Wednesday, August 28, 2019

888 Mijn reacties op de youtube van Dilbert alias Scott Adams



De politieke cartoon tekenaar Dilbert heet in het echt Scott Adams. 

Met zijn eigen naam maakt hij felle pro-America video's waar hij een eigen stijl heeft ontwikkeld : rustig pratend,  op rituele wijze koffie drinkend etc.

In zijn 23 aug. 2019  video komt hij heel hard uit de hoek tegen China: "Fuck you China. You can all die"

( Dat laatste trekt ie wel onmiddelijk weer in:  niet de chinese burgers zijn de schuld.) 



Hij heeft 25000 abonnees en de video's worden even vaak bekeken. 

De bijna 1000 reacties tonen aan hoe vreselijk eenzijdig de Amerikanen tegen China kijken. 

Als de grote gevaarlijke vijand. 
Dat hun eigen land zich al decennia lang volledig misdraagt, internationaal:  ze hebben er duidelijk geen idee van. 

Ik heb heel wat pittige reacties geplaatst, en veel reacties gekregen,

De reden dat ik dit hier plaats is dat ik nogal tevreden ben over mijn eigen postings. 

Op Blik kreeg ik er ook een complimentje over van Rootman. 



Johan Vermeulen
America spends 86 billion $$ each year just for Intelligence. And all these people together cannot stop the Chinese from sending Fentanyl to the USA ? Your fine NSA has every phone call I made in its archives. Every email I ever sent. And now they cannot stop the packets with Fentanyl ? Listen: They are maybe letting it through to make a villain out of China. They are preparing you for War. They are making you angry so that you want to make War. They did it in WW1. ( Germans cutting of breasts. Bayonetting babies: all lies. The Lusitania: a set up by America. ) They did it in WW2: Pearl Harbour was FDR's plan. Read Stinnnet: Days of Deceit. They did it on 9/11 to be able to destroy muslim countries around Israel. And they will do it tomorrow. And they will ask your sons to give their lives for your 1 %. And you will do it because you are not curious. You believe them all the time. You are to blame for your own uninformedness. So accept the consequences.

Er kwamen drie reacties op mijn post. Ik heb ze niet beantwoord. 
Dit zijn de 3 reacties:

BEANTWOORDEN
Antwoorden verbergen
Keith Terbeek
Almost as if Intelligence was in on it! Whaaaaah?
1
BEANTWOORDEN
Bill Dingee
In most respects, your observations about historical events leading to this point are closer to the truth than most of us in North America have been given reason to believe. In particular the role and the sacrifices made by Russia and Russians to rid Europe of the scourge of Nazi Germany vis a vis those of The Allies. Even top America military leadership of that time acknowledged it until politics foisted the Cold War onto the global scene. None of which changes the many global imperatives as identified by President Trump that have been intentionally permitted to fester, many for decades, to which for all intents and purposes he is saying "Shit or get off the pot." The man is far from being the crazed Oligarch that his political opponents have painted him to be. He knows he can't simply turn the America Constitution on its head to achieve his objectives, ala GW Bush and Obama, but that will not stop him from trying to normalize relations with other countries. If being offensive or pushy or insulting or heavy-handed (punitive sanctions/tariffs) then he is prepared to use every legal weapon at his disposal to get others to hear him. Clearly, diplomacy, or at least the appearances of diplomacy have not been particularly effective in the past. He knows it, and every major leader with whom he must engage knows it. Chances are Trump truly believed the Chinese President could convince the country leadership of understanding the importance of what he was conveying and taking steps to put an end to illicit trade behaviours. Absent clear intent to do so, he is calling their hand. This does not bode well for securities markets over the short term, but if it achieves desired outcomes, it could not only lead to better relations with a proud nation but underscore the message to other global leaders that his perspectives on counter-productive global relations as they have evolved over these past several decades are not to be trifled with much longer.
Meer weergeven
1
BEANTWOORDEN
rstone7727
Thanks for your input Xi...
BEANTWOORDEN

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

I will add another rant: Read the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ( Also known as 'The PNAC Report." ) Its like "Mein Kampf', only much more terrible. Read 'Training Circular 18-01'. Read The Economic Hitman. Read the Yinon Plan. Are you 'The Exceptional' ? Yes ! Are you The Indispensable? I Wish you were gone! Look at the 33 countries you bombed in the last 70 years. Go to the countries that you destroyed: like Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq, Libia, Syria, just to name a few. Shame on you all!

