddafi, tried to do the same thing to Assad in
Syria, overthrew the democratic government in Ukraine and demonized Russia and
the Russian president, tried to undermine and overthrow the democratically
elected Latin American presidents Morales, Chavez, and Ortega, constantly lied
through his teeth, and met with the approval of the military/security complex
and global capitalists. Topping
off these criminal events, Obama’s regime adopted the policy of murdering US
citizens on suspicion alone without due process of law. Execution orders were issued every
Tuesday as Obama with CIA director John Brennan at his side chose presumed
terrorists from mug shots and biographies prepared by no one knows who. “Some
were just teenagers like a young girl who looked ‘less than her seventeen
years.’”
In the name of preventing atrocities, the Obama regime committed mass
atrocities. One consequence was
a massive flow of refugees into the US and its empire of peoples who have every
reason to hate Americans, Europeans, Australians and Canadians for sending
soldiers and bombs to destroy their homes and murder and maim their family members.
Obama was the perfect front man for a cruel empire. Being partly black,
he could be presented as humanitarian and considerate of the dark-skinned
peoples the George W. Bush regime had ground under the American boot. Being a one-term senator from Illinois,
he had no following and no independent political base, and thus had no ability
to stand up to powerful organized interest groups. Installed in office, he delivered the
violence and mayhem that the ruling oligarchs wanted as they destroyed independent
governments, controlled oil flows, and sought to establish Washington’s and
Israel’s hegemony over the Middle East.
Kuzmarov’s report on Obama fits the model of Washington intervention that many
have reported. For example,
General Smedley Butler: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/27/something-to-think-about-on-memorial-day/
, John
Perkins, Confessions of an Economic
Hit Man, and Stephen Kinzer, The Brothers. The difference is that Obama was very
much aware that he was fronting for the ruling establishment, whereas General
Butler initially thought he was defending American interests rather than the
interests of the New York banks and United Fruit Company. Perkins thought he was helping
the countries targeted by the projects for which he worked, and the Dulles
brothers operated independently of presidents. Obama knew who he was serving and
suffered no self-deception.
Donald Trump attempted to reassert the independence of the presidency
and found himself framed on Russiagate charges. It will be interesting to see if the
authority of the office can be restored or whether henceforth the president
will be a puppet of the Establishment.
===========
o.
US Foreign Policy Is A War On Disobedience
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51879.htm
by Caitlin Johnstone
In an excellent new
essay titled “We’re Not the Good Guys — Why Is American
Aggression Missing in Action?“, Tom Engelhardt
criticizes the way western media outlets consistently describe the behavior of
disobedient nations like Iran as “aggressions”, but never use that label for
the (generally antecedent and far more egregious) aggressions of the United
States.
“When it comes to
Washington’s never-ending war on terror, I think I can say with reasonable
confidence that, in the past, the present, and the future, the one phrase
you’re not likely to find in such media coverage will be ‘American
aggression,'” Engelhardt writes. He then asks a very
fair question:
“So
here’s the strange thing, on a planet on which, in 2017, U.S. Special
Operations forces deployed to 149 countries, or approximately 75% of all nations; on which the U.S. has
perhaps 800 military garrisons outside its own territory; on which the U.S. Navy
patrols most of its oceans and seas; on which U.S. unmanned aerial drones conduct assassination
strikes across a surprising range of countries; and on which the U.S.
has been fighting wars, as well as more minor conflicts, for years on end from Afghanistan
to Libya, Syria to Yemen, Iraq to Niger in a century in which it chose to
launch full-scale invasions of two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), is it
truly reasonable never to identify the U.S. as an ‘aggressor’ anywhere?
In other
words, does it really make sense for any nation to be able to take over the
world and then look up with Bambi-eyed innocence saying “I was attacked!
Completely out of the blue!” whenever any government pushes back on this? If
you ask the empire’s narrative makers, the answer is a resounding yes.
The U.S. has military forces in over a hundred countries. So why won't the
mainstream media call us an aggressor?
Why Won’t
the Media Criticize US Interventionism?
Despite military involvement
in 75% of the world, mainstream news outlets always stop short of calling out American
aggressions.
thenation.com
This important discrepancy is as close as we’ll ever get to an honest
admission from the political/media class that they consider empire-building and
endless war to be normal, and any opposition to it
freakish. All nations are meant to submit to America’s use of military and
economic force upon them, and if they don’t, that’s “aggression”. The official
position of the political/media class is that the US is a normal nation with
the same rights and status as any other, but the unofficial position is that
this is an empire, and nations will either obey or be destroyed.