Content and format

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung comprises 427 quotations, divided thematically into 33 chapters. It is also called “Thoughts of Chairman Mao” by many Chinese people. The quotations range in length from a sentence to a few short paragraphs, and borrow heavily from a group of about two dozen documents in the four volumes of Mao’s Selected Works. In the book’s latter half, a strong empiricist tendency evidences itself in Mao’s thought[citation needed]. Usually the quotations are arranged logically, to deal with one to three themes in the development of a chapter. The table below summarizes the book. Please note that the summaries represent what Mao is claiming or writing in each chapter.

Chapter: 1
Number of quotations: 13
Title: The Communist Party
Summary: The Chinese Communist Party is the core of the Chinese revolution, and its principles are based on Marxism-Leninism. Party criticism should be carried out within the Party.

Chapter: 2
Number of quotations: 22
Title: Classes and Class Struggle
Summary: The revolution, and the recognition of class and class struggle, are necessary for peasants and the Chinese people to overcome both domestic and foreign enemy elements. This is not a simple, clean, or quick struggle.

Chapter: 3
Number of Quotations: 28
Title: Socialism and Communism
Summary: Socialism must be developed in China, and the route toward such an end is a democratic revolution, which will enable socialist and communist consolidation over a length of time. It is also important to unite with the middle peasants, and educate them on the failings of capitalism.

Chapter: 4
Number of Quotations: 16
Title: The Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People
Summary: There are at least two basic kinds of contradiction: the antagonistic contradictions which exist between communist countries and their capitalist neighbors and between the people and the enemies of the people, and the contradictions among the people themselves, people unconvinced of China’s new path, which should be dealt with in a democratic and non-antagonistic fashion.

Chapter: 5
Number of Quotations: 21
Title: War and Peace
Summary: War is a continuation of politics, and there are at least two types: just (progressive) and unjust wars, which only serve bourgeois interests. While no one likes war, we must remain ready to wage just wars against imperialist agitations.

Chapter: 6
Number of Quotations: 10
Title: Imperialism and All Reactionaries Are Paper Tigers
Summary: U.S. imperialism, and European and domestic reactionary forces, represent real dangers, and in this respect are like real tigers. However, because the goal of Chinese communism is just, and reactionary interests are self-centered and unjust, after struggle, they will be revealed to be much less dangerous than they were earlier perceived to be.

Chapter: 7
Number of Quotations: 10
Title: Dare to Struggle and Dare to Win
Summary: Fighting is unpleasant, and the people of China would prefer not to do it at all. At the same time, they stand ready to wage a just struggle of self-preservation against reactionary elements, both foreign and domestic.

Chapter: 8
Number of Quotations: 10
Title: People’s War
Summary: China’s masses are the greatest conceivable weapon for fighting against Japanese imperialism and domestic reactionaries. Basic strategic points for war against the Kuomintang are also enumerated.

Chapter: 9
Number of Quotations: 8
Title: The People’s Army
Summary: The people’s army is not merely an organ for fighting; it is also an organ for the political advancement of the Party, as well as of production.

Chapter: 10
Number of Quotations: 14
Title: Leadership of Party Committees
Summary: Internal life of the Party is discussed. Committees are useful to avoid monopolization by others, and Party members must demonstrate honesty, openness in discussing problems, and the ability to learn and multitask.

Chapter: 11
Number of Quotations: 22
Subject: The Mass Line
Summary: The mass line represents the creative and productive energies of the masses of the Chinese population, which are potentially inexhaustible. Party members should take their cue from the masses, and reinterpret policy with respect to the benefit of the masses.

Chapter: 12
Number of Quotations: 21
Title: Political Work
Summary: It is necessary for intellectuals, students, soldiers and the average peasant to pay attention and involve themselves with political work. This is particularly true in wartime.

Chapter: 13
Number of Quotations: 7
Title: Relations Between Officers and Men
Summary: Non-antagonistic and democratic relations between officers and men make for a stronger army.

Chapter: 14
Number of Quotations: 6
Title: Relations Between the Army and the People
Summary: An army that is cherished and respected by the people, and vice versa, is a nearly invincible force. The army and the people must unite on the grounds of basic respect.

Chapter: 15
Number of Quotations: 8
Title: Democracy in the Three Main Fields
Summary: Democracy and honesty play roles in the reform of the army, as well as in the life of the Party, and of cadres. “Ultra-democracy”, which is defined as an individualistic bourgeois aversion to discipline, is to be avoided.

Chapter: 16
Number of Quotations: 9
Title: Education and the Training of Troops
Summary: Education must have a practical and political basis for the army, Party and cadres. Along democratic lines, it will also be possible for the officers to teach the soldiers, for the soldiers to teach the officers, and for the soldiers to teach each other.

Chapter: 17
Number of Quotations: 9
Title: Serving the People
Summary: It is the duty of the cadres and the Party to serve the people. Without the people’s interests constantly at heart, their work is useless.

Chapter: 18
Number of Quotations: 7
Title: Patriotism and Internationalism
Summary: The patriotism of a communist nation and an internationalist sympathy for just struggles in other countries are in no way exclusive; on the contrary, they are linked deeply, as communism spreads throughout the world. At the same time, it is important for a country to retain modesty, and shun arrogance.

Chapter: 19
Number of Quotations: 8
Title: Revolutionary Heroism
Summary: The same limitless creative energy of the masses is also visible in the army, in their fighting style and indomitable will.

Chapter: 20
Number of Quotations: 8
Title: Building Our Country Through Diligence and Frugality
Summary: China’s road to modernization will be built on the principles of diligence and frugality. Nor will it be legitimate to relax if, 50 years later, modernization is realized on a mass scale.

Chapter: 21
Number of Quotations: 13
Title: Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle
Summary: It is necessary for China to become self-reliant in the course of the revolution, along the usual lines of class struggle. At the same time, it is a mistake for individuals to only see the good or the bad in a system, to the exclusion of all else.

Chapter: 22
Number of Quotations: 41
Title: Methods of Thinking and Methods of Work
Summary: Marxist dialectical materialism, which connotes the constant struggle between opposites in an empirical setting, is the best method toward constant improvement. Objective analysis of problems based on empirical results is at a premium.