Er kwamen 7 reacties op mijn post.
De eerste van Wes Fleming. Maar hij heeft later zijn reactie weg gehaald: 

BEANTWOORDEN
Antwoorden verbergen
Johan Vermeulen
​@Wes Fleming I live in Europe, and after 1945 America did not bomb one country on Europe's behalf. Not one ! Here is the list: https://williamblum.org/chapters/rogue-state/united-states-bombings-of-other-countries They are all neo-colonial bombings for your 1%. Wes, I speak french, german and some spanish and italian. What a strange image you paint about Putin. You may live in the land of pornography and pedophilia, where sex is money and power. But Putin lives in a country with human values. You must look better, Wes. You have it upside down. WW1 was wished for by England and the bankers. WW2 was wished for by FDR and Churchill. WW3 will be America's Thucydides war because America cannot accept that it will loose its hegemony. Living in Europe I will probably not survive it. I am not happy about that, Wes. Can you understand that? So I repeat, just to wake you all up: Shame on you all. By the way: Do not think that you saved Europe in WW2. It was the Russians that killed off 80% of the German soldiers. You and all the other Allied Countries did the remaining 20 %, when Hitler was fighting with 16 year old schoolboys. You only arrived here to take up the spoils of war. That is what you did. Do not come again.
Meer weergeven
1
BEANTWOORDEN
Arioch The
"You therefore wish for Putin." - Typical propaganda fuel.   When the world becomes complex or harsh to understand - forget about the world. Just find one single person, claim that person omnipotent and ruling all the events of the world, and then glorify or demonize it. Either it is all about Trump-Trump-Trump or about Putin-Putin-Putin, or about Kim-Kim-Kim or about Hitler-Hitler-Hitler, or about Stalin-Stalin-Stalin, or about Netanjahu-Netanjahu-Netanjahu or about... etc.   It is like we still live in 15th century with absolute dictators named Kings ruling all the nations.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
@Arioch The The natural state of man is in a small group ( or tribe) with one leader, who explains the world and the group strategy. So by evolution we are not pundits. We follow opinion leaders. This is a golden opportunity for Media and media-pundits. If you can dominate the media, people will follow you blindly, as only very few make their own analysis. I try to observe the reality myself, and write my opinion. That is the only defense we have, as a people, against the 1%.
Meer weergeven
1
BEANTWOORDEN
Bob Schmitz
For us Western Europeans Putin is actually more an ally then an adversary. No, I would not want to live there, but, given the alliance with China (where I definitely would not want to live), it gives a nice counter force to the neocon infested regime in Washington. And no, we (the people, at least a very large minority) do NOT want to contribute more to NATO! Actually, why don´t the Americans save a lot of taxpayer money and move out from all our European bases! If the Poles want to pay for ´camp Trump´, fine, but for the rest: Thank you, but no, thank you! (and don´t forget to sweep the floors before you leave!)
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Arioch The
@Bob Schmitz think that 1% in USA is so much democratic as 1% in Germany, etc. They are all grown in Cold War globalism, and they need to reinstall it to keep their tribe "proper solution" and be in power forever. I mean, u ask American John Doe "why u Yankee pay for GI in Rammstein?" and he can ask "why u Kraut allow our GI in your Rammstein?", and the answer is the same.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Arioch The
@Johan Vermeulen IOW we are like alcoholics on that. Afterall desire for alcohol-rich things is also evolutionary, ask hedgehogs drunk on rotting apples. And there should come our choice, to dig in and enjoy our being addicted, or to try to keep it in check and be double wary seeing liquor around. When i see someone focusing all the affairs on single person i try to make myself think "this guy wants to dictate me what i am allowed and not allowed to think". But sadly there are persons who enjoy being drunk with cool aid. Those exceptionazi wannabe, who got so sold on thinking other nations subhuman they will justify anything to keep it so. When the great American writer Bradbury wrote his 451F, he wrote about these kinds of Americans and about international bombers they would finally summon over their cities. It did not looked realistic back then. But sadly it does today... They are deadly set to pledge war against all the world, just like Hitler's fans were. And they do not believe it would sooner or later bring USA to the same fate that Third Reich met after it short bright pinnacle.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN

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

Why do you Americans want to have your stuff made in Latin America? Just do it yourself ! You are believing your press. But they are the 1%. For them it was profitable to bring all the industries to China. Now take it back: fine. But do it yourself. Dont let other people make what ever you need. Stop making wars and killing people all over the world, and fabricate the stuff that you need. Become a normal country. Tip: Put your bankers in jail. They deserve it. Put all Lobbyists in jail, they certainly deserve it. Throw the Neocons out. They took over your foreign policy. Let them go to their favorite country. Take your country back. Send your Evangelicals to Israel. There they will be happy. Good riddens.

Op deze post kwamen geen reacties.  
===============================================================================
The Chinese were doing fine, keeping themselves to their own country while we were colonising the world. Then the English broke their country by selling opium all over the place. It devastated China. They suffered for 200 years. Also from our fine allies the Japanese. When it wanted to get back on its feet in 1948, the USA decided otherwise: China had to be crippled again. How? By making it communist. Read the witnesses of those years, like Freda Utley. http://fredautley.com ('Last Chance in China) Or listen to Stan Monteith: https://youtu.be/8irQifrpmEY?t=126 The Chinese are doing back to us only a fraction of what we did to them. Wise up. Inform yourself. Dont make it much worse.

Hier kwamen ruim 40 reactie sop deze post. 
De helft is van mij. Mijn reactie op hun reacties. 
 Biak Tons reageert soms twee maal achter elkaar op mij.  Ik heb nietr aangegeven op welke 'tegenwerping' ik reageer. Dat moet uit de tekst blijken. Dit lijkt me het meest overzichtelijk.

