Tuesday, April 14, 2015

471 Over Afghanistan en de opkomst van het fascisme. John Pilger.

Ik vind John Pilger altijd interessant, maar in dit artikel beschrijft hij wat er in Afghanistan gebeurde vòòr Brzezinski besloot om de Russsen het land in te lokken.


Why the Rise of Fascism is Again the Issue

By John Pilger

February 27, 2015 "
ICH" - The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.

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

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

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

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

The public sodomising of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a "rebel" bayonet was greeted by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: "We came, we saw, he died." His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew... that if we waited one more day," said President Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

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

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

For Obama, Cameron and Hollande, Gaddafi's true crime was Libya's economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa's greatest oil reserves in US dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power. Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships".

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

The "humanitarian war" against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing "genocide" against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The West's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.

With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia's infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.

Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its "natural market" in the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991 to lay their plans for the disastrous eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognise Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.

In Washington, the US saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. Nato, then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo "peace" conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer's duplicitous tactics. The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the US delegation inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia - a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation - and the implementation of a "free-market economy" and the privatisation of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; Nato bombs fell on a defenceless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.

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

"Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over." These were opening words of Obama's 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment. "The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion," said Obama. In fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records. The majority have been killed - civilians and soldiers - during Obama's time as president.

The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives', Zbigniew Brzezinski, the godfather of US policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because "the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion... Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation." He is right. As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Carter's National Security Advisor, demonstrated his point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan's first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?

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

The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan's doctors, a third of civil servants and the majority of teachers. "Every girl," recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon, "could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest music. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West supported."

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

On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorised support for tribal "fundamentalist" groups known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan's first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the US embassy in Kabul reported that "the United States' larger interests... would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." The italics are mine.

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

Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and "destabilise" the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, "a few stirred up Muslims". His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called "Operation Cyclone". Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah - who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help - was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.

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

The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam had its "free fire zones", "body counts" and "collatoral damage". In the province of Quang Ngai, where I reported from, many thousands of civilians ("gooks") were murdered by the US; yet only one massacre, at My Lai, is remembered. In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.

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

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

Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being," said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the 1930s. As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt, who said, "The sovereign is he who decides the exception." This sums up Americanism, the world's dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognised as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an equally unrecognised brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, its conceit insinuates western culture. I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, US losses, including in the Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.

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

There are no heroic movies about America's embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America (and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens - as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America. Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the US; many were pampered and their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the "father" of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the US space programme.

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

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

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

No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe - with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as "the minister for defeatism". It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading "neo-con" luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century, she was foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney. 

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

At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleaning. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping "the violence" caused by the "Russian invasion". The Nato commander, General Breedlove - whose name and actions might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove - announced that 40,000 Russian troops were "massing". In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.

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

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

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

If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On January 29, Ukraine's top military commander, General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for US and EU sanctions on Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: "The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian Army". There were "individual citizens" who were members of "illegal armed groups", but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news. Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev's Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for "full scale war" with nuclear-armed Russia.

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

The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America's most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, "No European government, since Adolf Hitler's Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West's media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established... If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three - much as it did into world war one a century ago - all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason."

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack... In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons." In the Guardian on February 2, Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. "Putin must be stopped," said the headline. "And sometimes only guns can stop guns." He conceded that the threat of war might "nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement"; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that "America has the best kit".

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

The outbursts - or as Garton-Ash prefers, his "tortured liberal ambivalence" - are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash's piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: "The F-35. GREAT For Britain". This American "kit" will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world. In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.

Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev's new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US State Department official in charge of US overseas "investment". She was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship. They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden's son is on the board of Ukraine's biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine's rich farming soil.

Above all, they want Ukraine's mighty neighbour, Russia. They want to Balkanise or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia's long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country's economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.

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

Saturday, April 11, 2015

470 Het is weer helemaal 1936 in Medialand.

In 1936 kon je in de krant één groep mensen zonder enige weerspraak, en op basis van geruchten of leugens, zwart maken.

In 2015 is het weer zover.
Ergens in een ver land schrijft iemand een verzinsel op een blog. Hij noemt het satire. Wij kennen gelijksoortige programma's als 'Lucky TV' of  'De Speld'.
Gewoon, om te lachen.
Elders wordt het bericht over genomen en als serieus nieuws geepresenteerd.
Dit gaat als een lopend vuurtje over het net en komt in kranten terecht.

Ergens is er dan een hoogwaardigheidsbekleder die de moeite neemt om het te ontkennen.

Nu is het hek helemaal van de dam, want als zo'n moslim-mufti het serieus neemt, moet er wel iets van waar zijn!
In de kranten beginnen de ongeïnformeerde reageerders ( of gewoon mensen die niet begrijpen wat het woord satire betekent)  hun haat te spuien. Dat wordt allemaal braaf geplaatst.

Mijn eigen reactie aan dit blad werd niet geplaatst:
Ik tel nu 11 reacties, en ik moet zeggen: al die reageerders zijn heel wat engere figuren dan deze grootmufti. De mufti ontkent een bericht dat wellicht door de moslimbashers is verzonnen. Gewoon, omdat van elke verzonnen beschuldiging altijd wel iets blijft hangen. De Mufti doet wat hij moet doen. Maar de reageerders zijn niet geïnteresseerd in de waarheid, ze zijn geïnteresseerd in de ander valselijk zwart maken. Gevaarlijk volkje. Gevaarlijk krantje ook dat daar aan mee werkt.

Ik zal de reactie nog eens insturen, maar dan zonder dat laatste zinnetje.
Ik heb dit zinnetje opgestuurd: Er zijn nog heel wat mensen ingetrapt , in die Marokkaanse Lucky TV.  Benieuwd of het er door komt.

Hier het artikel:

Grootmoefti: Geen fatwa die toestaat dat man vrouw opeet

RIYAD (ANP) - Een moslimman mag niet zijn vrouw of een deel van haar opeten in geval van een hongersnood of om zijn eigen leven te redden.
De Saudische grootmoefti Sjeik Abdulaziz al-Sheikh ontkende vrijdag volgens nieuwszender al-Arabiya meedere berichten daarover in internationale media, die de afgelopen week de kop opstaken.
Kannibalisme
Volgens die geruchten zou er een fatwa zijn uitgevaardigd door de grootmoefti die kannibalisme toestond als een blijk van ultieme onderwerping en liefde. Het zou erop neerkomen dat een man zijn vrouw deels of in haar geheel mocht opeten, als daar de bittere noodzaak toe was.
Sheikh liet vrijdag echter weten dat dergelijke berichten ,,pogingen van vijanden zijn om de aandacht af te leiden van het belangrijkste, namelijk voorkomen dat de moslims in de wereld misleid worden''.
Volgens CNN is de bron van de valse fatwa een satirische Marokkaanse blogger genaamd Israfel al-Maghribi. Hij schrijft een column genaamd Akhbal al-Tanz (sarcastisch nieuws), maar dat weerhield enkele andere media er niet van om het verhaal over te nemen als nieuws.
           --------------------------------------------

Hier zijn de 14 reacties tot nu toe. Er is er niet één bij die begrijpt dat de Mufti reageert op een satirish en dus verzonnen bericht.
Men gaat er van uit dat het bericht wààr is.
En de krant plaatst al die domheden. Maar een reactie die de vergissing signamleert wordt niet geplaatst. censuur.  1936 !

