Wednesday, July 30, 2014

371 How a False Flag is effective in combination with immediate false accusations.

This blog: http://tiny.cc/pa4sjx

Paul Craig Roberts noted the usefulness of being the first one to accuse your opponent of beïng responsable for a disaster. 

Here is his explanation: 

Peter Duveen explained that having foreknowledge of news events that Washington orchestrates allows Washington to control the explanation before any evidence is available. By the time evidence is gathered, the narrative is established and the evidence ignored:

“Part of the US propaganda mill’s effort is into forming the conversation. Once certain narratives take hold, true or untrue, they edge out other narratives. So the effort is to get control of the narrative, to form the conversation with whatever materials, usually false, are available. Then, of course, the false information will be referenced as true, and the direction of the narrative will be fixed. The narrative being lowered into place, for example, is that Russia was somehow responsible for the downing of Flight 17. With the help of the media, the hope is that the narrative will gain momentum. Eventually, if it catches properly, it will be impossible to question, just as people are considered freaks who question the official narrative of 9-11. That is why the narratives are introduced as quickly as possible. Thus, we saw how quickly it was announced that Flight 17 was brought down by a surface to air missile. That would lead me to believe that it was actually not brought down by a surface to air missile. So also with this incredibly amateurish effort regarding Russian shelling of Ukrainian positions. Russian reaction is never obtained in the articles about it, and it is no longer mentioned that Russian territory has been shelled by the Ukrainian military.”

             --------------

I think mr Duveen does not describe  the whole 'strength' of the method. 

Here is my take on it: 


The use of the MH17 crash. ‘Branding Putin as a demon.’

In his 19 july article on ICH  Dr. Paul Craig Roberts described the tactic of ‘Spreading the news first’ in order to occupy the minds of the people with false ‘facts’ long before the truth gets known.

As a psychologist I understand this tactic. But there is more to it than just providing narratives or explanations that will stay after the truth comes out. In situations of ‘blood and fear’ ( Twin towers, MH17) we desperately want to know where the danger comes from, and the first answers that are so important for our survival, are burned in our brains.

Remember 911. Just hours after the planes hit the Twin Towers we all  knew for certain that arabs with boxcutters were the culprits. The well known CNN journalist Barbara Olson had called her husband Ted Olson (sollicitor  general for DOJ) from one of the four hijacked planes.

A few years later it became known that cellphones don’t work at that altitude and speed.
“Sorry, it was a seatback phone”, NIST said. But there were no seatback phones in those planes!  In the 2006 Moussaoui trial the FBI stated the following about the Olson-Olson call:  “One call attemped. Unconnected. 0 seconds.” ( David Ray Griffin)  The conversation between Barbara and Ted Olson had never taken place. Absolutely impossible. It did not change anything, of course.  But it is one of the indications that some people knew what was going to happen, and had prepared for full use of it: “War against islam Terror”.

Somebody knew that it was crucial to point a finger to ‘The Culprit’ at a moment when existential fear is still there. The event is burned into our memory, and becomes impossible to erase. (Where were you when you heard about the Kennedy assasination…)

In the case of NH17 there was no Barbara Olson call. But within hours the Ukraïnian government  produced a taped conversation between two Separatists. And in the week thereafter we were covered with ‘solid evidence’ that accused the rebels and ‘thus’ Putin as the real culprit.  ‘Solid evidence’ of  the well known Colin Powell quality was mixed with stories of looting, disappeared bodies, disrespect for the dead’s belongings and tampering with black boxes.

Here we have either a False Flag or an accident that ‘they’ expected to happen sooner or later. They were very well prepared to feed our brains with information that answered our deeply rooted question “Where  does the danger come from”. The goal was to demonise Putin, possibly in preparation for ‘A war on Putin’.

The best recipe for fast demonisation is:  Create blood + be the First to point the finger.
Our genes do the rest. The ‘blood’ creates a ‘fight or fly’reaction. No time for good investigations.  As soon as someone has identified the source of danger we believe it immediately. In life threatening situations this is indeed the best strategy for survival. Those who create False Flags and are the First to point the finger, they know this very well.
Their victim will be branded in our brains as ’Dangerous !’ or ‘Demon !’.

We all think of ourselves as rational people, but we are not. Firmly held believes can hardly be changed. And our interpretations  of new events are filtered by our ‘believes’.  It is called ‘confirmation bias’ in psychology. ‘Truth’ and ‘proof’ have little chance to replace strongly felt existing believes.


Leo Tolstoy described the effect of ‘strong convictions’ like this: "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow- witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." 



Tuesday, July 29, 2014

370 Rusland is normaal. Amerika is oorlogszuchtig.

This blog: http://tiny.cc/y62sjx

Ik moet in hele grote stappen door de geschiedenis gaan, anders wordt het te lang voor een blog.
Mogelijk dat ik 'puntsgewijs' het duidelijkst ben:

Rusland valt nooit aan. Europa wel.
1812: Napoleon trekt met 500.000 soldaten naar Rusland en verovert Moskou.
1914: Duitsland-Oostenrijk valt Rusland aan en bereikt de lijn Riga-Ternopil.
1941: Duitsland valt Rusland aan, en vecht 3 jaar lang. Er sterven 27 miljoen Russen.

Rusland verslaat de Nazi's en wil een buffer tegen toekomstige Europese agressie.
In 1945 bevrijden de Russen Berlijn. Ze hebben dan 228 Duitse divisies verslagen na drie jaar oorlog.
In 1944 beginnen de geallieerden tegen de Duitsers te vechten. Ze zullen in totaal 58 Duitse divisies verslaan.
We hebben onze bevrijding voor 80% te danken aan de Russen en voor 20% aan de Amerikanen.
Wij horen alleen dat die Russen de Oostblok landen hebben bezet gehouden.
Maar dat was zo overeengekomen.
Toen Rusland ons had bevrijd van de Nazi's, eisten ze een bufferzone: Oost Duitsland, Polen etc.
Het neerslaan van de Hongaarse opstand en de Tsjechische opstand was voor de Russen gewoon het behoud van de zuur verdiende ( 27 miljoen doden) en overeen gekomen bufferzone.

Een stapje terug: De Russische Revolutie was een Amerikaanse overval.
Amerikaanse bankiers financierden de communistische revolutie. Dat is goed gedocumenteerd, maar volledig onbekend bij het grote publiek. Hier enkele bewijzen: ( Bankiers) ( New Yorkers de baas)
1. De bankiers werden ter verantwoording geroepen door Het Congres: Waarom hielpen jullie in gods naam het communisme?  "Omdat zo'n systeem nooit een concurrent voor de VS industrie zal worden.."
2. In 1920 ging Bertrand Russell zelf kijken naar de Russische Revolutie, en hij constateerde dat die onder de dagelijkse leiding stond van joden uit New York ( die eerder uit Rusland waren geemigreerd en dus goed Russisch spraken).