Chapter: 23
Number of Quotations: 9
Title: Investigation and Study
Summary: It is necessary to investigate both the facts and the history of a problem in order to study and understand it.

Chapter: 24
Number of Quotations: 15
Title: Correcting Mistaken Ideas
Summary: Arrogance, lack of achievement after a prosperous period, selfishness, shirking work, and liberalism, are all evils to be avoided in China’s development. Liberalism is taken to mean that one may avoid conflict or work in order to be more comfortable for the moment, while the problem continues to grow.

Chapter: 25
Number of Quotations: 5
Title: Unity
Summary: Unity of the masses, the Party and the whole country is essential. At the same time, criticism may take place along comradely lines, while at the same time a basic unity is felt and preserved. This is the dialectical method.

Chapter: 26
Number of Quotations: 5
Title: Discipline
Summary: Discipline is seen not to be exclusive to democratic methods. Basic points of military conduct are also enumerated.

Chapter: 27
Number of Quotations: 15
Title: Criticism and Self-Criticism
Summary: Criticism is a part of the Marxist dialectical method which is central to Party improvement; as such, communists must not fear it, but engage in it openly.

Chapter: 28
Number of Quotations: 18
Title: Communists
Summary: A communist must be selfless, with the interests of the masses at heart. He must also possess a largeness of mind, as well as a practical, far-sighted mindset.

Chapter: 29
Number of Quotations: 11
Title: Cadres
Summary: Cadres, the instrument for uniting with and working for the people, must be leaders versed in Marxist-Leninism. They must have both guidance and the freedom to use their creative inititave in solving problems. Newer cadres and older cadres must work together with a comradely respect, learning from each other.

Chapter: 30
Number of Quotations: 7
Title: Youth
Summary: The Chinese Youth represent an active, vital force in China, to be drawn upon. At the same time, it is necessary to educate them, and for the Youth League to give special attention to their problems and interests.

Chapter: 31
Number of Quotations: 7
Title: Women
Summary: Women represent a great productive force in China, and equality among the sexes is one of the goals of communism. The multiple burdens which women must shoulder are to be eased.

Chapter: 32
Number of Quotations: 8
Title: Culture and Art
Summary: Literature and art are discussed with respect to communism, in an orthodox fashion. (Principally consisting of quotations from “Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art”.)

Chapter: 33
Number of Quotations: 16
Title: Study
Summary: It is the responsibility of all to cultivate themselves, and study Marxism-Leninism deeply. It is also necessary for people to turn their attention to contemporary problems, along empirical lines.

mao 5 articles 2 11jwUC8jDEL._SL500_AA300_

mao 5 articles a7acc060ada024b83f75c110.L


Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung
September 8, 1944

[This speech was delivered by Comrade Mao Tse-tung at a memorial meeting for Comrade Chang Szu-teh, held by departments directly under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.]
Our Communist Party and the Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies led by our Party are battalions of the revolution. These battalions of ours are wholly dedicated to the liberation of the people and work entirely in the people’s interests. Comrade Chang Szu-teh [1] was in the ranks of these battalions.

All men must die, but death can vary in its significance. The ancient Chinese writer Szuma Chien said, “Though death befalls all men alike, it may be weightier than Mount Tai or lighter than a feather.” [2] To die for the people is weightier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is lighter than a feather. Comrade Chang Szu-teh died for the people, and his death is indeed weightier than Mount Tai.

If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and criticized, because we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may point out our shortcomings. If he is right, we will correct them. If what he proposes will benefit the people, we will act upon it. The idea of “better troops and simpler administration” was put forward by Mr. Li Ting-ming, [3] who is not a Communist. He made a good suggestion which is of benefit to the people, and we have adopted it. If, in the interests of the people, we persist in doing what is right and correct what is wrong, our ranks will surely thrive.

We hail from all corners of the country and have joined together for a common revolutionary objective. And we need the vast majority of the people with us on the road to this objective. Today, we already lead base areas with a population of 91 million, [4] but this is not enough; to liberate the whole nation more are needed. In times of difficulty we must not lose sight of our achievements, must see the bright future and must pluck up our courage. The Chinese people are suffering; it is our duty to save them and we must exert ourselves in struggle. Wherever there is struggle there is sacrifice, and death is a common occurrence. But we have the interests of the people and the sufferings of the great majority at heart, and when we die for the people it is a worthy death. Nevertheless, we should do our best to avoid unnecessary sacrifices. Our cadres must show concern for every soldier, and all people in the revolutionary ranks must care for each other, must love and help each other.

From now on, when anyone in our ranks who has done some useful work dies, be he soldier or cook, we should have a funeral ceremony and a memorial meeting in his honour. This should become the rule. And it should be introduced among the people as well. When someone dies in a village, let a memorial meeting be held. In this way we express our mourning for the dead and unite all the people.


1. Comrade Chang Szu-teh was a soldier in the Guards Regiment of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. A member of Communist Party who loyally served the interests of the people, he joined the revolution in 1933, took part in the Long March and was wounded in service. On September 5, 1944, when making charcoal in the mountains of Ansai County, northern Shensi, he was killed by the sudden collapse of a kiln.

2. Szuma Chien, the famous Chinese historian of the 2nd century B.C., was the author of the Historical Records. The quotation comes from his “Reply to Jen Shao-ching’s Letter”.

3. Li Ting-ming, an enlightened landlord of northern Shensi Province, was at one time elected Vice-Chairman of the Shensi-Kansu-Ningsia Border Region Government.