Copy-paste werkt niet bij deze site. Alles 'met de hand'gecopieerd.

Willem 2:
Bestaat er ook vrouwenemancipatie in de Saudische zandbak? Is er aan vrouwen een "opeetrecht" van mannen toegekend dat nu ook komt te vervallen?

3 reacties hierop:
Jara Zimmerman:
Vrouwen mogen daar alleen maar een heel klein stukje van de man opeten, mits deskundig eraf gesneden!

Bloem:
de voorhuid kan het niet zijn, dat is er al bij voorbaat van afgesloopt,never mind...

Willem 2: 
"Sambal bij" zou daar wel een leuke etnische melting pot bij opleveren.

Alex Delarge:
Ik geloof dat in Egypte necrofilie tot een bepaald aantal uren na overlijden is toegestaan.Geeft maar aan hoe knettergek ze zijn in dat soort landen.

Piet Zwolle: 
Ik vraag me af of ze ook buitenlandse vrouwen als bijvoorbeeld Minister Ploumen of Minister Hennis als ze op bezoek zijn bij de sjeiks op mogen eten. Ploumen zal overigens wat taaier zijn dan Hennis verwacht ik.

Twee reacties hierop: 
Knetter gek: 
Heb van een kannibalen-opperhoofd ooit gehoord dat botox de smaak behoorlijk kan verknallen.

Bloem: 
haha...Hennis is jong nog en sappig, bij Ploumen heb ik ernstige twijfels!

Jara Zimmerman: 
Welk stukje vlees van die door de man op te peuzelen moslima zou eigenlijk het lekkerst klaar te maken zijn? Kijk bij varkens weten we dat, daar smaakt het haasje het beste, maar ook de schouderkarbonade is niet te versmaden. Daarnaast kun je van het hoofd van het varken lekkere zult maken. De mens schijnt anatomisch ongeveer hetzelfde in elkaar te zitten als een varken en dat weet die grootmoefti sjeik Al-Kanaibali natuurlijk ook.

NN:
Om te voorkomen dat moslims misleid worden. Niets aan toe te voegen.

fork: 
In Duitsland is kannibalisme niet verboden zolang je proef persoon niet overlijd.

FlipVentiel: 
Welkom in de wondere wereld van de islam!

Jara Zimmerman: 
Eerst mogen moslims hun vrouwen wel opeten, dan weer niet. Die groetmoefti sjeik Al-Kanibali weet ook niet wat hij wil. Afijn, het blijven toch rare barbaarse snoeshanen dit soort lieden. Is trouwens al bekend wanneer deze man uitgenodigd gaat worden om in Nederland te komen prediken?

Jan Muters: 
Zo de grootmoeftie heeft een heel moderne kijk voor een fundamentalistische salafist De moderne tijd begint door te dringen in de zandbak van de Islam. Je mag je vrouw niet opeten. Dat wordt een hellend vlak. Dadelijk mag je ze ook al niet meer doodslaan! Of nog erger dat die vrouwenauto gaan rijden. OEI!!!


Tot zover de 14 reacties die er nu zijn. 


























Tuesday, April 07, 2015

469. It's the New York Times, stupid.

Ik ben een bewonderaar van de blog van Stan van Houcke, ongetwijfeld de meest erudiete onder de Nederlandse bloggers. 
Het enige dat mij hindert is dat hij vaak persoonlijke vetes lijkt uit te vechten. Maar je kunt ook zeggen: hij gebruikt zijn eigen ervaringen om zo uit de doeken te doen hoe de wereld in elkaar zit. 

Vandaag verscheen onderstaande blog, die ik in zijn geheel heb overgenomen. 

U kunt natuurlijk net zo goed op Stan's blog klikken, dan heeft U ook de foto's. 
Het gaat mij om de analyse in deze blog die ik ook op mijn eigen blog onmisbaar vind.  
Dank U, Stan.

De blog toont aan hoe de VS de halve wereld heeft veroverd, met behulp van journalisten die in feite geen knip voor hun neus waard zijn, als mens wel te verstaan. Vakmatig genieten ze het hoogste aanzien. 



Henk Hofland en de Massa 38


                             Cultural Imperialism

The sum of the processes by which a society is brought into the modern world system and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even promote, the values and structures of the dominant center of the systems.
                                  Herbert Schiller, 1976
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYAiDTsr34k7yIM8YSPXCccvvKOeAQRDSDU5xwV6HXdsYEeC22pGRrJykMf7wb3pt5EoOx6WUeJLqs1MBwjI2Ahc1bnUV6PBsW5MNubDlnkLWGGXo7QshGCgfx-gNpLx72-aLPlhfDuhdN/s1600/cultural_imperialism_01.jpg

Onder de kop 'Nieuwe oorlog in wording,' verzekert Henk Hofland in De Groene Amsterdammer van 1 april 2015 zijn lezers ditmaal het volgende:

Met de burgeroorlog in Jemen is een nieuwe fase in de totale ontbinding van het Midden-Oosten aangebroken. Chaos kweekt meer chaos. Het historisch bewijs voor die stelling is langzamerhand overweldigend.

De oorlogen in Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië hebben daar mislukte staten doen ontstaan, in de regio een eufemisme voor broeinesten van terreur en oorzaak van stromen vluchtelingen naar Europa. En sinds een paar weken begint Jemen erbij te horen. De sjiitische stam van de Houthi’s is in verzet gekomen tegen de centrale regering die de soennitische variant van de islam is toegedaan. Het soennitische Saoedi-Arabië is daarop de regering met bombardementen te hulp gekomen. Daarbij zijn enkele tientallen doden gevallen. De nieuwe toon is gezet.

Dat die burger 'oorlogen in Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië' en nu ook in 'Jemen' na gewelddadige westerse interventies zijn ontstaan, verzwijgt Hofland. Sterker nog de éminence grise van de polderpers oordeelde in hetzelfde weekblad op 12 maart 2015 dat 'het hedendaags failliet van de Arabische beschaving' was ontstaan, ondanks de altruïstische westerse '[p]ogingen om het tij met de oorlogen in Afghanistan en Irak te keren...' De stem van de gevestigde orde in Nederland orakelde vijf jaar geleden in een NRC-column dat de 'hoogconjunctuur van het verzet tegen de aanwezigheid van grote aantallen niet geïntegreerde moslims in heel West-Europa een natuurlijke reactie [is],' en ook hier moest de lezer opmaken dat er kennelijk iets fundamenteel fout zit met die, volgens de alom gerespecteerde opiniemaker, 'grote aantallen niet geïntegreerde moslims in heel West-Europa,' en in 'heel' het Midden-Oosten en de Maghreb, een opvatting die in racistische kringen wordt gedeeld. Met een minimum aan positieve kennis verspreidt Hofland een maximum aan negatieve meningen. De Palestijns-Amerikaanse cultuurcriticus Edward Said karakteriseerde dit slag opiniemakers in het Westen op een treffende wijze toen hij in zijn baanbrekende boek Culture and Imperialism (1993) stelde dat deze mensen

argue that the source of the world's significant action and life is in the West, whose representatives seem at liberty to visit their fantasies and philanthropies upon a mind-deadened Third World. In this view, the outlying regions of the world have no life, history, or culture to speak of, no independence or integrity worth representing without the West.