Om de weerstand van het volk te voorkomen werd de religie verboden en werd iedereen die een beetje kon lezen en schrijven vroeg of laat afgevoerd. In totaal hebben ze volgens professor Rummell 60 miljoen mensen gedood.  Zo vernietig je een land.

De Cuba crisis, maar dan niet het fabeltje.
Fabel: De 'gevaarlijke Russen' wilden raketten op Cuba zetten, maar de moedige JFK redde de wereld.
Werkelijkheid: De Amerikanen hadden raketten in Turkije gezet en bedreigden Moskou. Moskou besloot hetzelfde te doen. Dat mocht natuurlijk niet. Er werd een ruil overeen gekomen: Kennedy mocht in de publiciteit winnaar zijn, maar ze moesten wel hun raketten uit Turkije halen. In werkelijkheid wonnen de Russen dus. NB: zoals altijd: Het westen is agressor, maar westerlingen wordt verteld dat de Russen de agressor zijn.

De koude oorlog. Heeft die ooit bestaan? 
Volgens Freda Utley hebben de Amerikanen in 1948 openlijk de bestaande Chinese regering gesteund, maar in de praktijk lieten ze Mao winnen. ( Zelfde motief als in 1917 wellicht).
Een communistisch systeem is inefficient en een werkelijk militair gevaar is het dus niet. Dat blijkt wel uit de enorme hoeveelheid techniek en kennis 'Het Westen'60 jaar lang naar de Communisten verkocht.
Prof. Antony Sutton heeft het gedocumenteerd en had er 3 boeken voor nodig.
Die zogenaamde 'Communistische dreiging'  had enkele grote voordelen voor de 1%:
- de belastingbetaler was bereid erg veel aan defensie uitgaven te geven.
- Een oppermachtig leger geeft Wall Street extra gewicht bij het economisch plunderen van de wereld.
Toen president Eisenhower af trad, heeft hij gewaarschuwd dat de 1% de macht zou overnemen.
Ergo: was er echt een koude oorlog, of is die grotendeels 'in scene gezet' ? ( Wat was er zo spannend aan de Cuba crisis?Amerika had zijn raketten in Turkije op Moskou gericht. Hen kon niets gebeuren.)

Einde van het communisme. Er zijn afspraken gemaakt.
Zoals de bankiers al wisten in 1917 is het communistisch systeem niet opgewassen tegen het kapitalistische. In 1990 stortte het in. West Duitsland wilde herenigen met Oost Duitsland, maar Rusland ( 27 miljoen doden, weet U nog) ging niet akkoord. Toen is afgesproken dat de NATO nooit naar het oosten zou uitbreiden, tussen Gorbachov en James Baker. Gentlemens agreement.
Binnen 10 jaar waren alle zeer waardevolle grondstoffen in handen van 'Russen' met Wall Street sponsors. Het Westen had dronkeman Yeltsin volledig gesteund, en hij gaf zijn land weg.
Het waren Yeltzin en Berezovsky die wel wat zagen in de bedachtzame Putin. Ze hesen hem op het schild. Maar hij bleek een wolf in schaapskleren: Het lot van Rusland ging voor het geld van Wall Street.  De toezeggingen aan Gorbachov werden niet gestand gedaan. De Nato breidde uit naar het Oosten en groeide van 12 naar 24 landen. Rusland was te zwak om het te stoppen.

Een tussenbalans.
Na de tweede wereldoorlog heeft Amerika al op 33 landen bommen gegooid: Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War);  Guatemala 1954; Indonesia 1958; Cuba 1959-1961; Guatemala 1960; Congo 1964; Laos 1964-73; Vietnam 1961-73; Cambodia 1969-70; Guatemala 1967-69; Grenada ; 1983; Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets); Libya 1986; El Salvador 1980s; Nicaragua 1980s; Iran 1987; Panama 1989; Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War); Kuwait 1991; Somalia 1993; Bosnia 1994, 1995; Sudan 1998; Afghanistan 1998; Yugoslavia 1999; Yemen 2002; Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis); Iraq 2003-present; Afghanistan 2001-present ; Pakistan 2007-present; Somalia 2007-8, 2011; Yemen 2009, 2011; Libya 2011.
Rusland heeft in die periode alleen geweld gebruikt als landen die tot haar buffer behoren, werden losgeweekt: Hongarije, Tsjechoslowakije. Of als bevriende regeringen om hulp vroegen : de communistische regering in Afghanistan. Of als een land zich agressief tegenover etnische Russen gedroeg, altijd gesteund door VS agenten. (Georgië, Chechenië) 
NB: De oorlog van Putin tegen Chechenië werd wel gesteund door de VS en de UK! ( Steun ) .  
Er is dus een groot verschil tussen Rusland en Amerika.  
Rusland gebruikt geweld een aanval op haar belangen af te weren. Binnen haar territotium.
Amerika gebruikt geweld om de wereld te onderwerpen aan haar belangen, aan haar wil. Of gewoon om haar wapenindustrie te ontwikkelen. Ze doet dat over de hele wereld. 

Dat wij in het Westen dit nooit zo hebben beleefd komt natuurlijk omdat ze met hun grote Media ook ons wereldbeeld bepalen. En al die bommen vielen uiteraard voor 'het algemeen menselijk nut.' 