4. This was the total population of the Shensi-Kansu-Ningela Border Region and all other Liberated Areas in northern, central and southern China.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

December 21, 1939
Comrade Norman Bethune,[1] a member of the Communist Party of Canada, was around fifty when he was sent by the Communist Parties of Canada and the United States to China; he made light of travelling thousands of miles to help us in our War of Resistance Against Japan. He arrived in Yenan in the spring of last year, went to work in the Wutai Mountains, and to our great sorrow died a martyr at his post. What kind of spirit is this that makes a foreigner selflessly adopt the cause of the Chinese people’s liberation as his own? It is the spirit of internationalism, the spirit of communism, from which every Chinese Communist must learn. Leninism teaches that the world revolution can only succeed if the proletariat of the capitalist countries supports the struggle for liberation of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples and if the proletariat of the colonies and semi-colonies supports that of the proletariat of the capitalist countries.[2]

Comrade Bethune put this Leninist line into practice. We Chinese Communists must also follow this line in our practice. We must unite with the proletariat of all the capitalist countries, with the proletariat of Japan, Britain, the United States, Germany, Italy and all other capitalist countries, for this is the only way to overthrow imperialism, to liberate our nation and people and to liberate the other nations and peoples of the world. This is our internationalism, the internationalism with which we oppose both narrow nationalism and narrow patriotism.

Comrade Bethune’s spirit, his utter devotion to others without any thought of self, was shown in his great sense of responsibility in his work and his great warm-heartedness towards all comrades and the people. Every Communist must learn from him. There are not a few people who are irresponsible in their work, preferring the light and shirking the heavy, passing the burdensome tasks on to others and choosing the easy ones for themselves. At every turn they think of themselves before others. When they make some small contribution, they swell with pride and brag about it for fear that others will not know. They feel no warmth towards comrades and the people but are cold, indifferent and apathetic. In truth such people are not Communists, or at least cannot be counted as devoted Communists. No one who returned from the front failed to express admiration for Bethune whenever his name was mentioned, and none remained unmoved by his spirit.

In the Shansi-Chahar-Hopei border area, no soldier or civilian was unmoved who had been treated by Dr. Bethune or had seen how he worked. Every Communist must learn this true communist spirit from Comrade Bethune.

Comrade Bethune was a doctor, the art of healing was his profession and he was constantly perfecting his skill, which stood very high in the Eighth Route Army’s medical service. His example is an excellent lesson for those people who wish to change their work the moment they see something different and for those who despise technical work as of no consequence or as promising no future.

Comrade Bethune and I met only once. Afterwards he wrote me many letters. But I was busy, and I wrote him only one letter and do not even know if he ever received it. I am deeply grieved over his death. Now we are all commemorating him, which shows how profoundly his spirit inspires everyone. We must all learn the spirit of absolute selflessness from him. With this spirit everyone can be very useful to the people. A man’s ability may be great or small, but if he has this spirit, he is already noble-minded and pure, a man of moral integrity and above vulgar interests, a man who is of value to the people.


1. The distinguished surgeon Norman Bethune was a member of the Canadian Communist Party. In 1936 when the German and Italian fascist bandits invaded Spain, he went to the front and worked for the anti-fascist Spanish people. In order to help the Chinese people in their War of Resistance Against Japan, he came to China at the head of a medical team and arrived in Yenan in the spring of 1938. Soon after he went to the Shansi-Chahar-Hopei border area. Imbued with ardent internationalism and the great communist spirit, he served the army and the people of the Liberated Areas for nearly two years. He contracted blood poisoning while operating on wounded soldiers and died in Tanghsien, Hopei, on November 12, 1939

2. See J. V. Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”, Problems of Leninism, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, pp. 70-79.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

June 11, 1945

[This was Comrade Mao Tse-tung's concluding speech at the Seventh National Congress of the Communist Party of China.]
We have had a very successful congress. We have done three things. First, we have decided on the line of our Party, which is boldly to mobilize the masses and expand the people’s forces so that, under the leadership of our Party, they will defeat the Japanese aggressors, liberate the whole people and build a new-democratic China. Second, we have adapted the new Party Constitution. Third, we have elected the leading body of the Party–the Central Committee. Henceforth our task is to lead the whole membership in carrying out the Party line. Ours has been a congress of victory, a congress of unity. The delegates have made excellent comments on the three reports.

Many comrades have undertaken self-criticism; with unity as the objective unity has been achieved through self-criticism. This congress is a model of unity, of self-criticism and of inner-Party democracy.

When the congress closes, many comrades will be leaving for their posts and the various war fronts. Comrades, wherever you go, you should propagate the line of the congress and, through the members of the Party, explain it to the broad masses.

Our aim in propagating the line of the congress is to build up the confidence of the whole Party and the entire people in the certain triumph of the revolution. We must first raise the political consciousness of the vanguard so that, resolute and unafraid of sacrifice, they will surmount every difficulty to win victory. But this is not enough; we must also arouse the political consciousness of the entire people so that they may willingly and gladly fight together with us for victory. We should fire the whole people with the conviction that China belongs not to the reactionaries but to the Chinese people.

There is an ancient Chinese fable called “The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains”. It tells of an old man who lived in northern China long, long ago and was known as the Foolish Old Man of North Mountain. His house faced south and beyond his doorway stood the two great peaks, Taihang and Wangwu, obstructing the way. He called his sons, and hoe in hand they began to dig up these mountains with great determination. Another graybeard, known as the Wise Old Man, saw them and said derisively, “How silly of you to do this! It is quite impossible for you few to dig up those two huge mountains.” The Foolish Old Man replied, “When I die, my sons will carry on; when they die, there will be my grandsons, and then their sons and grandsons, and so on to infinity. High as they are, the mountains cannot grow any higher and with every bit we dig, they will be that much lower. Why can’t we clear them away?” Having refuted the Wise Old Man’s wrong view, he went on digging every day, unshaken in his conviction. God was moved by this, and he sent down two angels, who carried the mountains away on their backs.

Today, two big mountains lie like a dead weight on the Chinese people. One is imperialism, the other is feudalism. The Chinese Communist Party has long made up its mind to dig them up. We must persevere and work unceasingly, and we, too, will touch God’s heart. Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?