Gevangen binnen dit vooroordeel is H.J.A. Hofland niet in staat te beseffen dat het Westen medeverantwoordelijk is voor de, in zijn woorden, 'enorme staatkundige en humanitaire, zich ongebreideld voortzettende ramp' in het Midden-Oosten en de Maghreb. Zijn lezers dienen de indruk te krijgen dat 'we' hier te maken hebben met een inferieur soort mensen. En zo behoren Hofland en zijn 'politiek-literaire elite' in de polder tot de westerse 'intellectuals, artists, journalists whose positions at home are progressive and full of admirable sentiments, but the opposite when it comes to what is done abroad in their name,' en op wie Said zijn dodelijke pijlen richtte. Net als antisemieten alle joden veroordelen aan de hand van het optreden van enkelen, geldt voor Hofland dat de acties van de minderheid het 'failliet' van de hele 'Arabische beschaving' aantoont. Immers, 'chaos kweekt meer chaos.' En 'Met de burgeroorlog in Jemen is een nieuwe fase in de totale ontbinding van het Midden-Oosten aangebroken,' terwijl het humanitair ingrijpen van 'het vredestichtende Westen' om 'het tij met de oorlogen in Afghanistan en Irak te keren zijn uitgelopen op kostbare mislukkingen.' Hoflands opinies zijn hierbij niet gebaseerd op een intensieve bestudering van de regio, maar op het simplistische vooroordeel dat 'de Arabieren' in zowel het Westen als in hun eigen regio een monolitische cultuur bezitten, gebaseerd op het islamitisch geloof dat vandaag de dag een 'failliete beschaving' heeft opgeleverd. Deze opvatting, meer is het niet, is in strijd met de complexe werkelijkheid, aangezien de -- door het westen afgedwongen -- globalisering 'all cultures are involved in one another, none is single and pure, all are hybrid, heterogenous, extraordinarily differentiated, and unmonolithic,' zo constateerde Edward Said als hoogleraar met een kosmopolitische achtergrond uit zijn eigen directe ervaringen en uit de bestudering van het vaak gewelddadige westerse expansionisme. Hij voegde hieraan toe:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNpcV1HLtFg8YwBP62Pgztm57mXSEiPXaVog0OWp9Qap81yHCvsQSk7RrcwUvb10ahcLI1FDZ7SnlOdOc01SaMaeuLFj94zTPJobws5VgX0dBSKnZayOSLumMnBSFMQo43UJSKrn8NOlNz/s1600/41dHP4X-01L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
This, I believe, is as true of the contemporary United States as it is of the Modern Arab world, where in each instance respectively so much has been made of te dangers of 'un-Americanism' and the threats to 'Arabism.' Defensive, reactive, and even paranoid nationalism is, alas, frequently woven into the very fabric of education, where children as well as older students are taught to venerate and celebrate the uniqueness of their tradition (usually and invidiously at the expense of others). It is such uncritical and unthinking forms of education and thought that this book is addressed — as a corrective, as a patient alternative, as a frankly exploratory possibility. In its writing I have availed myself of the utopian space still provided by the university, which I believe must remain a place where such vital issues are investigated, discussed, reflected on. For it to become a site where social and political issues are actually either imposed or resolved would be to remove the university's function and turn it into an adjunct to whatever party is in power.

Maar ook voor academici geldt de aloude volkswijsheid dat je een ezel naar de bron kan leiden, maar je hem niet kan dwingen om te drinken. Dat is tevens het probleem met Hofland die in een interview verklaarde: 'Ik ben een contactgestoord persoon, ik wil het liefst in m'n eentje zitten. Ik hou niet zo van dat gelul.' En waarom wil hij  in z'n eentje zitten? Om, volgens eigen zeggen, elke ochtend twee uur lang de kranten te kunnen lezen. Kranten!Verblijft hij op Manhattan dan begint Hofland met de New York Times, die als sjabloon dient voor de rest van het journaille. Bijna anderhalve eeuw geleden waarschuwde Gustave Flaubert in dit verband dat

De hele droom van de democratie bestaat uit het verheffen van de proletariër tot het domheidspeil van de burgerman. Die droom is al gedeeltelijk verwezenlijkt. Hij leest dezelfde kranten en heeft dezelfde hartstochten.

Al in 1866 constateerde de grote Franse auteur in een brief aan een bevriende dame:

U heeft het over de verdorvenheid van de pers; die maakt mij zo doodziek dat kranten me een regelrechte lichamelijke walging bezorgen. Ik lees liever helemaal niets dan die verfoeilijke lappen papier. Maar men doet al het mogelijke om er iets belangrijks van te maken. Men gelooft erin en men is er bang voor. Dat is de wortel van het kwaad. Zolang de eerbied voor het gedrukte woord niet uit de wereld is geholpen, komen wij geen stap verder. Breng het publiek de liefde voor het grote bij en het zal de kleine dingen in de steek laten, of liever gezegd het zal de kleine dingen zichzelf laten uitschakelen. Ik beschouw het als een van de gelukkigste omstandigheden van mijn leven dat ik niet in kranten schrijf. Het doet mijn beurs geen goed, maar mijn geweten vaart er wel bij en dat is het voornaamste.

Elke ochtend twee uur lang de eendimensionale berichtgeving van de mainstream-kranten lezen, vernauwt het bewustzijn, vooral ook omdat de verslaafde krantenlezer vervolgens werkelijk meent op de hoogte te zijn van de belangwekkendste zaken in de wereld, terwijl men domweg gehersenspoeld is. In hun uitgebreid gedocumenteerde studie Manufacturing Consent. The political economy of the Mass Media (2002) concludeerden de Amerikaanse geleerden Edward S. Herman en Noam Chomsky met betrekking tot de berichtgeving van de westerse commerciële massamedia:

In contrast to the standard conception of the media as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in their search for truth and their independence of authority, we have spelled out and applied a propaganda model that indeed sees the media as serving a 'societal purpose,' but not that of enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process by providing them with the information needed for the intelligent discharge of political responsibilities. On the contrary, a propaganda model suggests that the 'societal purpose' of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises,

Beide wetenschappers komen na ruim 400 pagina's documentatie tot de slotsom dat:

As we have stressed throughout this book, the U.S. media do not function in the manner of the propaganda system of a totalitarian state. Rather, they permit -- indeed, encourage -- spirited debate, criticism, and dissent, as long as these remain faithfully within the system of presuppositions and principles that constitute an elite consensus, a system so powerful as to be internalized largely without awareness. No one instructed the media to focus on Cambodia and ignore East Timor. They gravitated naturally to the Khmer Rouge and discussed them freely -- just as they naturally suppressed information on Indonesian atrocities in East Timor and U.S. responsibility for the aggression and massacres. In the process, the media provided neither facts nor analyses that would have enabled the public to understand the issues or the bases of government policies toward Cambodia and Timor, and they thereby assured that the public could not exert any meaningful influence on the decisions that were made. This is quite typical of the actual 'societal purpose' of the media on matters that are of significance for established power; not 'enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process,' but rather averting any such danger. In these cases, as in numerous others, the public was managed and mobilized from above, by means of the media's highly selective messages and evasions. As noted by media analyst W. Lance Bennett: 'the public is exposed to powerful persuasive messages from above and is unable to communicate meaningfully through the media in response to the messages... Leaders have usurped enormous amounts of political power and reduced popular control over the political system by using the media to generate support, compliance, and just plain confusion among the public.'

En:

Given the imperatives of corporate organization and the workings of the various filters, conformity to the needs and interests of privileged sectors is essential to succes. In the media, as in other major institutions, those who do not display the requisite values and perspectives will be regarded as 'irresponsible,' 'ideological,' or otherwise aberrant, and will tend to fall by the wayside. While there may be a small number of exceptions, the pattern is pervasive, and expected. Those who adapt, perhaps quite honestly, will then be free to express themselves with little managerial control, and they will be able to assert, accurately, that they perceive no pressures to conform. The media are indeed free -- for those who adopt the principles required for 'societal purpose.'

Dat wat betreft de ideologische achtergrond; eveneens over de presentatie van de berichtgeving door de mainstream media valt het nodige op te merken.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzVSBVC2dSVBzS94klUuxOQVNFPXVC6nRahUk-8tpDdhc4j_qPDJ9nYSBBCdBDYqCjo_9xPKKu9t3SbjGZp4aJxZEAxdH7xTUUJqgnCuPuJsgNthneiYHfGHPBGLGBq6vK7FnyRMSgYCbe/s1600/51vJ2qQ3RYL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
The technical structure of the media virtually compels adherence to conventional thoughts; nothing else can be expressed between two commercials, or in seven hundred words, without the appearance of absurdity that is difficult to avoid when one is challenging familiar doctrine with no opportunity to develop facts or argument... The critic must also be prepared to face a defamation apparatus against which there is little recourse, an inhibiting factor that is not insubstantial... The result is a powerful system of induced conformity to the needs of privilege and power. In sum, the mass media of the United States are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without significant overt coercion. This propaganda system has become even more efficient in recent decades with the rise of the national television networks, greater mass-media concentration, right-wing pressures on public radio and television, and the growth in scope and sophistication of public relations and news management.

In zijn essay The New York Times Versus The Civil Society (2005) schreef de onafhankelijke Amerikaanse media-analist en econoom Edward S. Herman een vernietigend artikel over 's werelds invloedrijkste krant.

The veteran New YorkTimes reporter John Hess has said that in all 24 years of his service at the paper he 'never saw a foreign intervention that the Times did not support, never saw a fare increase or a rent increase or a utility rate increase that it did not endorse, never saw it take the side of labor in a strike or lockout, or advocate a raise for underpaid workers. And don’t let me get started on universal health care and Social Security. So why do people think the Times is liberal?' The paper is an establishment institution and serves establishment ends. As Times historian Harrison Salisbury said about former executive editor Max Frankel, 'The last thing that would have entered his mind would be to hassle the American Establishment, of which he was so proud to be a part.'

Ralph Nader merkte dan ook terecht op:

Face it, America. You are a corporate-controlled country with the symbols of democracy in the constitution and statutes just that-symbols of what the founding fathers believed or hoped would be reality.

Dit is precies de context waarin een mainstream opiniemaker als Henk Hofland zich als een vis in het water beweegt. Hoewel in het leven van ieder mens het heden niet losgekoppeld kan worden van zijn verleden, is dit toch precies wat Hofland met de 'Arabieren'of de 'Russen' doet, of met welke bevolking dan ook die in zijn ideologische waanvoorstelling op een bepaald moment gestigmatiseerd of gecriminaliseerd moet worden. Oorzaak en gevolg bestaan bij hem dan niet, dus wordt geen aandacht besteed aan datgene waarop Edward Said wees, namelijk

the fact that the extraordinary global reach of classical nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century European imperialism still casts a considerable shadow over our own times.

Kenmerkend voor het gebrek aan empathie voor de ontelbare slachtoffers van het westerse expansionisme is het verzwijgen van het koloniale verleden. Dit ontbreken van inlevingsvermogen is nog schrijnender wanneer men weet dat Hofland nog steeds impliciet pleit voor grootschalige luchtbombardementen, terwijl hij het bombardement van Rotterdam op 14 mei 1940, waarbij 'naar schatting 650 tot 900 mensen' om het leven kwamen, op afstand meemaakte en deze traumatische gebeurtenis 41 jaar nadien kwalificeerde als 'een enorme infame daad' en 'één van de grootste misdaden.' Hoeveel humaner reageert de in 1974 geboren Amerikaanse beeldend kunstenaar Matthew Day Jackson. Toen ik in 2012, voorafgaand aan een interview met Chris Hedges, hetPrinceton University Art Museum bezocht, zag ik daar een maquette van hem van een verbrande stad, onderdeel van een serie getiteld August 6th 1945, die een beeld geven van de moderne horror van luchtbombardementen, begeleid door de volgende tekst:

Jackson explores subjects as varied as history, science, landscape, and belief. Nearly all of these issues are addressed in August 6th, 1945. Using only wood, lead, and a blowtorch, Jackson re-creates a bird’s-eye view of Dresden, Germany, circa February 15, 1945, shortly after the city was engulfed in flames as the result of a bombing campaign by British and American forces. Associated with astronauts, cartographers, and surveillance satellites, the aerial perspective speaks to the relationship between power, vision, and knowledge; it also places viewers inside the planes that flew over Dresden and alongside Paul Tibbets, the pilot who captained the Enola Gay to Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945. Like many of Jackson’s works, the assemblage seen here addresses the weaponization of technology as well as the contradictory fruits of human progress. 'There is no document of civilization,' philosopher Walter Benjamin famously wrote in 1940, 'that is not simultaneously a document of barbarism.'

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFhg90l_hvbIDQwOhRuVMFyDxKmlqWqR54Wz65Pxb4oMnHFERqapApy9UFhCO-XDsk1yeHYv_mqBlqmVIFN65fs5b3elyYpdPXIXftuFl2Z6sJQobPQcn19CUjI_0lz4Rnt6fBAn896akf/s1600/unnamed.jpg

Zelf zei Jackson in een interview:

Hiroshima defies understanding, but you can recognize the bankruptcy of it all and how much of my life is predicated on it. In Hiroshima’s subsequent birth of the Nuclear society and family, and you could also argue, the internet, and the way that we understand each other – the nuclear weapon was more effective in creating a cohesive humanity and understanding with one another way more so than the hippy movement could have ever dreamed. But not through love, but in the ability to kill with impunity, without borders – there’s no edge to a nuclear explosion. It never goes away. And in trying to and how I understand Hiroshima, it affects the kind of sculpture that I make.