Het Westen bereidt de aanval voor.
Rusland werd overspoeld met 'Goede-Bedoelingen-Organisaties' ( NGO's) die een moderne variant van de CIA zijn. Vroeger stuurde de CIA zijn 'hit men' ( John Perkins) op weg om landen te onderwerpen, maar dat is old school.
Sinds 30 jaar stuurt men organisaties 'met goede bedoelingen' die regeringen ondermijnen door de bevolking ontevreden te maken. Hillary Clinton zegt het hier zelf.  De jongeren moeten hun cultuur vergeten en ze doen verlangen naar de Westerse Vrijheid. Organisaties die normen en waarden promoten die tegen de volksgevoelens in gaan, zoals in Rusland Pussy Riot en de openlijke homo propaganda.  De Russen zijn allergisch voor homo's. Dat is uiteraard de reden dat NGO's met  westers geld zo de homobeweging in de spotlights zetten, in Rusland. Het is een achilles hiel die de Amerikanen zich niet laten ontglippen. In elk land vinde ze wel een zwakke plek.
Het doel is simpel: maak het land verdeeld,zodat het zwakker wordt en wij onze vrienden daar aan de macht kunnen krijgen.  Professor Boyle, die ooit in de Board van Amnesty zat, kon het niet langer aanzien en vertelt: 'Rusland moet ze allemaal buiten gooien." Dat doet Putin ook, en daar wordt nu nog kwaad over gesproken in onze Media.
Er is een 18 maanden lange campagne geweest om Putin te demoniseren.
Over wangedrag van diplomaten wordt in de media NOOIT geschreven. Nu werd het heel breed uitgemeten, weken lang.  Dat Pussy Riot de gevangenis in moest werd schandelijk bevonden, maar dat Megan Rice 3 jaar de gevangenis in gaat heeft nooit één Westerse krant de moeite waard gevonden.
Putin wordt van werkelijk àlles beschuldigd dat men zich maar kan voorstellen. Elk bewijs ontbreekt uiteraard.
Maar 80% van het volk steunt Putin. Alle Russen herinneren zich Yeltsin en zijn heel blij met Putin. Ze begrijpen dat ook Putin hun land niet meteen vrij van corruptie en oligarchen kan maken.

De methode van het demoniseren wordt door Victor Ostrovski beschreven in 'By way of Deception", op pag 117. Het gaat dan, in 1989, over Saddam, dan nog een gewaardeerd vriend is van de VS.: "We're starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there's no doubt it'll work." 


De VS gaat tot de aanval over.
In 2004 was er al een geslaagde poging om middels een oranje revolutie ( gene Sharp, Otpor)  een 'vriend',   Yushenko, het land over te nemen. Maar na 4 jaar koos het volk toch weer voor de pro-Russische Yanukovich.

In de zomer van 2013 worden een aantal extremisten door de Amerikanen getraind in Polen. In november kiest Yanukovich noodgedwongen voor Rusland, en tegen Europa. Hij heeft financieel gezien geen andere keuze.  Er wordt een demonstratie op Maidan georganiseerd. Dat is uiteraard niet een initiatief van gewone burgers,want dan zou het snel over zijn.  Als alles verloren lijkt voor de VS ( op 21 februari sluit Yanukovich een overeenkomst dat hij versneld verkiezingen zal uitsachrijven, en dat hij de Berkut zal terug trekken) gebeurt er een wonder: Yanukovich laat zijn agenten met scherp schieten op demonstranten. Het wonder is wat de Westerse media blijven verkondigen. Maar de werkelijkheid is bekend: de rebellen ( de VS) liet de snipers schieten op eigen mensen en op politieagenten. ( Umar Paet) ( Monitor)
Later komt er nog een bloedbad: in Odessa. Alweer vertellen de Media dat het wellicht door de rebellen is gepleegd, maar in werkelijkheid waren het moordenaars die door oligarch Kolomojski zijn betaald en georganiseerd.
Er zijn nog enkele interessante zaken uitgelekt:
- De lieveling van het Westen, Yulia Timoshenko, zegt in een telefoongesprek: "Laten we een atoombom gooien op die Russen in oost Ukraïene.( Tape)
- De Amerikaanse minister Nuland ( gehuwd met de Kagan van het PNAC Report) zegt tegen haar Ambassadeur: 'Yats' ( Yatsenyuk, bankier, vriend van de VS, joods, vriend van Timoshenko) moet premier worden.  En 'Klitsch' moet op een zijspoor.  En zo geschiede...  ( Tape)
- De Amerikanen hebben in december 2013 al 5 miljard $ geïnvesteerd in de destabilisatie en machtsovername van de Ukraïne. ( Video)

De hele wereld beschouwt Putin als een agressor omdat hij gebieden die altijd tot zijn land behoorden en waar etnische Russen in grote meerderheid zijn, wil behouden.
Maar de VS, die in de Ukraïne niks te maken heeft en tevens alle afspraken tussen James Baker en Gorbachov met voeten treedt, gaat op heel aktieve wijze de Ukraïne veroveren.
Niemand noemt de VS agressor.  ze laat het karwei door anderen doen. Haar rol is zogenaamd ; 'het goede doel',de democratie.  We wqeten dat die democratie een van de grootste killers is van de laatste decennia: in Irak en Libië en Syrië zijn miljoenen slachtoffers.
Maar de vrienden van de Neocons hebben wel profijt van al die burgeroorlogen die het gevolg zijn van Amerika's geschenk, de democratie.




De Westerse burger heeft geen enkel benul van de geschiedenis en van wat waarheid is,  zo heb ik wel geleerd. George Kennan waarschuwde al in 1997: Rusland kan natuurlijk nooit accepteren dat de NATO naar het Oosten uit breidt.  Dat zou ook heel dom zijn en helemaal niet nodig.  Prof. Stephen Cohen:  Tijdens de Koude Oorlog werkten er altijd 4 deskundigen in het Witte Huis die de standpunten van Rusland verdedigden. Die zijn weg gestuurd alsof het ketters waren. Dat is natuurlijk levensgevaarlijk. Nu regeert de blinde haat van de Neocons. Het zal leiden tot een nucleaire oorlog.  




( Wordt aan gewerkt)

Monday, July 28, 2014

369. Wie bepaalt ons nieuws? Wie leidt ons ten oorlog?

This blog:

De Volkskrant als wegbereider van de NEOCON-WERELD-OORLOG * .

(Zie het Volkskrant artikel onderaan.)

Even kijken wie de journalisten zijn die dit (zie onder) in heel Europa gecopieerde artikel bedachten:

Adam Michnik: Adam Michnik werd geboren in een joods gezin. Hij verkoos het zichzelf te beschrijven als een Pool van Joodse afkomst. Hij had een Joodse vader maar geen Joodse moeder. ( Wikipedia)
Zijn krant: Gazeta Wyborcza had ooit een gemiddelde oplage van 672.000. In 2010 was dat nog maar 319.000 en anno 2013 is het aantal gezakt tot 190.000

Peter Wolodarski:
is on the editorial committee of Judisk Krönika (Sweden's Jewish Chronicle). He was granted a Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University . 

The Nieman Fellowship nodigt elk jaar 12 buitenlandse studenten uit.Zogenaammd uit naasteliefde, maar U begrijpt dat het in feite om  softe brainwashing gaat. En om contacten, netwerken.
Wie zou nu bijvoorbeeld dit initiatief in  het oor van Wolodorski hebben gefluisterd? Daarvoor moet je contacten hebben met Europese journalisten.  (De Engelsen deden lang geleden hetzelfde met hun Rhodes scholarships) .