Yesterday, in a talk with two Americans who were leaving for the United States, I said that the U.S. government was trying to undermine us and this would not be permitted. We oppose the U.S. government’s policy of supporting Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists. But we must draw a distinction, firstly, between the people of the United States and their government and, secondly, within the U.S. government between the policy-makers and their subordinates. I said to these two Americans, “Tell the policy-makers in your government that we forbid you Americans to enter the Liberated Areas because your policy is to support Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, and we have to be on our guard. You can come to the Liberated Areas if your purpose is to fight Japan, but there must first be an agreement. We will not permit you to nose around everywhere. Since Patrick J. Hurley [1] has publicly declared against co-operation with the Chinese Communist Party, why do you still want to come and prowl around in our Liberated Areas?”

The U.S. government’s policy of supporting Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists shows the brazenness of the U.S. reactionaries. But all the scheming of the reactionaries, whether Chinese or foreign, to prevent the Chinese people from achieving victory is doomed to failure. The democratic forces are the main current in the world today, while reaction is only a counter-current. The reactionary counter-current is trying to swamp the main current of national independence and people’s democracy, but it can never become the main current. Today, there are still three major contradictions in the old world, as Stalin pointed out long ago: first, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries; second, the contradiction between the various imperialist powers, and third, the contradiction between the colonial and semi-colonial countries and the imperialist metropolitan countries. [2]

Not only do these three contradictions continue to exist but they are becoming more acute and widespread. Because of their existence and growth, the time will come when the reactionary anti-Soviet, anti-Communist and anti-democratic counter-current still in existence today will be swept away.

At this moment two congresses are being held in China, the Sixth National Congress of the Kuomintang and the Seventh National Congress of the Communist Party. They have completely different aims: the aim of one is to liquidate the Communist Party and all the other democratic forces in China and thus to plunge China into darkness; the aim of the other is to overthrow Japanese imperialism and its lackeys, the Chinese feudal forces, and build a new-democratic China and thus to lead China to light. Those two lines are in conflict with each other. We firmly believe that, led by the Chinese Communist Party and guided by the line of its Seventh Congress, the Chinese people will achieve complete victory, while the Kuomintang’s counter-revolutionary line will inevitably fail.


l. Patrick J. Hurley, a reactionary Republican Party politician, was appointed U.S. ambassador to China towards the end of 1944. In November 1945 he was forced to resign because his support for Chiang Kai-shek’s anti-Communist policy roused the firm opposition of the Chinese people. Harley’s open declaration against cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party was made on April 2, 1945 at a U.S. State Department press conference in Washington. For details, see “The Hurley-Chiang Duet Is a Flop”, pp. 281-84 of this volume.

2. See J. V. Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”, Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, pp. 74-82.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

December 1929

On the Purely Military Viewpoint
On Ultra-Democracy
On the Disregard of Organizational Discipline
On Absolute Equalitarianism
On Subjectivism
On Individualism
On the Ideology of Roving Rebel Bands
On the Remnants of Putschism

[This article was a resolution drawn up by Comrade Mao Tse-tung for the Ninth Party Congress of the Fourth Army of the Red Army. The building of the Chinese people's armed forces was a difficult process. The Chinese Red Army (which became the Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies during the War of Resistance Against Japan and is now the People's Liberation Army) was created on August 1, 1927, during the Nanchang Uprising, and by December 1929 had been in existence for over two years. During this period the Communist Party organization in the Red army learned a great deal and gained quite a rich store of experience in the course of combating various mistaken ideas. The resolution summed up this experience. It enabled the Red Army to build itself entirely on a Marxist-Leninist basis and to eliminate all the influences of armies of the old type. It was carried out not only in the Fourth Army but also in all other units of the Red Army successively, in this way the whole Chinese Red Army became a genuine army of the people in every respect. In the last thirty years or so the Chinese people's armed forces have made tremendous developments and innovations in their Party activities and political work which now present a very different picture, but the basic line remains the same as that laid down in this resolution.]
There are various non-proletarian ideas in the Communist Party organization in the Fourth Red Army which greatly hinder the application of the Party’s correct line. Unless these ideas are thoroughly corrected, the Fourth Army cannot possibly shoulder the tasks assigned to it in China’s great revolutionary struggle. The source of such incorrect ideas in this Party organization lies, of course, in the fact that its basic units are composed largely of peasants and other elements of petty-bourgeois origin; yet the failure of the Party’s leading bodies to wage a concerted and determined struggle against these incorrect ideas and to educate the members in the Party’s correct line is also an important cause of their existence and growth. In accordance with the spirit of the September letter of the Central Committee, this congress hereby points out the manifestations of various non-proletarian ideas in the Party organization in the Fourth Army, their sources, and the methods of correcting them, and calls upon all comrades to eliminate them thoroughly.


The purely military viewpoint is very highly developed among a number of comrades in the Red Army. It manifests itself as follows:

1. These comrades regard military affairs and politics as opposed to each other and refuse to recognize that military affairs are only one means of accomplishing political tasks. Some even say, “If you are good militarily, naturally you are good politically; if you are not good militarily, you cannot be any good politically”–this is to go a step further and give military affairs a leading position over politics.

2. They think that the task of the Red Army like that of the White army, is merely to fight. They do not understand that the Chinese Red Army is an armed body for carrying out the political tasks of the revolution. Especially at present, the Red Army should certainly not confine itself to fighting; besides fighting to destroy the enemy’s military strength, it should shoulder such important tasks as doing propaganda among the masses, organizing the masses, arming them, helping them to establish revolutionary political power and setting up Party organizations. The Red Army fights not merely for the sake of fighting but in order to conduct propaganda among the masses, organize them, arm them, and help them to establish revolutionary political power. Without these objectives, fighting loses its meaning and the Red Army loses the reason for its existence.

3. Hence, organizationally, these comrades subordinate the departments of the Red Army doing political work to those doing military work, and put forward the slogan, “Let Army Headquarters handle outside matters.” If allowed to develop, this idea would involve the danger of estrangement from the masses, control of the government by the army and departure from proletarian leadership– it would be to take the path of warlordism like the Kuomintang army.

4. At the same time, in propaganda work they overlook the importance of propaganda teams. On the question of mass organization, they neglect the organizing of soldiers’ committees in the army and the organizing of the local workers and peasants. As a result, both propaganda and organizational work are abandoned.