Wat de jonge Amerikaanse beeldend kunstenaar Matthew Day Jackson wel kan, kan de stokoude Nederlandse opiniemaker H.J.A. Hofland niet, zich inleven in de slachtoffers van meer dan één 'enorme infame daad' die meer dan één 'van de grootste misdaden' in de geschiedenis der mensheid zijn geweest. Qua destructie, verlies aan mensenlevens en consequenties voor de toekomst was Rotterdam vergeleken met Hiroshima en de napalm-bombardementen op Vietnam, en de Shock and Awe-campagne tegen de Iraakse bevolking een bagatel. Jackson wil met zijn verbrande steden laten zien hoe een moderne oorlog eruit ziet, hij wil aantonen hoe massaal geweld de wereld in een uniforme verwoesting achterlaat, en dat de uitslaande brand nooit meer ophoudt. In de praktijk van alledag is sprake van 'just a continuation or atmosphere of fire.' Degene die langs zijn maquettes van verbrande steden trekt, ziet al van veraf 'a rush of fire through alleyways and streets,' maar geen mensen, die zijn al weggesmolten door de hitte van de brandbommen, net als bijvoorbeeld de burgers in de Duitse stad Dresden op 13-14 februari  1945, toen

Seventy percent of the Dresden dead either suffocated or died from poison gases that turned their bodies green and red. The intense heat melted some bodies into the pavement like bubblegum, or shrunk them into three-foot long charred carcasses. Clean-up crews wore rubber boots to wade through the ‘human soup’ found in nearby caves. In other cases, the superheated air propelled victims skyward only to come down in tiny pieces as far as fifteen miles outside Dresden.

Jackson spreekt over hoe bedrieglijk de 'mythologie van de Koude Oorlog' is. 'We believe it is over and that is definitely a much more comfortabel thought than to think that it just continued and moved to different places,' zo verklaarde hij in 2012 tegenover de vooraanstaande Britse kunstcriticus Andrew Graham-Dixon. 'I think we have forgotten' zei hij tenslotte over de verschrikkingen van oorlogsgeweld. Dezelfde verschrikkingen die eeuwenlang het westers kolonialisme hebben begeleid, en waarvan de auteur Joseph Conrad in Heart of Darkness (1899) een accurate beschrijving geeft. 'The horror! The horror!' als rode lijn door de geschiedenis van de westerse 'beschaving,'   en beschreven lang voordat Auschwitz en Hiroshima demonstreerden wat de pedante Hofland en zijn 'politiek-literaire elite' angstvallig proberen te verzwijgen, omdat ze anders zichzelf en hun publiek niet meer kunnen bedriegen met hun geclaimde superioriteit. Inderdaad, de feiten over de eigen verschrikkingen is de intelligentsia'forgotten.' 

Wanneer Hofland het heeft over 'het hedendaags failliet van de Arabische beschaving,' terwijl toch 'het vredestichtende Westen' getracht heeft 'het tij' met 'oorlogen' (!) te 'keren,' dan verzwijgt hij één van de belangrijkste oorzaken van het bankroet, namelijk het verraad van de westerse grootmachten tijdens de hele negentiende en twintigste eeuw, tot nu aan toe.  Hoewel aanvankelijk de Arabieren onafhankelijk werd beloofd als zij in opstand zouden komen tegen het Ottomaanse rijk waarmee Groot Britannië en Frankrijk in oorlog waren, verdeelden tegelijkertijd al in 1916 beide Europese koloniale mogendheden in het geheim de door hen gecreëerde nieuwe Arabische staten. Die landen werden met passer en lineaal zo gevormd dat het de olie- en geopolitieke belangen van de Franse en Britse elite het best dienden, zonder rekening te houden met etnische verschillen of politieke voorkeuren van de betreffende bevolkingsgroepen. In de jaren zeventig van de vorige eeuw zag het Westen door de uiterst bloedige Libanese burgeroorlog wat voor chaos er ontstond, zodra de moeizaam verworven balans werd verstoord. Maar dit weerhielden Washington, Wall Street en het Europa van 'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel' er geenszins van om het afgelopen decennium met massaal geweld te interveniëren in het Midden-Oosten en de Maghreb. Gezien het feit dat de NAVO met zijn agressie tegen islamitische landen doorgaat, lijkt het er verdacht veel op dat het westerse offensieve bondgenootschap er juist op uit is om zoveel mogelijk chaos en burgeroorlogen te creëren, geheel conform het aloude (neo)koloniale adagium: 'verdeel en heers.' Want na burgeroorlogen te hebben veroorzaakt in Afghanistan, Irak, Libië, Syrië en Jemen zou men  verwachten dat zelfs de westerse elite beseft dat dit beleid vanuit de officieel beleden idealen van democratie en mensenrechten volkomen contraproductief werkt. 

Hofland en zijn claque blijven evenwel hinderlijke historische feiten mee te laten spelen in hun eendimensionale, zwat-wit voorstelling van zaken. De Iraans-Amerikaanse hoogleraar Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature aan de prestigieuze Columbia University, Hamid Dabashi, benadrukt in zijn studie Iran. A People Interrupted (2007) het volgende fenomeen, waarmee de door het Westen gekoloniseerde volkeren geconfronteerd werden:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqpO-6_EJGvPbIe8rAcR7gYdulVwtg1Xss3d3cPjdRY78zXkcBLJvZmY4O5_BhpYXlY4tcCp4OueedH5CzFG59plZufJoF3zjJgguhYU9CBRh6WcbfWcMGGPqh7rVl1XHl7ROPrqtMK-kd/s1600/51-RqZZLWRL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
Iranians became colonized and exposed to European modernity at one and the same time; thus, they can be modern only in a colonial sense, and they cannot be decolonized without simultaneously losing a presiding sense of how to live with the modernity of their own history. The root of the paradox is not just the fact that we (like pretty much the rest of the world) received Enlightenment modernity through the gun barrels of European colonialism…

Caught in the snare of that paradox, the cul-de-sac of colonial modernity, of being either modern in the indignity of colonial terms or else decolonized with the delusions of cultural authenticity, which is itself the worst kind of 'Westoxication,' Iranians (like all other people around the world marginalized around the imaginary center of 'the West') have fended for themselves by oscillating among nationalist, socialist, and Islamist terms of their struggles for freedom and democracy. 