Misschien wel de oudste medewerkster van het Niemand Fellowship, de dochter van Edward Bernays himself.

U kent Bernays? De uitvinder van de Propaganda, maar dan onder de naam: Public Relations. Hij wist de Amerikaanse vrouw tot het roken van sigaretten over te halen, en dat is echt zijn meest onschuldige daad.  Hij veranderde in de VS de publieke opinie zodat ze mee gingen doen aan WO2.  Enfin: een zeer boeiend man.


De hele zwart-makerij van Rusland en Putin zoals die nu al 1,5 jaar bezig is, is een erfenis van Bernays. 
           =========================================

Hier nog enkele relevante zaken: 
- Hoe JP Morgan in 2015 de controle over 'het nieuws' in heel Amerika kocht. 

- Israel Shamir schreef een boek over de mensen die onze media controleren, en dus ons wereldbeeld. Uit de inleiding deze tekst: 
Welcome to the new world order, where mass media, a fully integrated public-opinion-forming machine of mind control had rendered the Left and Right obsolete and subservient to Zionism. Who are the people who own and operate this machine? Are they actually the Jewish Lobby? No, says Shamir. The formidable Jewish Lobby is just the visible tip of the iceberg, while below there are miles and miles of solid ice: media lords, chief editors, their favourite university pundits – in short, the Masters of Discourse.

- U zult mij niet horen zeggen dat joodse mensen de Media controleren. Die uitspraak is mij te gevaarlijk.  Maar ik durf wel joodse mensen te citeren die het wèl durven te zeggen: 
Jews DO control the Media: Joel Stein
Jewish control of the media is preventing free holocaust debate:  Oliver Stone
Israeli tycoon wants to buy Al Jazeera:  Ynet. ( That says it all, doesn't it?) 

Next time you hear of another war happening somewhere in the world,  another country beïng destroyed by civil war, please ask yourself: is it good for the jews?
I can tell you the answer: it will always be: YES.

Normally wars are a very rare thing. Believe me.

           =========================================

Vandaag in de Volkskrant:

Europa moet een lijn trekken tegen Poetin'

OPINIE - Adam Michnik en Peter Wolodarski − 28/07/14, 11:33
© GETTY. De Russische president Vladimir Poetin tijdens de militaire parade die gisteren plaatsvond in Severomorsk.
OPINIE Solidariteit tegen president Poetin is het echte antwoord op de crisis in Oekraïne, schrijven de Poolse en Zweedse hoofdredacteuren Adam Michnik en Peter Wolodarski in een open brief aan de EU.
  • Daarom hebben wij - intellectuelen, journalisten, wetenschappers - de plicht waakzaam en alert te zijn als moderne Capitolijnse ganzen
  • © epa.
De hypocrisie, stupiditeit, en stilte van de intellectuele elite, kunstenaars, wetenschappers en de media in het aangezicht van oprukkende nazistische en stalinistische totalitaire regimes - het zal altijd de trieste nalatenschap blijven van de 20ste Eeuw. Het wegkijken van de annexatie van Oostenrijk, Tsjechoslowakije en de Baltische landen zal altijd de schande van Europa blijven. Niemand sprak zo mooi over vrede en internationaal recht als Hitler en Stalin; en niemand beging zoveel misdaden als deze twee dictators.

Vandaag is Europa stil over het agressieve, imperialistische beleid van de president van de Russische Federatie, Vladimir Poetin. Het Westen tolereert zwijgzaam zijn agressieve beleid, dat expliciet de soevereiniteit van andere landen schendt: Moldavië, Letland, Georgië, en op de eerste plaats Oekraïne.

De Europese Unie - en vooral de zaken- en de politieke elite - treedt op alsof het een grote versie van neutraal Zwitserland is in de moderne wereld. Maar Europa is geen groot Zwitserland. Twee bloedige wereldoorlogen begonnen hier.

Waakzaam
Daarom hebben wij - intellectuelen, journalisten, wetenschappers - de plicht waakzaam en alert te zijn als moderne Capitolijnse ganzen. We moeten niet vallen voor oude illusies; ons niet neerleggen bij ons gemakzuchtige conformisme. We hebben de plicht vandaag duidelijk en met klem te spreken. De heer Poetin moet niet vereenzelvig worden met de Russische natie, net zoals we Brezjnev niet vereenzelvigden met de Russische natie toen hij de oorlog in Afghanistan begon. Andrej Sacharov, de eerlijke en dappere dissident, was de ware stem van Rusland toen. Jaren later sprak hij in het Russische parlement over 'de schandelijke oorlog'.
  • De heer Poetin geeft niets om zwakke opponenten zonder ruggengraat
  • © epa.
De huidige oorlog met Oekraïne - die begon begon met de annexatie van de Krim en doorging met de provocaties in het oosten van het land - is schandelijk, tragisch en gevaarlijk. En tegelijkertijd neemt de regering van de heer Poetin besluiten die de democratische vrijheden in Rusland beknotten.

Permanent avonturisme
Appeasement is een weg die nergens toe leidt. Poetin is geen politicus in de Europese stijl. Hij is een politicus met een levenswijze van permanent avonturisme. Avonturiers en chauvinisten, amateurs van veroveringen en bloed reizen van Rusland naar Oekraïne. Om deze bandieten te bewapenen met uitstekend militair materieel is een misdaad.

Wij roepen de leiders van EU-landen op het agressieve beleid van president Poetin een halt toe te roepen. De ervaring leert dat dialoog met de heer Poetin tijdsverlies is - tenzij deze berust op eenheid en fermheid. De heer Poetin geeft niets om zwakke opponenten zonder ruggengraat. Hij beschouwt de EU-landen blijkbaar op die manier: ze praten alleen maar, terwijl het Kremlin meer en meer 'rode lijnen' overschrijdt. De heer Poetin stuurt nog steeds wapens en huurlingen naar Oost-Oekraïne. Hij gaat door met het samentrekken van troepen aan de grens. Maar Oekraïne heeft het recht het pad te kiezen van de Europese democratieën, en Oekraïeners hebben het recht in een eerlijke staat te leven. Misschien wordt de toekomst van de Europese Unie vandaag in Oekraïne besloten.

De landen van de Europese Unie zouden alle drukmiddelen moeten gebruiken: een wapensembargo tegen Rusland, economische en politieke sancties. Solidariteit tegen de heer Poetin is het echte antwoord op de Oekraïense crisis.

Adam Michnik is hoofdredacteur van het Poolse Gazeta Wyborcza.