5. They become conceited when a battle is won and dispirited when a battle is lost.

6. Selfish departmentalism–they think only of the Fourth Army and do not realize that it is an important task of the Red Army to arm the local masses. This is cliquism in a magnified form.

7. Unable to see beyond their limited environment in the Fourth Army, a few comrades believe that no other revolutionary forces exist. Hence their extreme addiction to the idea of conserving strength and avoiding action. This is a remnant of opportunism.

8. Some comrades, disregarding the subjective and objective conditions, suffer from the malady of revolutionary impetuosity; they will not take pains to do minute and detailed work among the masses, but, riddled with illusions, want only to do big things. This is a remnant of putschism.[1]

The sources of the purely military viewpoint are:

1. A low political level. From this flows the failure to recognize the role of political leadership in the army and to recognize that the Red Army and the White army are fundamentally different.

2. The mentality of mercenaries. Many prisoners captured in past battles have joined the Red Army, and such elements bring with them a markedly mercenary outlook, thereby providing a basis in the lower ranks for the purely military viewpoint.

3. From the two preceding causes there arises a third, overconfidence in military strength and absence of confidence in the strength of the masses of the people.

4 The Party’s failure actively to attend to and discuss military work is also a reason for the emergence of the purely military viewpoint among a number of comrades.

The methods of correction are as follows:

1. Raise the political level in the Party by means of education, destroy the theoretical roots of the purely military viewpoint, and be dear on the fundamental difference between the Red Army and the White army. At the same time, eliminate the remnants of opportunism and putschism and break down the selfish departmentalism of the Fourth Army.

2. Intensify the political training of officers and men and especially the education of ex-prisoners. At the same time, as far as possible let the local governments select workers and peasants experienced in struggle to join the Red Army, thus organizationally weakening or even eradicating the purely military viewpoint.

3. Arouse the local Party organizations to criticize the Party organizations in the Red Army and the organs of mass political power to criticize the Red Army itself, in order to influence the Party organizations and the officers and men of the Red Army.

4. The Party must actively attend to and discuss military work. All the work must be discussed and decided upon by the Party before being carried out by the rank and file.

5. Draw up Red Army rules and regulations which dearly define its tasks, the relationship between its military and its political apparatus, the relationship between the Red Army and the masses of the people, and the powers and functions of the soldiers’ committees and their relationship with the military and political organizations.


Since the Fourth Army of the Red Army accepted the directives of the Central Committee, there has been a great decrease in the manifestations of ultra-democracy. For example, Party decisions are now carried out fairly well; and no longer does anyone bring up such erroneous demands as that the Red Army should apply “democratic centralism from the bottom to the top” or should “let the lower levels discuss all problems first, and then let the higher levels decide”. Actually, however, this decrease is only temporary and superficial and does not mean that ultra-democratic ideas have already been eliminated. In other words, ultra-democracy is still deep-rooted in the minds of many comrades. Witness the various expressions of reluctance to carry out Party decisions.

The methods of correction are as follows:

1. In the sphere of theory, destroy the roots of ultra-democracy. First, it should be pointed out that the danger of ultra-democracy lies in the fact that it damages or even completely wrecks the Party organization and weakens or even completely undermines the Party’s fighting capacity, rendering the Party incapable of fulfilling its fighting tasks and thereby causing the defeat of the revolution. Next, it should be pointed out that the source of ultra-democracy consists in the petty bourgeoisie’s individualistic aversion to discipline. When this characteristic is brought into the Party, it develops into ultra-democratic ideas politically and organizationally. These ideas are utterly incompatible with the fighting tasks of the proletariat.

2. In the sphere of organization, ensure democracy under centralized guidance. It should be done on the following lines:

(1) The leading bodies of the Party must give a correct line of guidance and kind solutions when problems arise, in order to establish themselves as centres of leadership.

(2) The higher bodies must be familiar with the life of the masses and with the situation in the lower bodies so as to have an objective basis for correct guidance.

(3) No Party organization at any level should make casual decisions in solving problems. Once a decision is reached, it must be firmly carried out.

(4) All decisions of any importance made by the Party’s higher bodies must be promptly transmitted to the lower bodies and the Party rank and file. The method is to call meetings of activists or general membership meetings of the Party branches or even of the columns [2] (when circumstances permit) and to assign people to make reports at such meetings.

(5) The lower bodies of the Party and the Party rank and file must discuss the higher bodies’ directives in detail in order to understand their meaning thoroughly and decide on the methods of carrying them out.


Disregard of organizational discipline in the Party organization in the Fourth Army manifests itself as follows:

A. Failure of the minority to submit to the majority. For example, when a minority finds its motion voted down, it does not sincerely carry out the Party decisions.
The methods of correction are as follows:

1. At meetings, all participants should be encouraged to voice their opinions as fully as possible. The rights and wrongs in any controversy should be clarified without compromise or glossing over. In order to reach a clear-cut conclusion, what cannot be settled at one meeting should be discussed at another, provided there is no interference with the work.

2. One requirement of Party discipline is that the minority should submit to the majority. If the view of the minority has been rejected, it must support the decision passed by the majority. If necessary, it can bring up the maker for reconsideration at the next meeting, but apart from that it must not act against the decision in any way.

B. Criticism made without regard to organizational discipline:

1. Inner-Party criticism is a weapon for strengthening the Party organization and increasing its fighting capacity. In the Party organization of the Red Army, however, criticism is not always of this character, and sometimes turns into personal attack. As a result, it damages the Party organization as well as individuals. This is a manifestation of petty-bourgeois individualism. The method of correction is to help Party members understand that the purpose of criticism is to increase the Party’s fighting capacity in order to achieve victory in the class struggle and that it should not be used as a means of personal attack.

2. Many Party members make their criticisms not inside, but outside, the Party. The reason is that the general membership has not yet grasped the importance of the Party organization (its meetings and so forth), and sees no difference between criticism inside and outside the organization. The method of correction is to educate Party members so that they understand the importance of Party organization and make their criticisms of Party committees or comrades at Party meetings.