BEANTWOORDEN
Antwoorden verbergen
Biak Tons
So you are for China?
BEANTWOORDEN
Fainites Barley
That is an absurdly US-centric world view.
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
Again what have America done against china? Blame the British or Japanese that's fine but tell me what have America done against china. helping them get into WTO is a sin? Dumb ass
BEANTWOORDEN
Roman Walter
Screw you and the ChiComs. Have a nice day.
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
​@Biak Tons I like the American people as much as the Chinese people. But your country is stolen by the 1%. You should take it back. Your country is used to wage wars for others. You should not do that. Now some drug addicts die from some drug which comes from China. Ask your government to stop the suppliers. Save your own stepson mr Adams. Don't hold others responsable. How much drugs did the CIA let through? Solve your own problems in your own country. Do not listen to these 1% : they need their Thucydides war, otherwise they are lost. Now they make you angry so that you will agree to die in this war, for them. Use brains, No selfpity. Does not help.
Minder weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
@Johan Vermeulen try answering my point.. What are the sins of america against the Chinese ?
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
​@Biak Tons Getting China into WTO was a blessing for China and for America's 1%. It was the beginning of the end for the 99% of the Americans. And now even the 1% is in a pickle. Only solution: a Thucydides War: the - still- stronger Hegemon starts a war against the runner up: China or Russia. But one cannot start a war, these days. So you need the other one to attack. (if he does not, you do it yourself and say the other did it. Called: False Flag. Pearl Harbor, Tonkin, 911 etc.) Before you go to war you must demonise the opponent, so that your people are behind you and your war. Mr. Adams is a great help in this. Unwitting, I suppose. Helping to destroy the world, because of personal grief and uninformedness. )
Minder weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
@Roman Walter Make up your mind, Roman. Do you wish me to be screwed, or do you wish me a nice day?
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
​@Fainites Barley Hello Fainites, I will make it worse. Go the DC, to the National Archives and read the findings of the Overman Comittee, 1920. Senator Wolcott asks to the representant of the bankers, mr. Albert Rhys Williams: "Why did you support the Russian Revolution?" His answer: 'So that Russia will be ineffective and no competitor for us." http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-ch11.html America has alway been 'absurdly US-centric', to use your words. Wake up. Inform yourself.
Minder weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
@Johan Vermeulen so you are saying America is wrong for wanting to be the No. 1.. Which one will you prefer china or Russia?
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
Which country would you rather have for super power in your perfect world
BEANTWOORDEN
dethrophes
@Johan Vermeulen what country doesn't put it's own Interests first? Nor does 2 wrongs make a right. US is probably one of the country least responsible for communist China.
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
​@Biak Tons America has bombed 33 countries since WW2. It has created color revolutions in many places. It has destabilised many countries. In october 2001 they had plans to take out 7 muslim countries. 6 of them are devastated now. Only Iran is still alive. In their 1999 'Mein Kampf' , the Neocons wrote how they want to control the world in the next 100 years. "Rebuilding America's Defenses" it is called. Also known as the PNAC Report. Already in 1992 ( the Wolfowitz Doctrine) they had decided to take down any country that would become a regional power. The sins of America against China is what we see happening now: that it does not leave China alone. It has decided to try to destroy China. It will lead to use of nuclear weapons, and will kill many millions. Why? because your 1 % thinks it has the devine right to rule the world. To steal and kill wherever it wants. Thank God for Putin and Xi. Let's hope they will be able to stop those crazy Americans. I am European. It was the Russians that stopped Hitler, not the Americans, But you probably do not know that. Inform yourself. Nobody likes you.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
​@dethrophes Every country should put its own interests first. Putin understands that when he deals with other countries. He always mentions it. But always be reasonable. Let the other live too. America has a very crazy press. Terrible liars they are. Did you know that America had only about 25 years in its existence when it was free of war? Who attacked you every time ? You have two weak neighbours! You are attacking half the world. Stealing everywhere. With your IMF, Your World Bank. Your 'economic hit men'. Who is responsible for communism? How about Karl Marx? Writing his oevre in London. Living in the USA. Trotsky getting help to go to Russia. Read what Bertrand Russell wrote about is visit in St Petersburg in 1920. They were not Russians who were creating communism there. The Russians were misled, and later died in the Gulags. They were the victims of this ideaology coming from abroad. Study it.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
​@Biak Tons At least I am sure that America has behaved so terrible all of her existence ( Killing almost all the indians. Having slavery for so long, considering South America its property, killing in the Phillipines and in North Korea, not helping Russia against the Germans untill the last minute: acting as the third party who takes the prize. Then taking over the world by banking and neo-colonialism. Using the cold war to sell weapons all over the world. The only thing in favor of the USA: as I am European I love their popular music. I am much closer to the USA than I am to Russians and certainly Chinese. And my life has been safe and peacefull thanks to this Cold War. But after 1992 the Neocons took over and refused Russia to go together with Europe. They exclude Russia, and arttacked it since 2013. Why? Because if Russia and Germany would be able to cooperate, they would out-compete the USA. ( Ask MacKinder, Kennan, Brzezinsky, Stratfor-Friedman) . I would prefer a multipolar world: USA, Russia and China , wrestling with each other, understanding that war is wrong.
Meer weergeven
1
BEANTWOORDEN
dethrophes
@Johan Vermeulen the only reason putin is so restrained, is because he isn't in a position to do more. I don't see the relevance of where Karl Marx wrote his book. Nobody forced Russian to adopt the ideology, at some point people have to take responsibility for their own fate. Also the West put a fair amount of effort into stopping communism in Russia.
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