Peter Wolodarski is hoofdredacteur van het Zweedse Dagens Nyheter


Deze brief wordt ook gepubliceerd in Der Standard (Oostenrijk), Hospodarske Noviny (Tsjechië), Le Monde (Frankrijk), Die Welt (Duitsland), La Stampa (Italië), Lietuvos Rytas (Litouwen), Gazeta Wyborcza (Polen), Dario de Noticias (Portugal), SME (Slowakije), El Pais (Spanje), Dagens Nyheter (Zweden).
   ---------------------------------------------------

368 Eye witness reports.

This blog:

Eye witness- reports are a mixture of:
observation,
interpretation,
expectation,
explanation,
hearing other peoples explanation,
and memory-mistakes.

Mostly a video recording or voice recording is better.

But of course, it is necessary to gather as many eye -and ear- witnesses as possible.
If you could get them from impartial people, that would be the best.
But in the separatist area you will not find neutral people, and if so, will they dare to speak out?
Yet, these witnesses do not look like they are inventing stories.

Anyway, here I have a few eye-witnesses on video.
There must be many many more ( please send me the links ), but I just did not spend time on them before.

NOTE: If you go to Google Earth and search for: Polahiivka, you will see Torez south and Hrabovo north of it.  If you have a second screen you can look immediately 'where we are' .

For now I have only two sources. They are:

1.  Three Women in a little village, very near to Hrabove ( Grabovo)  ( Interview by a Russian BBC journalist.)
The witnesses say that they could see what happened.  ( Were there no clouds? Can they see 10 km far in the air? )


Note: The BBC refused to broadcast the documentary!

2.  Three men in a A Russian-made video, not pretending to be neutral.
At 2.29-2.50 miutens  one witness.
At 3.14- 3.35 two other witnesses.
Note: I am not sure about their location.
                              ---------------------------------------------------


1. The BBC documentary.

here you will find the complete story, on Global Research: ( BBC doc.) New link: ( BBC )

I only use the eyewitness declarations.  ( In the video between 30 sec and 55 sec.)

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …
Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.
Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.
Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

When the BBC reporter goes to the village where the Buk that took down the MH167 was launched, according to a declaration and video from 'Kiev', she did not find any trace of a Buk launch. 
But she met a Separatist commander who had an interesting story: ( Video: 3 min- 4 min.)
Sergey Godovanets, Commander of the Militia of the city of Snezhnoye (google: Snizhne) : They use these civilian aircraft to hide behind them. It is only now that they stopped flying over us – but, usually, civilian aircraft would always fly above us. And they hide [behind them]. [The experience in] Slavyansk had demonstrated that they would fly out from behind a civilian aircraft, bomb away, and then hide, once again, behind the civilian aircraft and fly away.
Olga Ivshina, BBC: The commander of the local militia emphasizes that they have no weaponry capable of shooting down a jet fighter [flying] at a significant height. However, he says that if such weaponry were to appear, they would have tried to.
Sergey Godovanets: If we know that it is not a civilian aircraft, but a military one, then – yes.
Olga Ivshina, BBC: So, could the Boeing have been shot down by the militias that had mistaken it for a military aircraft? There is as yet no unequivocal confirmation of either this or any other version [of what took place]. The international experts are just beginning their work with the information obtained from the crashed airliner. It now appears that it is difficult to overstate the importance of this investigation. Olga Ivshina, BBC.

2.  Three men in a A Russian-made video 

Here is the video: ( Russian tv video

Here is the text that these people spoke. ( I will continue the numbering of the witneeses)


# 4 Witnesses:  Man in Black, 30 years old:  min. 2.35- 2.50. Location: ? 
There were very big explosions on this side, more than 10. Boom Boom Boom.
Strong. Very strong.  The plane, in response, sort of fell.
At first there was this loud ‘Oooh’ sound.

#5  Witness  Witnessing in the Russian village of Kuybyshevo ? This village is 30 km from Torez. 
Man, Brown cap, 60 years, from min 3.14- 3.19.
There was an exchange of fire. Several heavy explosions. I looked, because of the clouds splitting.”

#6 Witness ( also in Kuybyshevo ?) Man 60 years, glasses min. 3.20- 3.33.
I heard a whistle. In Torez too, from the direction of the Koshyelevka Motor Depot.


Somewhere, really far away, there was the First Shell. The First explosion heard there, only afterwards there was the din ( a loud, unpleasant and prolonged noise)  of the falling plane. 

                              ---------------------------------------

To study the case from this angle ( witnesses, maps) is new for me. I will try to make my own 'mental map'.

I will use Google Earth and the spelling of the villages's names that Google uses. 

Let me take Torez as the central point. 
Let me take the hypothesis that the 'impact' happened above Torez. 

#6 seems to  say that the explosion was heard to come from Torez.  
On the map you will see the Russian bordervillage, spelled  Kuybyshevo,  where #5 and #6 were standing, if my interpretation of the Russian doc. is correct. 30 km from Torez. (Or were they standing somewhere else?) 

We know that the debris of the plane was found very near to Grabovo, spelled by Google Earth as Hrabove. This is 14 km north of Torez. 
( Remember that the general Markushiv said that the plane had gone 14 km off its route. Did he mean the 14 after first impact, when the plane turned north-east? Or was the deviation already 14 km at the moment of first impact?  Was the plane led to the location where attacking it would be easier, or where chances were higher that the blame could be put on the  opponenent ?) 

Very preliminary interpretation of these witnesses: 
The launching of a Buk gives an enormous noise, to be heard far around.
So far I have heard no witness telling about it. The female  BBC journalst went to search for a witness in the area that was mentioned by Kiev as the launching place, but nobody had seen or heard a Buk -launch.

So: 
It is not impossible that a bomb was aboard, and that it was detonated at the right moment so that it would fall in the Separatist area. Maybe even more bombs were aboard. (#4: "Boom Boom Boom" )

Let's suppose that the first and main impact ( jetplane-attack/ Buk-rocket/ bomb explosion in luggage room) happened when the plane was above Torez, then would it be possible for people in Kuybyshevo to hear is, 30 km away ? 
It depends on the wind. With a strong wind: no.  With a wind going other that south-east: no
But with windpower 2 or 3 going to the south-east: yes.

Note: #1, #2, #3 and #4 all say that they saw the plane. 
the first 3 are interviewed in Ukraïne.  About #4 we do not know where he was interviewed. 
Witnesses #5 and #6 did not see the plane, but they heard the sounds.  This is compatible with the fact that they were ( probably) located in Kuybyshevo, 30 km away from Torez. 