Absolute equalitarianism became quite serious in the Red Army at one time. Here are some examples. On the matter of allowances to wounded soldiers, there were objections to differentiating between light and serious cases, and the demand was raised for equal allowances for all. When officers rode on horseback, it was regarded not as something necessary for performing their duties but as a sign of inequality. Absolutely equal distribution of supplies was demanded, and there was objection to somewhat larger allotments in special cases. In the hauling of rice, the demand was made that all should carry the same load on their backs, irrespective of age or physical condition. Equality was demanded in the allotment of billets, and the Headquarters would be abused for occupying larger rooms. Equality was demanded in the assignment of fatigue duties, and there was unwillingness to do a little more than the next man. It even went so far that when there were two wounded men but only one stretcher, neither could be carried away because each refused to yield priority to the other. Absolute equalitarianism, as shown in these examples, is still very serious among officers and soldiers of the Red Army.

Absolute equalitarianism, like ultra-democracy in political matters, is the product of a handicraft and small peasant economy–the only difference being that the one manifests itself in material affairs, while the other manifests itself in political affairs.

The method of correction: We should point out that, before the abolition of capitalism, absolute equalitarianism is a mere illusion of peasants and small proprietors, and that even under socialism there can be no absolute equality, for material things will then be distributed on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” as well as on that of meeting the needs of the work. The distribution of material things in the Red Army must be more or less equal, as in the case of equal pay for officers and men, because this is required by the present circumstances of the struggle. But absolute equalitarianism beyond reason must be opposed because it is not required by the struggle; on the contrary, it hinders the struggle.


Subjectivism exists to a serious degree among some Party members, causing great harm to the analysis of the political situation and the guidance of the work. The reason is that subjective analysis of a political situation and subjective guidance of work inevitably result either in opportunism or in putschism. As for subjective criticism, loose and groundless talk or suspiciousness, such practices inside the Party often breed unprincipled disputes and undermine the Party organization.

Another point that should be mentioned in connection with inner-Party criticism is that some comrades ignore the major issues and confine their attention to minor points when they make their criticism. They do not understand that the main task of criticism is to point out political and organizational mistakes. As to personal shortcomings, unless they are related to political and organizational mistakes, there is no need to be overcritical and to embarrass the comrades concerned. Moreover, once such criticism develops, there is the great danger that the Party members will concentrate entirely on minor faults, and everyone will become timid and overcautious and forget the Party’s political tasks.

The main method of correction is to educate Party members so that a political and scientific spirit pervades their thinking and their Party life. To this end we must: (1) teach Party members to apply the Marxist-Leninist method in analysing a political situation and appraising the class forces, instead of making a subjective analysis and appraisal; (2) direct the attention of Party members to social and economic investigation and study, so as to determine the tactics of struggle and methods of work, and help comrades to understand that without investigation of actual conditions they will fall into the pit of fantasy and putschism; and (3) in inner-Party criticism, guard against subjectivism, arbitrariness and the vulgarization of criticism; statements should be based on facts and criticism should centre on politics.


The tendency towards individualism in the Red Army Party organization manifests itself as follows:

1. Retaliation. Some comrades, after being criticized inside the Party by a soldier comrade, look for opportunities to retaliate outside the Party, and one way is to beat or abuse the comrade in question. They also seek to retaliate within the Party. “You have criticized me at this meeting, so I’ll find some way to pay you back at the next.” Such retaliation arises from purely personal considerations, to the neglect of the interests of the class and of the Party as a whole. Its target is not the enemy class, but individuals in our own ranks. It is a corrosive which weakens the organization and its fighting capacity.

2. “Small group” mentality. Some comrades consider only the interests of their own small group and ignore the general interest. Although on the surface this does not seem to be the pursuit of personal interests, in reality it exemplifies the narrowest individualism and has a strong corrosive and centrifugal effect. “Small group” mentality used to be rife in the Red Army, and although there has been some improvement as a result of criticism, there are still survivals and further effort is needed to overcome it.

3. The “employee” mentality. Some comrades do not understand that the Party and the Red Army, of which they are members, are both instruments for carrying out the tasks of the revolution. They do not realize that they themselves are makers of the revolution, but think that their responsibility is merely to their individual superiors and not to the revolution. This passive mentality of an “employee” of the revolution is also a manifestation of individualism. It explains why there are not very many activists who work unconditionally for the revolution. Unless it is eliminated, the number of activists will not grow and the heavy burden of the revolution will remain on the shoulders of a small number of people, much to the detriment of the struggle.

4. Pleasure-seeking. In the Red Army there are also quite a few people whose individualism finds expression in pleasure-seeking. They always hope that their unit will march into big cities. They want to go there not to work but to enjoy themselves. The last thing they want is to work in the Red areas where life is hard.

5. Passivity. Some comrades become passive and stop working whenever anything goes against their wishes. This is mainly due to. lack of education, though sometimes it is also due to the leadership’s improper conduct of affairs, assignment of work or enforcement of discipline.

6. The desire to leave the army. The number of people who ask for transfers from the Red Army to local work is on the increase The reason for this does not lie entirely with the individuals but also with: (1) the material hardships of life in the Red Army, (2) exhaustion after long struggle, and (3) the leadership’s improper conduct of affairs, assignment of work or enforcement of discipline.

The method of correction is primarily to strengthen education so as to rectify individualism ideologically. Next, it is to conduct affairs, make assignments and enforce discipline in a proper way. In addition, ways must be found to improve the material life of the Red Army, and every available opportunity must be utilized for rest and rehabilitation in order to improve material conditions. In our educational work we must explain that in its social origin individualism is a reflection within the Party of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois ideas.