Hier kunt u mijn interview met Dabashi beluisteren:

Omdat de kleinburgerlijke westerse mainstream-media niet de historische ontwikkeling rationeel begrijpelijk willen maken, maar alleen met emotionele beelden willen veroordelen, besteedt Hofland geen enkele aandacht aan de culturele, sociale, en zelfs niet eenspolitieke voorgeschiedenis, waarbij nog in 1953 de Britse geheime dienst en de CIA de democratische regering van premier Mossadeq ten val bracht omdat zij de onbeschaamdheid had om de eigen Iraanse oliebronnen te nationaliseren. De democratische regering werd vervangen door het terreur-bewind van de Sjah van Perzië, die kort daarvoor was uitgeweken, in afwachting van de door het Westen gefinancierde geweld dat hem weer op de -- met bladgoud en 26.733 edelstenen versierde -- pauwen-troon zou zetten. Omdat de Iraanse staatsgreep in 1953 in interne, toen nog geheime documenten, werd beschouwd als een uiterst bruikbaar model voor toekomstige 'regime changes' (inclusief die in Oekraïne), is het interessant te  zien hoe de westerse geheime diensten, onder aanvoering van de CIA, te werk gingen. De Iraanse  ‘regime-change,’ was georganiseerd door de Amerikaanse functionaris Kermit Roosevelt, kleinzoon van president Theodore Roosevelt, die in Iran met CIA-geld de Iraanse onderwereld overhaalde om de pro-Mossadeqh bevolking met geweld te terroriseren. Kermit Roosevelt nam daarvoor contact op met twee van zijn Iraanse geheime dienstmensen. De Amerikaanse oud-correspondent van de New York Times, professor Stephen Kinzer, schreef hierover in All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (2003):

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBz-P3XD6iGp7EYbufZQ0fRcklMQl2fY4WB1M5Cfvz1GBfKb2lrDBYdGL32543kZYogRvuV5vM-vHa27Jd0BO2L1Y4TYPuUZLXGyW6rkI85XxD2SjWEGDXYhJWNkARQC-cBkoWdlMKFYO7/s1600/51RzFl0x-uL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
These two agents had excellent relations with Tehran's street gangs, and Roosevelt told them he now wished to use those gangs to set off riots around the city. To his dismay, they replied that they could no longer help him because the risk of arrest had become too great. This was a potentially fatal blow to Roosevelt's new plan. He responded in the best tradition of secret agents. First he offered the two agents $50,000 to continue working with him. They remained unmoved. Then he added the second part of his deal: if the men refused, he would kill them. That changed their minds. They left the embassy compound with a briefcase full of cash and a renewed willingness to help. That week, a plaque of violence descended on Tehran. Gangs of thugs ran wildly through the streets, breaking shop windows, firing guns into mosques, beating passersby, and shouting 'Long Live Mossadeqh and Communism!'  Other thugs, claiming alliance to the self-exiled shah attacked the first ones. Leaders of both factions were actually working for Roosevelt... 

De rest is geschiedenis, Mossadeqh werd gevangen genomen, de sjah in het zadel geholpen, de oppositie gemarteld en democratie vernietigd. Met steun van het Westen kon het regime van de shah tot 1979 ongestoord doorgaan met martelen en moorden. Voor de Amerikaanse autoriteiten werd de 1953-staatsgreep een schoolvoorbeeld van hoe hun belangen het best verdedigd konden worden. Bijna overal konden Washington en Wall Street marionetten aan de macht helpen door omkoping, chantage, bedreigingen en, als dit alles niet hielp, met geweld. Wikipedia meldt dit over Kermit Roosevelt:

By the early 1950s, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. was a senior officer in the CIA's Middle Eastern division. At that time, there was a political crisis centered in Iran that commanded the focused attention of British and American intelligence outfits. In 1951, the Iranian parliament, under the leadership of the nationalist movement of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, voted unanimously to nationalize the oil industry. This shut out the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was a pillar of Britain's economy and political clout. A month after that vote, Mossadegh was elected prime minister of Iran.

In response to nationalization, Britain placed an embargo on Iranian oil exports, which worsened the already fragile economy. Neither the AIOC nor Mossadegh was open to compromise in this period, with Britain insisting on a restoration of the AIOC and Mossadegh willing only to negotiate the terms of its compensation for lost assets. U.S. President Harry S. Truman ruled out joining Britain in a coup against Mossadegh, and Britain felt unable to act without American cooperation, particularly since Mossadegh had shut down their embassy in 1952. Truman's successor, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was persuaded by anti-communist arguments that there was potential for Iran's Communist Tudeh Party to capitalize on political instability and assume power, aligning Iran and its immense oil resources with the Soviet bloc. Coup plans which had stalled under Truman were revived by an eager intelligence corps, with powerful aid from the brothers John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State) and Allen Welsh Dulles (Director of Central Intelligence), after Eisenhower's inauguration in 1953.

According to Roosevelt, he slipped across the border under his CIA cover as ‘James Lockridge’ on June 19, 1953. He was put up in the capital, Tehran, in a place rented by British intelligence…

Under Roosevelt's direction, the CIA and British intelligence funded and led a campaign of black propaganda and bribery leading to a coup d'etat to overthrow Mossadegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah in Operation Ajax. The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans.

Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup faltered initially and the Shah fled Iran. After a brief exile in Italy, however, the Shah was brought back again, this time through a second coup which was successful.

In his book All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, The New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer reported that the CIA ordered Roosevelt to leave Iran. Roosevelt ignored the order and, instead organized a second coup, this one successful. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and placed in solitary confinement for three years in military prison, followed by house arrest for life. Zahedi was installed to succeed prime minister Mossadegh.

After that coup, Kinzer reported that the Shah said to Roosevelt, 'I owe my throne to God, my people, my army—and to you.' […]

In 2003, William Blum, in Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II criticized Roosevelt for providing no evidence when he ‘argu[ed] that Mossadegh had to be removed to prevent a communist takeover’ of Iran. Blum noted that while Roosevelt kept repeating how Mossadegh was a danger due to his seizure of the oil industry and his other Socialist reforms as well as his cooperation with the Tudeh Party, Mossadegh's role was much more nuanced. This view was shared by many in the Intelligence community, although most notably the head of the CIA station in Iran resigned rather than participate in the coup.

Een jaar later pleegde de VS opnieuw een staatsgreep waarbij een democratie om zeep werd geholpen. Ditmaal dichter bij huis. In 1954 werd met behulp van tenminste twintig miljoen dollar aan Amerikaans belastinggeld de democratisch gekozen president Jacobo Arbenz van Guatemala verdreven. De door een grote meerderheid gekozen Arbenz, die zijn ‘onderontwikkeld land met een overwegend feodale economie’ wilde veranderen in een ‘moderne kapitalistische staat,’ maakte daarbij een fundamentele fout: hij legde beslag op een braakliggend land dat in handen was United Fruit Company, een concern met schatrijke aandeelhouders als de Rockefeller-familie en waarvan

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr6fbBdeVufafDWjBMT6es_YqiNOdi3GM2zNPParj7ZKeeQ4gDz9EiuPsC1-h1Zs7p4WD10zRmKFMcZof9lK9YJHFLWakedEi610UcilcnWG5W7wWeFEuvnNyusmaR3EXyTxgv6xZeYCe2/s1600/Unknown-2.jpeg
John Foster Dulles and the firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, had been legal council for the United Fruit Company for decades and John Foster Dulles was also a major shareholder in UFC.  And at the time John Foster Dulles was also the Secretary of State under President Dwight D Eisenhower.  Dulles’s grandfather had also been Secretary’s of State in the time of President Ben Harrison. Allen W Dulles the brother of John Foster Dulles was also a major shareholder of the company and whiled away his empty hours being the Director of the CIA. General Robert Carter, head of the National Security Council was a former Chairman of the Board of United Fruit. Thomas G Corcorran, everyone’s 'Mr Fixit' – an appalling man whose biography would be a true adventure story- and who was often accused of corrupt behavior back home, worked for the CIA was a paid consultant for United Fruit.