#1 and # 2 saw the plane breaking apart. They state clearly that there were 2 explosions.
And they are very sure about one fighter plane.They even say: everyone saw it. ( It could be that these women were outside with a few people together, and looked up at the first explosion, and thet this group was very near to the place of impact. 

#3 saw the plane, but not immediately at impact. When she heard the explosion, she describes : 'But that was in the sky.' I think this means that she could not see the plane then, yet. 
By the time she could see the plane (was she further away than #1 and#2 ? Was there a cloud in her way ?) the jet-fighter was not in the immediate vicinity of MH17 anymore. ( Although it hovered over the area for 4 minutes as general Makushiv said) 

#4 saw the plane falling, but he does not mention the jet fighters accompanying it. 

#3 says that the plane, after impact, changed its course. This is compatible with what the Russian Radar shows us: that the plane went north-east.  ( Note: Hrabovo is directly North of Torez).

NB: Looking again to the #1 and #2  I see that they are villagers very near to Hrabove, where the palne came down. And also they have heard the frist impact. This could  mean that after impact the plane did make a turn ( #3) , but the distance coverend was not 14 km.
So now I think that the plane was already 14 km off track ( as the general said) before impact. Why ?
So Torez is not the place of first impact, but somewhere halfway between Torez and Hrabove.
If you go to Google Earth and search for: Polahiivka, you will see Torez south and Hrabovo north of it. 


NOTE: There is another witness report in the BBC doc. ( Sergey in Snezhnoye, google: Snizhne, 9 km eats of Torez.) 
But he does not speak about the MH17 crash. So I did not use his info here. But what he says is important: 'The Ukraïnan army does use airliners as a human shield. That's how they killed 11 people in my village.  They fly too high for us to shoot them down. But if we had tho good equipment we would of course shoot them down, if we can  avoid downing the airliners'.  
( On 18 june a video was placed on youtube,also about this practice and about the danger: ( Elena
Note:  Somebody wrote: it is posssible that the Separatists tried to shoot down a Ukraïnian jet fighter, but then their rocket missed the jet and went past it and by heat seeking guidance came to hit the airliner.  This would be the classic 'dead by mistake'. 

                             --------------------------------------------------

Some loose information, not witnesses: 

A video, posted on the day of the crash: The Ukraïnian minister declares that they have a tape of a conversation of two rebels, where they say that they downed the airliner.
1. This was only hours after the crash. But OK: that ìs possibel.
2.  The tapes were tampered with.  There is a discontinuïty   a) Why would they do this? b) hàt is really fast working ! So fast that maybe only the conspirators had the time to do it.

Note: This video was put on youtube one day before the crash, as is noterd very often. But I read that this can be due to a youtube bug.
Note: It was cloudy in the area of Hrabovo, when the plane came down. But I think that looking straight upwards it was possible to look through the clouds.

--
A video from a man who lives 50 meter from where the plane came down. 'People fell from the sky,from out of the clouds. On the roofs. ( Video
--
I did not like to look at the graphic images before, but I did it now, and I will keep the link here.It may give information later, if a question arises. ( Graphic
The story about 'bodies without blood, and 'strong smelleing, already decomposing bodies' is just one of the mysteries that happen in cases like this. Strelkov ( commander separartists) received this information from more than one source, so it mayvery well have looked like that. But why wopuld there be dead bodies in there? And: these bodies DNA will be checked,and Idon't doubt that they will match with the passengers list,so the people were alive at noon 17 july. 
I suppose thatsome bodies froze when exposed to the very cold air after the impact opened the planes sides, and that this kind of cluthered the blood., There must be simple explanations for this. 
--
The soldier holding up the teddybear. Is he crying and thinking about his 5 year old daughter that he did not see for weeks? That he may not see ever again, as every week lots of his friends die? 
No. He is not. I read about him in a Dutch newspaper. I do not care to remember what the journalist wrote, but it was evil. Very evil. 

Also: how can it be that brittish journalists, mr Warwick tells us that on 19 july all the valuables were gone, and that 6 days later Michael Bociurkiw, a spokesman for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, says: Mr. Bociurkiw said his monitoring group, which has now spent more time at the site than any other, had not seen any. The Malaysians said they had seen valuables in the fields untouched, he noted, including a bottle of duty-free perfume, auto parts, backpacks full of belongings, a watch and some jewelry.
Update: Remember the 'rough soldier impolitely holding up the teddy bear. Here he is: below.
Remember the soldier stealing the golden ring:  Meet him here. ( Video,2,35 min)

ource: Moon of Alabama. 
My standpoint is this: very probably there was looting. There is always looting in cases like this. Little or much,we don't know. People are people. But: here the looting-mantra is used as a tool to demonise the Separatists and even Putin!  It's all his will: that these victims were looted. ( How crazy can you get? Much more crazy than I thought a week ago. That is for sure.) 
--
There was  a lot idiotic info that made it to the Media, but this was at least also funny: ( Howard Stern)
--
I don't know what this site wants to say, but I see the same man as my withess #5, and he now stands before the wreckage. Is he Russian living in Kuybyshevo or does he live near Hrabove? 
-- 
Telegraph, UK, 18 july:  report from the impact area, one day after impact. Some interviews with  missile experst. ( Telegraph--
CNN, july 18. Roszypne ( 5,5 km west of Hrabove) :  Bodies fell near the orphanage. also the cocpit of the plane.  ===============================
Not important info: 
Another point which I like to find on the map is the Russian border town of Tomok or Tomak or Tonok, the place where the plane was going to enter Russia. 
It is mentioned by the Russian general where we see the video of radar-images and the MH17 loosing speed (Tonok). At the moment of the accisent, the plane is about 51 km away from Tonok,which is the border place.  But if I make a circle around Torez with a radius of 51 km and see where it touches the Russian border, I see no place witrh a name that looks like it. Maybe Tonok is just the name of the Radar installation, somewhere near Millerovo ( 51 km from Torez, and on the border).  No idea. 



Sunday, July 27, 2014

367 Malaysia must be destroyed

This blog: http://tiny.cc/8z8qjx

It is my hypothesis that the 2 Malaysian aeroplanes that crashed in the last 4 months  were attacked by the Neocons.

They had the motivation, the means and the opportunity.

MH370.
It is possible to take over the control of a plane during its flight,and that could very well have happened with MH370.  An American firm ,SPC, has this technology.  Many people think that the planes were taken over during teh 911 attack. There are no pilots who believe taht a very unexperienced pilot is able to manouvre a huge plane into a Twin Tower.  But SPC could do it, from the outside. ( Video )

MH17. 
The Russians saw on their radars that one Buk installation was moved to a lovcation very near to where the rebels are. And from this location the MH17 could be hit with a Buk rocket. But also a Ukraïnan fighterplane could have done the job.