The political ideology of roving rebel bands has emerged in the Red Army because the proportion of vagabond elements is large and because there are great masses of vagabonds in China, especially in the southern provinces. This ideology manifests itself as follows: (1) Some people want to increase our political influence only by means of roving guerrilla actions, but are unwilling to increase it by undertaking the arduous task of building up base areas and establishing the people’s political power. (2) In expanding the Red Army, some people follow the line of “hiring men and buying horses” and “recruiting deserters and accepting mutineers”, [3] rather than the line of expanding the local Red Guards and the local troops and thus developing the main forces of the Red Army. (3) Some people lack the patience to carry on arduous struggles together with the masses, and only want to go to the big cities to eat and drink to their hearts’ content. All these manifestations of the ideology of roving rebels seriously hamper the Red Army in performing its proper tasks; consequently its eradication is an important objective in the ideological struggle within the Red Army Party organization. It must be understood that the ways of roving rebels of the Huang Chao [4] or Li Chuang [5] type are not permissible under present-day conditions.
The methods of correction are as follows:

1. Intensify education, criticize incorrect ideas, and eradicate the ideology of roving rebel bands.

2. Intensify education among the basic sections of the Red Army and among recently recruited captives to counter the vagabond outlook.

3. Draw active workers and peasants experienced in struggle into the ranks of the Red Army so as to change its composition.

4. Create new units of the Red Army from among the masses of militant workers and peasants.


The Party organization in the Red Army has already waged struggles against putschism, but not yet to a sufficient extent. Therefore, remnants of this ideology still exist in the Red Army. Their manifestations are: (1) blind action regardless of subjective and objective conditions; (2) inadequate and irresolute application of the Party’s policies for the cities; (3) slack military discipline, especially in moments of defeat; (4) acts of house-burning by some units; and (5) the practices of shooting deserters and of inflicting corporal punishment, both of which smack of putschism. In its social origins, putschism is a combination of lumpen-proletarian and petty- bourgeois ideology.

The methods of correction are as follows:

1. Eradicate putschism ideologically.

2. Correct putschist behaviour through rules, regulations and policies.


1. For a brief period after the defeat of the revolution in 1927, a “Left” putschist tendency arose in the Communist Party. Regarding the Chinese revolution as a “permanent revolution” and the revolutionary situation in China as a “permanent upsurge”, the putschist comrades refused to organize an orderly retreat and, adopting the methods of commandism and relying only on a small number of Party members and a small section of the masses, erroneously attempted to stage a series of local uprisings throughout the country, which had no prospect of success. Such putschist activities were widespread at the end of 1927 but gradually subsided in the beginning of 1928, though sentiments in favour of putschism still survived among some comrades.

2 In the guerrilla system of organization a column corresponded to a division in the regular army, with a complement much more flexible and usually much smaller than that of a regular division.

3 These two Chinese idioms refer to the methods which some rebels in Chinese history adopted to expand their forces. In the application of these methods, attention was paid to numbers rather than to quality, and people of all sorts were indiscriminately recruited to swell the ranks.

4 Huang Chao was the leader of the peasant revolts towards the end of the Tang Dynasty. In A.D. 875, starting from his home district Tsaochow (now Hotse County in Shantung), Huang led armed peasants in victorious battles against the imperial forces and styled himself the “Heaven-Storming General”. In the course of a decade he swept over most of the provinces in the Yellow, Yangtse, Huai and Pearl river valleys, reaching as far as Kwangsi. He finally broke through the Tungkuan pass, captured the imperial capital of Changan (now Sian in Shensi), and was crowned Emperor of Chi. Internal dissensions and attacks by the non-Han tribal allies of the Tang forces compelled Huang to abandon Changan and retreat to his native district, where he committed suicide. The ten years’ war fought by him is one of the most famous peasant wars in Chinese history. Dynastic historians record that “all people suffering from heavy taxes and levies rallied to him”. But as he merely carried on roving warfare without ever establishing relatively consolidated base areas, his forces were called “roving rebel bands”.

5 Li Chuang, short for Li Tzu-cheng the King Chuang (the Dare-All King), native of Michih, northern Shensi, was the leader of a peasant revolt which led to the overthrow of the Ming Dynasty. The revolt first started in northern Shensi in 1628. Li joined the forces led by Kao Ying-hsiang and campaigned through Honan and Anhwei and back to Shensi. After Kao’s death in 1636, Li succeeded him, becoming King Chuang, and campaigned in and out of the provinces of Shensi, Szechuan, Honan and Hupeh Finally he captured the imperial capital of Peking in 1644, whereupon the last Ming emperor committed suicide. The chief slogan he spread among the masses was “Support King Chuang, and pay no grain taxes”. Another slogan of his to enforce discipline among his men ran: “Any murder means the killing of my father, any rape means the violation of my mother.” Thus he won the support of the masses and his movement became the main current of the peasant revolts raging all over the country. As he, too, roamed about without ever establishing relatively consolidated base areas, he was eventually defeated by Wu San-kuei, a Ming general who colluded with the Ching troops in a joint aback on Li.

Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.
HTML revised 2004 by
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

September 7, 1937
We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.

But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one’s suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one’s own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one’s own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along–”So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell.” This is a ninth type.

To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one’s own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.

They are all manifestations of liberalism.

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well–they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

mao 5 articles 2 11jwUC8jDEL._SL500_AA300_

All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

Posted in Wisdom of the Ages and Sages | Leave a comment

September 11, 2001 The Crimes of War Committed “In the Name of 9/11″: Initiating a Legal Procedure against the Perpetrators of 9/11


From 4th Media

September 11, 2001 The Crimes of War Committed “In the Name of 9/11″: Initiating a Legal Procedure against the Perpetrators of 9/11

Post Categories: Afghanistan

9-11 Explosive Evidence

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky | Thursday, November 15, 2012, 14:18 Beijing

9-11 crimes 1 Michel%20Chossudovsky-big

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon Share on favorites More Sharing Services 3Print

September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War Committed “in the Name of 9/11″

Initiating a Legal Procedure against the Perpetrators of 9/11

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

* * *
International Conference on “9/11 Revisited – Seeking the Truth”

Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF)

Kuala Lumpur, November 2012


The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history, a decisive watershed, a breaking point.

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.

September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. The post September 11, 2001 era is marked by the outright criminalization of the US State, including its judicial, foreign policy, national security and intelligence apparatus.

9/11 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.

A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.

9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.

In assessing the crimes associated with 9/11 in the context of a legal procedure, we must distinguish between those associated with the actual event, namely the loss of life and the destruction of property, from the crimes committed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 “in the name of 9/11″. The latter build upon the former. We are dealing with two related dimensions of criminality.The crimes committed in the name of 9/11 involving acts of war are far-reaching, resulting in the deaths of millions of people as well as the destruction of entire countries.