​@dethrophes Do you believe that Putin would conquer more countries if he would be free to do so? Why would you believe that? In Georgia it was Georgia who started. Putin reacted, helped the Ossetians and Abchaze people. In Ukraïne it was the Americans who started it all : read what Gerschmann ( NED) wrote in the Wapo on 26 sept 2013: "Ukraïne wil be the big Prize. We will destabilise Putin." The Crimea was not annexed. Read what prof. Reinhard Merkel wrote in the Frankfurter A Z. Bolton has told everybody about Putin's 2005 speech: " The end of the USSR is a big catastrophe". Yes he said that. And it was a catastrophe, because the Chicago Boys (Jeffrey Sachs cs) made it a terrible mess. It was hell for the Russians. Until Putin came. But the west liked the real democrat Yeltsin better: he fired with tanks on the parliament building! Your fine Democrat Yeltsin!
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
​@dethrophes You write: " I don't see the relevance of where Karl Marx wrote his book. Nobody forced Russian to adopt the ideology," It was not written by a Russian. It was not written for Russia. And the people who forced it on the people were not Russians. They were American bankers, and people who had emigrated from Russia to New York, and yes: Russiands who were promised freedom and a better future. But this better future was a lie. Those who told the lie: they had a better future. For themselves. I cannot tell you all. You must study the details yourself. Read from all sources and choose those that you trust. Simple. If you are living in America: a similar process is happening in your country. May I then tell you this: "at some point people have to take responsibility for their own fate." America is going down the drains. I do not pity you: its your own responsability. You said it yourself.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
dethrophes
@Johan Vermeulen for the entirety of Putin's... let's say reign for want of a better word. He has been constrained by other countries power, both China and the US. As such what you are saying is akin to saying that a muzzled bear has never bitten anyone. Also invading other countries is not the only way to exert your influence over them. I'm not actually against Putin I just would classify him as harmless as you seem to.
BEANTWOORDEN
dethrophes
@Johan Vermeulen I don't live in the us and it isn't just the us going down the drain. Nor is Marxism the real problem in the us. The problem is too many people these days like to feel good about themselves, Without the discipline to force themselves to face the harsh truths of life.
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
​@dethrophes Putin is not a muzzled Bear. He is very clever and very a Real-Politic adept: He will change the world for the better, but will not commit suicide ( like JFK did, by wanting too much at once.). So he does what he can. He saw Iraq an Lybia destroyed and in 2013 he felt strong enough to stop the USA destroying Syria. He stopped the total take over of Ukraïne. He made an alliance with China, as both are under threat of the USA. He made his country safe and brought poverty down from 45 % to 13%. Life is good in Russia. He threw out the CIA , sorry, the NGO's. He stopped sabotage of his country by Identity Politics, which will destroy the USA from within.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
dethrophes
@Johan Vermeulen i never said he wasn't intelligent. What I meant is you can never gauge a person's limits by only observing their public actions when they are constrained.
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
@Johan Vermeulen let me cut through the noise of your text.. So, you won't go For Russia, china or the US and the world you ask for does not exist or has never had in human history. What does that make you?
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
@Johan Vermeulen I just read your reply to @dethrophes ... So, you prefer a communist system of government? Is this what you are saying?
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
@Biak Tons Mr. Tons, if you think that my text is like noise, you have very little knowledge to judge my words with. You probably have a very simple scheme for the world, manicheïstic I suppose. Why not studying a bit on the matter, so that you have some glimpse of what is out there? Then we can talk.
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
@Biak Tons I think communism is not a good system, but the way America has developed in the last 30 years is worse than communism, probably. The big Prize in politics is controle over the Media. If you can silence opponents, you can steal and murder and get away with it. Thanks to the internet I was able to read a lot of truth, and I understand the Main Stream Media are hopelessly biased. At least each Russian knew he was reading lies in The Pravda. The Americans still think that the lies ( by omission) in the NY Times are true ! If you clean up your press and stop selling your democracy ( 1 $ one vote. Mr. Sheldon Adelson and friends is ruling your country !) you may get a real democracy. I was elated when Trump was chosen. But very soon he had to bow for the Neocons. In essence his goals are fine: close the borders and bring your industry back to your own country. But 'they' are boss, not Trump.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
@Johan Vermeulen your political philosophy is what matters, which u didn't answer me till now. Every political philosophy has its own flaws upon its implication because of human nature, may it be a Democratic one or a communis one or socialis... But upon which philosophical ideolgy do you want to fight this imperfection is my question.. !!!!!Dont give me the He-did she-did thing, they all did, thats what I call noise. This is what I'm getting from your text. You neither like democracy or communist ! so.. What system are you proposing that the world should be govern by.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
@Biak Tons I would choose a democracy with a good socialist protection for the weaker people. But you force me to choose between systems, and that is not useful. I think communism in China is doing a much better job as a system than democracy is doing for its people in the USA at this moment. So it all depends on the way it is organised. A benevolent dictator can be a blessing for a poor country, and a democracy can be a big handicap for another poor country, like India. The Chicago Boys gave the Russian president ( Yeltsin) a lot of power. He misused it. Putin uses it in a fantastic way. The USA has been taken over by the Ayn Rand elite. Greed is good. They defend their egoïsm end stealing from the poor by proclaiming that all their success is the result of their hard work. Complete nonsens. If you have an IQ of 80 points , even hard work will not give you a good life in the States. But in a more socialist democracy it does. That is called: a human society.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Roman Walter
@Johan Vermeulen Donald Trump wants you to have a nice day and so do I. Neither he nor I have anything to do with China's past but we can change China's horrid exploitation of America today. Thank you.