Two aeroplanes crashed , from the same airliner, within 4 months time. Not from a technical reason, but one from an unknown reason, and the other from a 'mistake'made by rebels.
What are the chances?
They are so low that we can be sure: It will never happen again in the future.

So we are obliged to look for
- 'agents' who have reasons to attack Malaysia.
- agents who could perform the attack.  ( Have weapons at the l;ocation, or friends woith weapons)
- who have a good chance to get away with it.

Lets have a look:
1) who whould possibly hate the Malaysians? (And also have 2) and 3) capabilities).


Why  would the Neocons hate Malaysia ? 

A big potential for ethnic strive and civil unrest.
Malaysia is a country with a large population of Malaysans ( 67%)  and a large segment of ethnic Chinese ( 25 %) who immigrated.





Malaysia has a majorituy of muslims : 61%.



The Malayan majority is mostly poor.
Its the Chinese that own all the companies.

This gives, understandably, friction, as it would do in any country.



It was long time president Mahathir who created modern Malaysia. 

He made it into a rather modern and rather rich country.
He made Malaysia one of the famous Asian Tigers.
( Malaysia developed more or less paralell to Singapore, which split off from Malaysia in 1965 and her leader Lee Kuan Yew developed it from a 'fishermans place to a world harbor'. ) 
Like Taiwan before and China afterwards, they produced a lot of goods for 'The West'.

Mahathir not only developed the economy, he also succeeded in keepoing the copuntry together.

Here are some quotes from Mahathir which I take from a book by Tom Plate ( Conversations Mahathir Mohamad. 2011)
-"This country needs the Chinese, but the Chinese must also understand the needs of the Malayans."
- There is 'affirmative action' for the majority: for the 'Bumiputera'.
- Mahathirs recipe to extremists: He talks to them and explains that killing each other is not a solution.  Also: Islam forbids killing of people.

So Mahathir did a great job to keep the peace in a country that is very vulnerable for ethnic and religious strive, also because one smaller group has all the money and all the power.
Then cam e the Asian Crisis:                      

The 1998 Asian crisis:  No IMF robbers,please.
Malaysia was hit very hard by the 1998 crisis.
Another crisis that was helped into existence by Wall Street.
( Read all about it in the 4 pages of a text book which qoute below this blog)

The standard procedure in the region was that the IMF flies in and tells the country that they will be helped with loans, IF they agree that 'The West' wiil be allowed to speculate against their currency in order to bring down the value of their currency and then may be allowed to buy big chunks out of their economy. ( Why else would they take the trouble of organising a crisis?)

Mahathir refused.
He did not want anything to do with the IMF.
Every insider in the world predicted that this was the end of Malaysia.
But it was not. It came through the crisis with no harm done.
Of course Wall Street does not like Malaysia.
And above all: they do not want independent countries ( who refuse to become Wall Street slaves) to prosper.

Mahathir is not afraid to criticise The Powerful. 
M. was always quite outspoken.  That is why the USA suppported Mahathir's opponent, Anwar Ibrahim. In Wikipedia you can read a lot about it: Foreign Policy.
Since 2000 the Neocons rule America directly ( Bush) or by proxy ( Obama, Clinton), and
it is a well known secret that Neocons have probably warmer feelings for Israel than for America.

Mahathir has made some  very strong speeches that were not liked by the jewish people:
( All quotes are from Wikipedia)
--
In 2003, after the Iraq invasion:
We Muslims are actually very strong, 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million [during the Holocaust]. But today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries. And they, this tiny community, have become a world power.
-- 
In January 2010, at The General Conference For The Support of Al Quds, Mahathir stated, regarding the Holocaust and Israel, that:
The Jews had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole Governments to ransom...Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, [Jews] survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world...The Holocaust failed as a final solution.
--
Mahathir also stated that:
"Creating a state for them was thought to be a better solution. It could be if some European territory had been allocated to make a permanent ghetto for the Jews. But of course if this was done then the affected European state would rise in arms and kill all the Jews the way they had been doing before. So the debate was about creating an Israeli state in Uganda, Africa, or somewhere in Latin America or Palestine of course."[97][98]
--
Following the Israeli court's decision declaring the state blameless in the death of American activist Rachel Corrie, Dr Mahathir wrote in his blog in September 2012:
I am glad to be labeled antisemitic [...] How can I be otherwise, when the Jews who so often talk of the horrors they suffered during the Holocaust show the same Nazi cruelty and hard-heartedness towards not just their enemies but even towards their allies should any try to stop the senseless killing of their Palestinian enemies.[99]

--  So far the quotes from Mahathir that made the Neocons very angry--- 

Finally this: the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
Mahathir established the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to focus on victims of abuse in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
On 11 May 2012, Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were found guilty of war crimes. "After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, Mahathir Mohamad said: 'Powerful countries are getting away with murder.’
      ==================
Resume: 
-- Two airline-disasters, caused by external causa,  both from 1 company,  in just 4 months is ane extremely, extrely low probability. If an airliner goes down, which very rarely happens, the cause is always from technical failure. Not here.

-- The Western MSM were fed immediately with 'solid evidence', to burn 'Russia' as culprit in our brains. That's how you exploit a false flag.  This alone makes them suspect, because there is no evidence found, and as they ( and their minions in Kiev) do have lots of radar and satellite info, why didn't they give that, instead of false accusations?

-- here above I gave examples for the motivation of the Neocons to destroy Malaysia:  they refuse to bow for Wall Street, and they are about the only muslims who do not bow for Israel.   
Instead: they tell what they think and know about them, in clear language. 

There is one last thing that I would like to add here. 
There is a Malaysian lawyer who wrote an analysis about the search for the MH370 in march.
He signals a case of: "Why did the dog not bark?" ( Sherlock Holmes.) 
Its this:
The USA has the very best radar systems andthey arte able to see everything everywhere: even through clouds. Even slightly inder the surface. It;s said they can see the fist of a person. They have systems like these which are no longer secret. So : why did they not help to find the wreckage of the MH370. And even more important: Why did the MSM never touch on this remarkable omission? Why did the dogs not bark?  Here is the whole article.  ( Matthias Chang





         --------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:  Web of Debt. by Ellen Brown. 2008.
Page 252-255 from chapter 27.