Terwijl deze United Fruit-kongsi van rijke Amerikaanse beleidsbepalers via een PR-campagne Arbenz lieten afschilderen als een willig gereedschap van ‘de internationale Communistische samenzwering,’ organiseerden Rockefeller’s persoonlijke vrienden, de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken John Foster Dulles en zijn broer Allen Dulles, hoofd van de CIA, een reeks gewelddadige sabotageprogramma’s, waarbij het openbare leven in Guatemala werd ontwricht. Tenslotte hielp Washington een stroman, generaal Castillo Armas, aan de macht, wat het begin betekende van een serie bloeddorstige regimes die de afgelopen halve eeuw meer dan honderdduizend Guatemalteken hebben vermoord. Aan de andere kant van de Stille Oceaan verschafte de CIA in 1965  het door de VS getrainde en gesteunde Indonesische leger lijsten met namen van hervormingsgezinde Indonesiërs die moesten worden vermoord. Volgens diplomatieke documenten liep deze massamoord parallel met de geplande en succesvolle militaire machtsovername. In een paar weken tijd werden naar schatting tussen de 500.000 en 1 miljoen mensen op een vaak gruwelijke wijze gedood. Tien jaar later viel het leger van het Soeharto-regime Oost-Timor binnen, een voormalige Portugese kolonie met aanzienlijke olie-reserves. Bij het daarop volgende verzet tegen de bezetter werd eenkwart tot eenderde van alle Oost-Timorezen met Amerikaanse wapens uitgeroeid, gerekend naar het aantal inwoners de grootste genocide sinds de holocaust tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog.

Geen woord hierover vinden we terug in Hoflands beschouwingen die gefocust zijn op de 'failliete beschaving' van Arabieren of Russen of die van andere volkeren die zich weigeren neer te leggen bij de dictaten van Washington en Brussel. In plaats daarvan prijst de 'politiek-literaire elite' alhier bij monde van bijvoorbeeld Geert Mak de Amerikaanse buitenlandse politiek omdat het imperium, volgens hem, 'decennialang als ordebewaker en politieagent – om maar te zwijgen van alle hulp die het uitdeelde.' Op zijn beurt spreekt de al even gecorrumpeerde H.J.A. Hofland van 'het vredestichtende Westen.'

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU6KDeQNjiOfIe-KmH-Usnj8ExbVsXZggYvhnUt-59S7XenQtiKzgt0P-Oj81f7W2RiykLnamFJPZBi1UrqSK5tLed4OHi6ePjOA2iEe28oHNSpxqq4tFKup-GAURfX9fiQ8eRpbAflDBE/s1600/media_xl_847849.jpg

Wie in Nederland zou dergelijke gerespecteerde ‘Amerikadeskundigen’ durven tegenspreken? Maar anderzijds: wie van de polderintellectuelen heeft het in 2013 verschenen Kill Anything That Moves. The Real American War in Vietnam gelezen? Daarin wijst de Amerikaanse historicus Nick Turse erop dat

Americans have long been taught that events such as the notorious My Lai massacre were isolated incidents in the Vietnam War, carried out by ‘a few bad apples.’

Op basis van geheime documenten en ‘first-person interviews’ toont Turse na een baanbrekende onderzoek aan dat

violence against Vietnamese noncombatants was not at all exceptional during the conflict. Rather, it was pervasive and systematic, the predictable consequence of orders to ‘kill anything that moves.’

Drawing on more than a decade of research in secret Pentagon files and extensive interviews with American veterans and Vietnamese survivors Turse reveals for the first time how official policies resulted in millions of innocent civilians killed and wounded. In shocking detail, he lays out the workings of a military machine that made crimes in almost every major American combat unit all but inevitable.

Turse’s onderzoek onderbouwt zijn conclusies met ondermeer documenten uit overheidsarchieven ‘filled with Washington’s long suppressed war crimes investigations.’ In de epiloog schrijft Turse onder de titel 'Wandering Ghosts':

Despite the decades that have passed, despite the presidents who have attempted to rebrand the war or dispatch it to the dustbin of history, Americans are still in the thrall of a conflict that refuses to pass quietly into the night. Never having come to grips with what our country actually did during the war, we see its ghost arise anew with every successive military intervention. Was Iraq the new Vietnam? Or was that Afghanistan? Do we see ‘light at the end of the tunnel’? Are we winning ‘hearts and minds’? Is ‘counterinsurgency’ working? Are we applying ‘the lessons of Vietnam’? What are those lessons, anyway?

The true history of Vietnamese civilian suffering does not fit comfortably into America’s preferred postwar narrative – the tale of a conflict nobly fought by responsible commanders and good American boys, who should not be tainted by the occasional mistakes of a few ‘bad apples’ in their midst. Still, this is hardly an excuse for averting our eyes from the truth.

Juist in dit laatste zijn opiniemakers als Hofland en Mak getraind als geen ander. Zij doen precies wat George Orwell tijdens het begin van de Tweede Wereldoorlog in zijn essay Notes on Nationalism als volgt beschreef:

Events which it is felt ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied... Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world.

Meer over de polder-propagandisten later.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhof-lD9iFd32sig4j-g-iZT0X-hTBMqmepsh8n9zSBV9euQ9XObU0CCIPogJ-FOUcfD9USmbATYUO-MYrLX6sI7GEHqLFxXvKejDA7bmujM7LwUQnxQLJUdKOrR5ZL8agED4eg8TMOsDFf/s1600/geertm1-9e67e.jpg

              There must be some kind of way out of here, 

                         Said the joker to the thief,

               There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.