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
@Roman Walter Thanks for wishing me well, Roman. Now I want to ask you something: where is the 'horrid exploitation?" Your game is - and always was - free enterprise, free competition, free trade. This is always a fine 'religion' for the powerful. But now another country turned out to be better at it than you. And now you are bitter. You look for excuses. You make accusations. You, who exploited the weaker countries in the world for many many decennia. Always defending yourself: 'Our rules are fair: work hard and work better and you can also win ! ' (Behind the curtain you used all the tricks you could think of. Read: confessions of an economic hit man. Think of the sanctions you declaired on other countries. Think of the 500.000 Iraqi children that died because of it ! Think of all the wars that you started, just for your MIC industry. Think of always inventing an ennemy and convincing your allies that they should help destroying those countries. What a mess you made of your beautiful country. How ugly you made it. And what is to come? Will you start an atomic war, just because you feel bad to be a looser? Stop reading your MSM. It will kill you and make you a killer. Find the truth. It still is out there although they will try to make it invisible. Only thing you need: hard work and wanting to know the truth.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
@Johan Vermeulen Communism in China is doing a much better job for it's people at the moment? Are you blind to not see xinjiang internment camp Falun Gong organ harvesting Fentanyl exporting. Have u not see how HONGKONG protested . No labour health care for it's factory workers. Talk about religious freedom. Freedom ofexpression. And the list goes on ... How can u even start to compare with American.. Are you right in the head?
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
"I force you to choose between system " if you have knowledge why don't you also have wisdom.
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
​@Biak Tons I am happy that China takes hundreds of millions out of poverty in just 30 years. They have thousands of miles of high speed rail.. America has none. They have developed good 5G , America has not (yet). Why would I worry about half a procent of the people who are unhappy? Would they be unhappy if not paid for it by NED or some other American NGO ? I doubt it. Why do all these rebels everywhere in the world receive help from the USA ? To destabilise their government, I read about that strategy in your PNAC Report. And in your Training Circular 18-01. So I think these problems are only big in the American press. You know: your elite wants you to go to war to their ennemies. That's why they tell you about the ennemies cutting of breasts , bayonettiong babies ( first WW) , sinking passenger ships ( Lusitania) , attacking your marines ( Tonkin) etc etc. If you are such a doo-gooder: try to make life better in Saudi Arabia. Do something for the 58000 homeless people in LA. Make sure that your poor can go to a dentist. Start there. Leave China to the chinese and all will be fine. You are just making the world worse and more dangerous. Do not do it ! Isn't Afghanistan. Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Ukraïne enough? Will you never stop your barbarism ?
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
@Johan Vermeulen To the point I mention above do you still think china is doing a better job for it OWN people (remember Own) at the MOMENT compare to America ?
BEANTWOORDEN
Roman Walter
@Johan Vermeulen Perhaps you might want to hear it from President Trump or perhaps you might take a look at international law on property rights or Fentanyl exportation into the US? Perhaps you will find some clue. Someday.
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
@Biak Tons Communism was introduced in Russia by American bankers, to keep Russia poor. In China the same trick was pulled off , probably. So from 1950 to 2000 the US was free to get rich, through their own work and by stealing from other countries. So in 2000 the American people were much better off than the Chinese. But now, 19 years later, the average Americans are worse off than in 2000. In the same last 19 years the Chinese have gotten much wealthier. Real wages have gained 600 % or more I think. Your question was: "do you still think china is doing a better job for it OWN people (remember Own) at the MOMENT compare to America ?" The answer is yes. The Chinese are still less wealthy than the Americans, but there is progresss, not recession.
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
@Roman Walter Roman, your country spread chemicals all over Vietnam,. agent Orange. You threw depleted uranium in Iraq and other places. Your proxies used poison-gas in Syria. Your sanctions killed 500.000 innocent childeren in Iraq. And now you are complaining because you think that China is not stopping the smuggling of fentanyl to your country? Its like the Nazi's complaining that they have to pay for all this Zyklon-B with their tax money. Your crimes are 100 times bigger. Plus: Your own customs cannot find it when it comes in. But Chinese customs are criminals if they cannot find it going out? And - much more important- don't you understand that you are complicit in preparing for a war of agression by your own country ? 'Let's make a villain out of him. It will take some time, but always works. " as Victor Ostrovsky wrote about this technique. ( ( By way of deception)
Meer weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
@Johan Vermeulen wow... Are you sure it's not the Jewish hahahahahahahahhahaah
BEANTWOORDEN
Biak Tons
So, you are OK if the CCP built an internment camps and harvested organs against it's own people.. In massive scale. And give no health insurance for it's massive factory workers ?
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
BEANTWOORDEN
Johan Vermeulen
@Biak Tons Biak, The Uygurs live in China for ages, but many do not even speak Chinese. Those who are punished and taken to an internment camp are not waterboarded ( Like you do with the mostly innocent muslims in Guantanamo) and are not tortured in any other way. They are forced to learn Chinese, so that they can be happy in China. Do you have a better suggestion? As for the harvesting of oragans: These things may be true, or may be a lie. We do not know. It certainly is an easy way to smear some opponent. We do not know. We only know that the germans did not baynet babies, did not cut of breasts of Belgian women, and that the Lusitania was a bait, with civilians willfully offered by your Government, to make a war possible. Likewise Pearl Harbor. Likewise the Tonkin incident etc. etc. Do not worry about the circumstrances in China. It is up to them. Worry about your Government preparing for a nuclear war, and using your gullability to make this war possible. It will cost me my life and it wil cost you your sons live.
Minder weergeven
BEANTWOORDEN
Mailer2233