Taking Down the Tiger Economies:
The Asian Crisis of 1997
Until then, the East Asian countries had remained largely debtfree,
avoiding reliance on IMF loans or foreign capital except for direct
investment in manufacturing plants, usually as part of a long-term
national goal. But that was before Washington began demanding
that the Tiger economies open their controlled financial markets to
free capital flows, supposedly in the interest of “level playing fields.”
Like Japan, the East Asian countries went along with the program.
The institutional speculators then went on the attack, armed with a
secret credit line from a group of international banks including
Citigroup.
They first targeted Thailand, gambling that it would be forced to
devalue its currency and break from its peg to the dollar. Thailand
capitulated, its currency was floated, and it was forced to turn to the
IMF for help. The other geese then followed one by one. Chalmers
Johnson wrote in The Los Angeles Times in June 1999:
The funds easily raped Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea,
then turned the shivering survivors over to the IMF, not to help
victims, but to insure that no Western bank was stuck with nonperforming
loans in the devastated countries.6
Mark Weisbrot testified before Congress, “In this case the IMF not
only precipitated the financial crisis, it also prescribed policies that
sent the regional economy into a tailspin.” The IMF had prescribed
the removal of capital controls, opening Asian markets to speculation
by foreign investors, when what these countries really needed was a

supply of foreign exchange reserves to defend themselves against speculative
currency raids. At a meeting of regional finance ministers in
1997, the government of Japan proposed an Asian Monetary Fund
(AMF) that would provide the needed liquidity with fewer conditions
than were imposed by the IMF. But the AMF, which would have
directly competed with the IMF of the Western bankers, met with
strenuous objection from the U.S. Treasury and failed to materialize.
Meanwhile, the IMF failed to provide the necessary reserves, while
insisting on very high interest rates and “fiscal austerity.” The result
was a liquidity crisis (a lack of available money) that became a major
regional depression. Weisbrot testified:
The human cost of this depression has been staggering. Years of
economic and social progress are being negated, as the
unemployed vie for jobs in sweatshops that they would have
previously rejected, and the rural poor subsist on leaves, bark,
and insects. In Indonesia, the majority of families now have a
monthly income less than the amount that they would need to
buy a subsistence quantity of rice, and nearly 100 million people
– half the population – are being pushed below the poverty line.7
In 1997, more than 100 billion dollars of Asia’s hard currency reserves
were transferred in a matter of months into private financial
hands. In the wake of the currency devaluations, real earnings and
employment plummeted virtually overnight. The result was mass
poverty in countries that had previously been experiencing real economic
and social progress. Indonesia was ordered by the IMF to unpeg
its currency from the dollar barely three months before the dramatic
plunge of the rupiah, its national currency. In an article in Monetary
Reform in the winter of 1998-99, Professor Michel Chossudovsky
wrote:
This manipulation of market forces by powerful actors constitutes
a form of financial and economic warfare. No need to re-colonize
lost territory or send in invading armies. In the late twentieth
century, the outright “conquest of nations,” meaning the control
over productive assets, labor, natural resources and institutions,
can be carried out in an impersonal fashion from the corporate
boardroom: commands are dispatched from a computer terminal,
or a cell phone. Relevant data are instantly relayed to major
financial markets – often resulting in immediate disruptions in
the functioning of national economies. “Financial warfare” also

Chapter 26 - Poppy Fields, Opium Wars, and Asian Tigers
applies complex speculative instruments including the gamut of
derivative trade, forward foreign exchange transactions, currency
options, hedge funds, index funds, etc. Speculative instruments
have been used with the ultimate purpose of capturing financial wealth
and acquiring control over productive assets.
Professor Chossudovsky quoted American billionaire Steve Forbes,
who asked rhetorically:
Did the IMF help precipitate the crisis? This agency advocates
openness and transparency for national economies, yet it rivals
the CIA in cloaking its own operations. Did it, for instance,
have secret conversations with Thailand, advocating the
devaluation that instantly set off the catastrophic chain of events?
. . . Did IMF prescriptions exacerbate the illness? These countries’
monies were knocked down to absurdly low levels.8
Chossudovsky warned that the Asian crisis marked the elimination
of national economic sovereignty and the dismantling of the Bretton
Woods institutions safeguarding the stability of national economies.
Nations no longer have the ability to control the creation of their own
money, which has been usurped by marauding foreign banks.9


Malaysia Fights Back
Most of the Asian geese succumbed to these tactics, but Malaysia
stood its ground. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said
the IMF was using the financial crisis to enable giant international
corporations to take over Third World economies. He contended:
They see our troubles as a means to get us to accept certain
regimes, to open our market to foreign companies to do business
without any conditions. [The IMF] says it will give you money if
you open up your economy, but doing so will cause all our banks,
companies and industries to belong to foreigners. . . .
They call for reform but this may result in millions thrown
out of work. I told the top official of IMF that if companies were
to close, workers will be retrenched, but he said this didn’t matter
as bad companies must be closed. I told him the companies
became bad because of external factors, so you can’t bankrupt
them as it was not their fault. But the IMF wants the companies
to go bankrupt.10

Mahathir insisted that his government had not failed. Rather, it
had been victimized along with the rest of the region by the international
system. He blamed the collapse of Asia’s currencies on an orchestrated
attack by giant international hedge funds. Because they
profited from relatively small differences in asset values, the speculators
were prepared to create sudden, massive and uncontrollable outflows
of capital that would wreck national economies by causing capital
flight. He charged, “This deliberate devaluation of the currency of
a country by currency traders purely for profit is a serious denial of
the rights of independent nations.” Mahathir said he had appealed to
the international agencies to regulate currency trading to no avail, so
he had been forced to take matters into his own hands. He had imposed
capital and exchange controls, a policy aimed at shifting the
focus from catering to foreign capital to encouraging national development.
He fixed the exchange rate of the ringgit (the Malaysian national
currency) and ordered that it be traded only in Malaysia. These
measures did not affect genuine investors, he said, who could bring in
foreign funds, convert them into ringgit for local investment, and apply
to the Central Bank to convert their ringgit back into foreign currency
as needed.
Western economists waited for the economic disaster they assumed
would follow; but capital controls actually helped to stabilize the
system. Before controls were imposed, Malaysia’s economy had
contracted by 7.5 percent. The year afterwards, growth projections
went as high as 5 percent. Joseph Stiglitz, chief economist for the
World Bank, acknowledged in 1999 that the Bank had been “humbled”
by Malaysia’s performance. It was a tacit admission that the World
Bank’s position had been wrong.11
David had stood up to Goliath, but the real threat to the
international bankers was Malaysia’s much more powerful neighbor
to the north. The Chinese Dragon was not only still standing; it was

breathing fire . . . .