                        

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwvFwpFzKf_fPFesdnIawqfjIb7Q8kTUeacevzUEBKy9yhLQKs3_MlCEJMs24kpPwA63UmFk-J9ls6BILXIbJU0pzSQ-L2mrfm-tWbKCKqDjY7X3kiEMOaq1GhE4EsuFq5BlfV1zv_swXp/s1600/How-the-Israel-Lobby-Protected-Ukrainian-Neo-Nazis.jpg
Ukraine’s neo-Nazi leader becomes top military adviser, legalizes fighters
Published time: April 06, 2015 03:12
Edited time: April 06, 2015 13:18 
Image from mil.gov.ua
Image from mil.gov.ua
3.1K1K23
Trends
Tags
Ukraine’s Interpol-wanted leader of extremist group Right Sector, Dmitry Yarosh, has been appointed as an adviser to the country’s Chief of General Staff. He has agreed to legalize thousands of fighters as an assault team subordinate to the regular army.
“Colonel General Viktor Muzhenko, Chief of General Staff, and Dmytro Yarosh agreed the format of cooperation between ‘Pravy Sector’ [Right Sector] and the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” Ukraine’s defense ministry said in a statement.
The appointment apparently comes after successful negotiations took place between the so-called Ukrainian Volunteer Corps (DUK Right Sector) and Ukraine’s top military command regarding possible options of incorporating the armed gangs inside the defense ministry’s structure of command.
The Right Sector’s armed paramilitary battalions agreed to be “subordinated to military leaders,” the ministry said. According to the statement, Muzhenko and Yarosh stressed the need for “unity”,confirming fighters’ readiness to obey Kiev’s central command.
“DUK is ready to perform common tasks with the Army, ready to obey the army leadership in matters relating to national defense against an external enemy, which enables every patriot to protect Ukraine,” Yarosh said.
Image from mil.gov.ua
Image from mil.gov.ua

Yarosh, who was one of the main figureheads of the violence-seeped coup last year, is wanted by Interpol for incitement of terrorism, and extremist activities. He was placed on the international wanted list at the request of Russian authorities. Despite his notoriety, Yarosh is an elected member of the Ukrainian parliament heading the Right Sector political party, which is banned in Russia as an extremist organization
Over the weekend Yarosh announced that he plans to legalize private military companies in Ukraine, and will soon introduce new legislation into the Parliament.
"I think it could be a good option for people, who can’t get back from war inside their heads," the extremist leader claimed. “This will provide jobs to many people, and stability in the country, after all.”

The legalization comes after Yarosh offered to reform his Volunteer Corps into a professional assault team, in response to Kiev’s demands for all paramilitary units to surrender their arms or join the country’s official armed forces. Right Sector initially refused to obey the ultimatum, calling them“traitorous” and claiming that “volunteers and patriots” will only lay down arms after Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty is restored.
The so-called volunteer, as well as territorial defense and other types of privately formed and sponsored battalions, have been fighting alongside Ukraine’s regular army since Kiev began its “anti-terrorist operation” in the east of the country last April. Many of them have been noted for their cruelty and murderous tactics against the local population, such as Aidar and Azov being accused by international human rights associations of war crimes.
After a ceasefire agreement was reached in February, some of these armed units refused to leave the Donbass region and have regularly violated the reached agreements.


https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXDI7ffBSKCX2mOg5b7HJV-a5A0vPkn4GLqmcCqc-_72jpGTntCkSjLxhEyQG32XXArEGLcxI6KQrt3hOYiLZ44ubvZnnuryiOq04wWYA6lFtUIUGhlC53Jfl685WJYoMHR-uJRTYO9gyK/s1600/hqdefault.jpg

De Europese Beschaving van Geert Mak en Henk Hofland.
FORGET CONGRESS! “THE DEEP STATE” IS AMERICA’S “REAL BAD GUY” IN UKRAINE
Global Research, April 06, 2015
Oriental Review
Region: Russia and FSUUSA
In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT
CONGRESS
In his introduction to the US-Russia Expert Panel prompt about whether Congress can be lobbied away from arming Ukraine, Mr. Doctorow mentions previous American interventions abroad that were “well-intentioned and even noble” but ultimately “resulted in catastrophe”, such as “Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya”. The strong issue taken with this statement is that the US’ interventions there and everywhere else were and always will be anything but well-intentioned and noble, being driven by pure geopolitical power plays in each and every instance.
It’s exactly this “well-intentioned and even noble” mindset that has convinced the vast majority of Congress of the righteousness of arming Ukraine, and no amount of lobbying will get them to see beyond this perspective unless they themselves really want to. Suggesting that “developments outside the States, meaning from decisions made in Europe” could have a positive effect on convincing Congress to pull back from its current course completely ignores the reality of American Exceptionalism and the fact that Congress may actually feel emboldened to arm Ukraine simply because the EU is seen as being ‘weak’ and ‘dilly dallying’ over this artificially pressing topic.
It’s important at this point to question the logic of even lobbying Congress against arming Ukraine in the first place, since President Putin has previously said that Kiev is already getting arms from Western countries anyhow. This shows that Congress’ function isn’t to call the shots in American foreign policy, but to function as ‘democratic’ window dressing for established deep state policies. To expand upon this further, the deep state is defined by the author as representing the permanent diplomatic, defense, and intelligence bureaucracy that doesn’t cycle out of power whenever presidential administrations change. They represent a continuous and consistent force in shaping the application of America’s foreign policy, hence why despite the regular shuffling of the state’s upper echelon (e.g. Secretary of State, Director of the CIA, the President), the country’s policies proceed unabated amidst these symbolic periodic transitions.
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the National Prayer Breakfast in WashingtonThis is exceptionally true for American foreign policy against Russia, and one needs look no further than the new US National Security Strategy of 2015 to recognize both the power of the deep state and the futility of lobbying Congress against its dictates. The document explicitly makes it clear that Russia is now seen as a threat to American national security and that the US “will continue to impose significant costs on Russia through sanctions and other means”. Specific attention should be drawn to the last part, “and other means”, which is an obvious allusion to hostile covert operations such as arming Ukraine. The die has already been cast when it comes to sanctions (see the certainty with which the document speaks about the continued imposition of sanctions without any reference to Congress whatsoever), so it should be no different when it comes to weapons shipments either.
Finally, in the absolutely unlikely event that Congress passes legislation expressly prohibiting the arming of Ukraine, then the deep state, with the rubber stamping of the President, can resort to more surreptitious methods to carry out its preplanned shipments, with the Iran-Contra scandal immediately coming to mind. It doesn’t matter what exact form this takes, but what’s important is to acknowledge that ‘where there’s the will, there’s the way’, and the US deep state certainly has the will to continue pushing Russia’s buttons and prodding it into a costly conventional intervention in Ukraine on terms which are controlled by Washington. The solution, therefore, lies not in fruitlessly lobbying Congress and impossibly reversing a fait accompli, but in accepting the reality of the deep state’s overriding influence on foreign affairs and redirecting one’s efforts towards more constructive endeavors, such as raising awareness among the population about this state of affairs and supporting independent media and political oversight initiatives that seek to shed light on it.
Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWWlxR7_pIGP0vq3nqkv2IcI1IlaF-YGFCHsJzEGyb1ShEWFLNyHwS5LV_X_3U8HZRr41365ZgHAen93P8SjYAglPegs-ES3XfsxxiC_sSHkOAxolfRtuWEaitqNUQWoxCOSvqc6twI5Yh/s1600/neo_nazis_ukraine.jpg

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

William Butler Yeats.
 The Second Coming. 1919