Sunday, August 18, 2019

887 De Humanitaire Vlag op criminele ondernemingen.


De tijd datje een oorlog kon beginnen omdat je daar zin in had, is voorbij, gelukkig.
Oorlog en agressie wordt gezien als  slecht.

Maar als je wordt aangevallen, of als je beweert dat je zal worden aangevallen, of als je een aanval op jezelf in scene zet (een zgn. False Flag), dàn kun je nog wel ten oorlog trekken.

Robert Stinnett heeft in zijn 2000 boek over Pearl Harbor ( Day of Deceit) definitief aangetoond dat FDR zijn land absoluut in de oorlog wilde brengen, maar dat het volk dit absoluut niet wilde.
(Mooi verhaal van Thomas Fleming hierover.)

Na de schandalen m b t de CIA en de NSA en het onderzoek hier over doro het Chirch Comittee, is het NED opgewricht: Het National Endowment for Democracy.  Het is een humanitaire vlag voor criminele ondernemingen.



Hier een artikel van Robert Parry over die geschiedenis: 

( Het plan om Oekraïne te gebruiken om Putin te verdrijven heb ik geel gemaakt)
Joodse namen heb ik paars gemaakt.
Met zekerheid niet joodse mensen heb ik groen gemaakt.
Mensen van wie het onduidelijk is, of die sterke banden hebben met joodse belangen, heb ik blauw gemaakt.

We lezen vooral over het opzetten van zogenaamd neutrale organisaties die pro-regering-standpunten moeten propageren.
Maar het is de regering die ze op zet en financiering zoekt.
Er worden ook films gemaakt die deze propaganda realiseren.


CIA’s Hidden Hand in ‘Democracy’ Groups
January 8, 2015 • 15 Comments
Bewaren

Special Report: Documents from the Reagan presidential library reveal that two major institutions promoting “democracy” and “freedom” — Freedom House and National Endowment for Democracy — worked hand-in-glove, behind-the-scenes, with a CIA propaganda expert in the 1980s, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy stress their commitment to freedom of thought and democracy, but both cooperated with a CIA-organized propaganda operation in the 1980s, according to documents released by Ronald Reagan’s presidential library.

One document showed senior Freedom House official Leo Cherne clearing a draft manuscript on political conditions in El Salvador with CIA Director William Casey and promising that Freedom House would make requested editorial “corrections and changes” and even send over the editor for consultation with whomever Casey assigned to review the paper.

In a “Dear Bill” letter dated June 24, 1981, Cherne wrote: “I am enclosing a copy of the draft manuscript by Bruce McColm, Freedom House’s resident specialist on Central America and the Caribbean. This manuscript on El Salvador was the one I had urged be prepared and in the haste to do so as rapidly as possible, it is quite rough. You had mentioned that the facts could be checked for meticulous accuracy within the government and this would be very helpful.

“If there are any questions about the McColm manuscript, I suggest that whomever is working on it contact Richard Salzmann at the Research Institute [an organization where Cherne was executive director]. He is Editor-in-Chief at the Institute and the Chairman of the Freedom House’s Salvador Committee. He will make sure that the corrections and changes get to Rita Freedman who will also be working with him. If there is any benefit to be gained from Salzmann’s coming down at any point to talk to that person, he is available to do so.”

Cherne, who was chairman of Freedom House’s executive committee, also joined in angling for financial support from a propaganda program that Casey initiated in 1982 under one of the CIA’s top covert action specialists, Walter Raymond Jr. (Jan Verheul:  Lid van Le Cercle) , who was moved to President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council staff.

In an Aug. 9, 1982 letter to Raymond, Freedom House executive director Leonard R. Sussman wrote that “Leo Cherne has asked me to send these copies of Freedom Appeals. He has probably told you we have had to cut back this project to meet financial realities. We would, of course, want to expand the project once again when, as and if the funds become available. Offshoots of that project appear in newspapers, magazines, books and on broadcast services here and abroad. It’s a significant, unique channel of communication” precisely the focus of Raymond’s work.

According to the documents, Freedom House remained near the top of Casey’s thinking when it came to the most effective way to deliver his hardline policy message to the American people in ways they would be inclined to accept, i.e., coming from ostensibly independent sources with no apparent ties to the government.

On Nov. 4, 1982, Raymond wrote to NSC Advisor William Clark about the “Democracy Initiative and Information Programs,” stating that “Bill Casey asked me to pass on the following thought concerning your meeting with [right-wing billionaire] Dick Scaife, Dave Abshire [then a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board], and Co.

“Casey had lunch with them today and discussed the need to get moving in the general area of supporting our friends around the world. By this definition he is including both ‘building democracy’ and helping invigorate international media programs. The DCI [Casey] is also concerned about strengthening public information organizations in the United States such as Freedom House.

“A critical piece of the puzzle is a serious effort to raise private funds to generate momentum. Casey’s talk with Scaife and Co. suggests they would be very willing to cooperate. Suggest that you note White House interest in private support for the Democracy initiative.”

The importance of the CIA and White House secretly arranging private funds was that these supposedly independent voices would then reinforce and validate the administration’s foreign policy arguments with a public that would assume the endorsements were based on the merits of the White House positions, not influenced by money changing hands.

In effect, like snake-oil salesmen who plant a few cohorts in the audience to whip up excitement for the cure-all elixir, Reagan administration propagandists salted some well-paid “private” individuals around Washington to echo White House propaganda “themes.”

In a Jan. 25, 1983 memo, Raymond wrote, “We will move out immediately in our parallel effort to generate private support” for “public diplomacy” operations. Then, on May 20, 1983, Raymond recounted in another memo that $400,000 had been raised from private donors brought to the White House Situation Room by U.S. Information Agency  Director Charles Wick. According to that memo, the money was divided among several organizations, including Freedom House and Accuracy in Media, a right-wing media attack organization.

When I wrote about that memo in my 1992 book, Fooling America, Freedom House denied receiving any White House money or collaborating with any CIA/NSC propaganda campaign. In a letter, Freedom House’s Sussman called Raymond “a second-hand source” and insisted that “this organization did not need any special funding to take positions on any foreign-policy issues.”

But it made little sense that Raymond would have lied to a superior in an internal memo. And clearly, Freedom House remained central to the Reagan administration’s schemes for aiding groups supportive of its Central American policies, particularly the CIA-organized Contra war against the leftist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

In an Aug. 9, 1983 memo, Raymond outlined plans to arrange private backing for that effort. He said USIA Director Wick “via [Australian publishing magnate Rupert] Murdock [sic], may be able to draw down added funds” to support pro-Reagan initiatives. Raymond recommended “funding via Freedom House or some other structure that has credibility in the political center.” [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Murdoch, Scaife and CIA Propaganda.”]

Questions of Legality

Raymond remained a CIA officer until April 1983 when he resigned so in his words “there would be no question whatsoever of any contamination of this” propaganda operation to woo the American people into supporting Reagan’s policies.

But Raymond, who had been one of the CIA’s top propaganda and disinformation specialists, continued to act toward the U.S. public much like a CIA officer would in directing a propaganda operation in a hostile foreign country.

Raymond fretted ( = piekerde) , too, about the legality of Casey’s role in the effort to influence U.S. public opinion because of the legal prohibition against the CIA influencing U.S. policies and politics. Raymond confided in one memo that it was important “to get [Casey] out of the loop,” ( buiten de documenten te houden = buiten schot te houden) but Casey never backed off and Raymond continued to send progress reports to his old boss well into 1986.

It was “the kind of thing which [Casey] had a broad catholic interest in,” Raymond said during his Iran-Contra deposition in 1987. He then offered the excuse that Casey undertook this apparently illegal interference in domestic affairs “not so much in his CIA hat, but in his adviser to the president hat.”
As the Casey-Raymond propaganda operation expanded during the last half of Reagan’s first term, Freedom House continued to keep Raymond abreast (= er bij , er naast houden) of its work on Central America, with its attitudes dovetailing with Reagan administration’s policies particularly in condemning Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.

Freedom House also kept its hand out for funding. On Sept. 15, 1984, Bruce McColm writing from Freedom House’s Center for Caribbean and Central American Studies  sent Raymond “a short proposal for the Center’s Nicaragua project 1984-85. The project combines elements of the oral history proposal with the publication of The Nicaraguan Papers,” a book that would disparage ( als onbelangrijk afschilderen)  Sandinista ideology and practices.

“Maintaining the oral history part of the project adds to the overall costs; but preliminary discussions with film makers have given me the idea that an Improper Conduct-type of documentary could be made based on these materials,” McColm wrote, referring to a 1984 film that offered a scathing (= vernietigende) critique of Fidel Castro’s Cuba.

“Such a film would have to be the work of a respected Latin American filmmaker or a European. American-made films on Central America are simply too abrasive (= schurend) ideologically and artistically poor.” ( Ik denk eerder dat voor de geloofwaardigheid is dat men een niet Amerikaanse docu wil.  Jan V.)  
McColm’s three-page letter reads much like a book or movie pitch, trying to interest Raymond in financing the project: “The Nicaraguan Papers will also be readily accessible to the general reader, the journalist, opinion-maker, the academic and the like. The book would be distributed fairly broadly to these sectors and I am sure will be extremely useful.

“They already constitute a form of Freedom House samizdat, since I’ve been distributing them to journalists for the past two years as I’ve received them from disaffected Nicaraguans.”
McColm proposed a face-to-face meeting with Raymond in Washington and attached a six-page grant proposal seeking $134,100.

According to the grant proposal, the project would include “free distribution to members of Congress and key public officials; distribution of galleys in advance of publication for maximum publicity and timely reviews in newspapers and current affairs magazines; press conferences at Freedom House in New York and at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.; op-ed circulation to more than 100 newspapers ; distribution of a Spanish-language edition through Hispanic organizations in the United States and in Latin America; arrangement of European distribution through Freedom House contacts.”

The documents that I found at the Reagan library do not indicate what subsequently happened to this proposal. McColm did not respond to an email request for comment about the Nicaraguan Papers plan or Cherne’s earlier letter to Casey about editing McComb’s manuscript. Raymond died in 2003; Cherne died in 1999; and Casey died in 1987.

But it is clear that Freedom House became a major recipient of funds from the National Endowment for Democracy, which Casey and Raymond helped create in 1983.


Financing Propaganda

In 1983, Casey and Raymond focused on creating a funding mechanism to support Freedom House and other outside groups that would engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. The idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money.

But Casey recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.”

A document in Raymond’s files offered examples of what would be funded, including “Grenada — 50 K — To the only organized opposition to the Marxist government of Maurice Bishop (The Seaman and Waterfront Workers Union). A supplemental 50 K to support free TV activity outside Grenada” and “Nicaragua — $750 K to support an array of independent trade union activity, agricultural cooperatives.”
The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured.

But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.

This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill.

The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented to the demand, not fully recognizing its significance.

What the documents at the Reagan library now make clear is that lifting the ban enabled Raymond and Casey to stay active shaping the decisions of the new funding mechanism.

The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration’s choice of Carl Gershman to head the National Endowment for Democracy, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy.

Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED’s first (and, to this day, only) president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC.

For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that “Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond 

to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.
“Senator [Orrin] Hatch, as you know, is a member of the board. Secondly, NED has already given a major grant for a related Chinese program.”

Besides clearing aside political obstacles for Gershman, Raymond also urged NED to give money to Freedom House in a June 21, 1985 letter obtained by Professor John Nichols of Pennsylvania State University.

A Tag Team

From the start, NED became a major benefactor for Freedom House, beginning with a $200,000 grant in 1984 to build “a network of democratic opinion-makers.” In NED’s first four years, from 1984 and 1988, it lavished $2.6 million on Freedom House, accounting for more than one-third of its total income, according to a study by the liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs that was entitled “Freedom House: Portrait of a Pass-Through.”

Over the ensuing three decades, Freedom House has become almost an NED subsidiary, often joining NED in holding policy conferences and issuing position papers, both organizations pushing primarily a neoconservative agenda, challenging countries deemed insufficiently “free,” including Syria, Ukraine (in 2014) and Russia.

Indeed, NED and Freedom House often work as a kind of tag-team with NED financing “non-governmental organizations” inside targeted countries and Freedom House berating those governments if they crack down on U.S.-funded NGOs.

For instance, on Nov. 16, 2012, NED and Freedom House joined together to denounce legislation passed by the Russian parliament that required recipients of foreign political money to register with the government.

Or, as NED and Freedom House framed the issue: the Russian Duma sought to “restrict human rights and the activities of civil society organizations and their ability to receive support from abroad. Changes to Russia’s NGO legislation will soon require civil society organizations receiving foreign funds to choose between registering as ‘foreign agents’ or facing significant financial penalties and potential criminal charges.”

Of course, the United States has a nearly identical Foreign Agent Registration Act that likewise requires entities that receive foreign funding and seek to influence U.S. government policy to register with the Justice Department or face possible fines or imprisonment.

But the Russian law would impede NED’s efforts to destabilize the Russian government through funding of political activists, journalists and civic organizations, so it was denounced as an infringement of human rights and helped justify Freedom House’s rating of Russia as “not free.”


The Russian government’s concerns were not entirely paranoid. On Sept. 26, 2013, Gershman, in effect, charted the course for the crisis in Ukraine and the greater neocon goal of regime change in Russia. In a Washington Post op-ed, Gershman called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and explained how pulling it into the Western camp could contribute to the ultimate defeat of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” Gershman wrote. “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

With NED’s budget now exceeding $100 million a year — and with many NGOs headquartered in Washington — Gershman has attained the status of a major paymaster for the neocon movement with his words carrying extra clout because he can fund or de-fund many a project.

Thus, three decades after CIA Director William Casey and his propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr. struggled to arrange funding for Freedom House and other organizations that would promote an interventionist agenda, their brainchild the National Endowment for Democracy was still around picking up those tabs.

[For more details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “The Victory of Perception Management” and “Murdoch, Scaife and CIA Propaganda” or Robert Parry’s Lost History.]



Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazonand barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.