The 9/11 event in itself– which becomes symbolic– is used to justify the onslaught of the post 9/11 US-NATO military agenda, under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), not to mention the ushering in of the Homeland police state and the repeal of civil liberties.

The crimes committed in the name of 9/11 broadly consist in two intimately related processes:

1. The launching of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification to Wage a War of Conquest. This GWOT mandate was used to justify the 2001 and 2003 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The GWOT mandate has since extended its grip to a large number of countries in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where the US and its NATO allies are intervening selectively under a counterterrorism mandate.

2. The derogation of civil liberties and the instatement of an Orwellian police state apparatus within Western countries. In the US, the introduction of the PATRIOT legislation and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks set the stage for the subsequent restructuring of the judicial and law enforcement apparatus, culminating in the legalisation of extrajudicial assassinations under an alleged counter-terrorism mandate.

The 9/11 attacks constitute what is referred to in intelligence parlance to as a “massive casualty producing event” conducive to the deaths of civilians.

The dramatic loss of life on the morning of 9/11 resulting from an initial criminal act is used as a pretext and a justification to wage an all out war of retribution, in the name of 9/11 against the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, namely the “state sponsors of terrorism”, including Afghanistan, Iraq as well as Iran.

We are dealing with a diabolical and criminal project. The civilian deaths resulting from the 911 attacks are an instrument of war propaganda, applied to build a consensus in favor of an outright war of global domination.

The perpetrators of war propaganda are complicit in the conduct of extensive war crimes, in that they readily justify acts of war as counter-terrorism and/or humanitarian operations (R2P) launched to protect civilians. The “Just War” (Jus ad Bellum) concept prevails: The killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq are “rightfully” undertaken in retribution for the deaths incurred on 9/11.

Evidence is fabricated to the effect that the “state sponsors of terrorism” had committed, on the morning of 9/11, an outright act of war against the United States.

Realities are turned upside down. The US and its allies are the victims of foreign aggression. America’s crimes of war in Afghanistan and Iraq are committed in the name of 9/11 under a counter terrorism mandate.

The 9/11 attacks are used to harness public opinion into supporting a war without borders. Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” are set in motion.

Chronology of Events

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an in-depth police investigation.

CIA Director George Tenet stated that same morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those [foreign governments] who harbor them”.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, without mentioning Afghanistan, pointed his finger at “state sponsorship,” implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, “I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution.”

That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.

The war cabinet had decided to launch an an illegal and criminal war on Afghanistan, based on essentially two interrelated concepts:

1. The 9/11 attacks although allegedly conducted by Al Qaeda were upheld as an all out military attack by a foreign power.

2. Afghanistan in allegedly supporting Al Qaeda, was responsible for an act of military aggression directed against the United States of America.

The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage war on Afghanistan on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”. Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. In taking on this stance they provided legitimacy to the conduct of war crimes. The “just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11.

In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country in Central Asia of 30 million people.

The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America. The post 9/11 era was also characterised by the development of Islamophobia, including routine ethnic profiling directed against Muslims.

Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?

Is there any proof to the effect that Osama bin Laden, the bogeyman, coordinated the 9/11 attacks as claimed in the official 9/11 narrative?

According to CBS news (Dan Rather, January 28, 2002), “Enemy Number One” was admitted to the urology ward of a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan. Rawalpindi is the Headquarters of the Pakistani military including its intelligence apparatus. He could have been arrested at short notice which would have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as presidential speeches in the course of the last eleven years.

DAN RATHER. As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan. (transcript of CBS report, see , see also

CBS News footage of the Rawalpindi, Pakistan, hospital where bin Laden was allegedly treated the day before 9/11. [Source: CBS News]

CBS News footage of the Rawalpindi, Pakistan, hospital where bin Laden was allegedly treated the day before 9/11.

The foregoing CBS report which is of utmost relevance indicates two obvious facts:

1. Osama bin Laden could not reasonably have coordinated the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed;

2. The hospital was under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts were known to both the Pakistani and US military.

U.S. military and intelligence advisers based in Rawalpindi. were working closely with their Pakistani counterparts. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed, at the time, that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden were unknown. According to Rumsfeld: “Its like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.

Recovering from his hospital treatment in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, how could Osama have coordinated the 9/11 attacks?

How could Afghanistan be made responsible for these attacks by Al Qaeda? Bin Laden is a national of Saudi Arabia who, according to CBS News, was not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan at the time of the attacks.

September 12, 2001: The Invasion of Afghanistan: NATO’s Doctrine of Collective Security

The immediate response of the US and its NATO allies to the 9/11 attacks was to the declare a war of retribution against Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting “terror mastermind” Osama bin Laden, who at the time of the attacks was in Pakistan, protected by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus. In a bitter irony, the Pakistani government and military, which had facilitated bin Laden’s hospitalization in Rawalpindi on September 10, offered to assist the US in “going after bin Laden”. An agreement to this effect was reached on September 12 in Washington between the head of Pakistan’s military Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmed and Secretary Colin Powell.

Parroting official statements, the Western media mantra on September 12, 2001 had already approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in Afghanistan. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: “When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.

By allegedly harboring bin Laden, the Afghan government was complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for having waged an act of war against the United States.

This decision was taken by the Bush-Cheney war cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption, “confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

On the following morning, September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan (taken by the war cabinet at 11pm on September 11), invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

Meanwhile, on two occasions in the course of September 2001, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels– offered to hand over Osama Bin laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by president Bush, on the grounds that America “does not negotiate with terrorists”.

The War on Afghanistan: First Stage of the “Global War on Terrorism”

The war on Afghanistan was launched 26 days later on the morning of October 7, 2001. The timing of this war begs the question: how long does it take to plan and implement a major theater war several thousand miles away.

Military analysts will confirm that a major theater war takes months and months, up to a year or more of advanced preparations. Confirmed by press reports, the war on Afghanistan was already in an advanced state of readiness prior to September 11, 2001, which begs the question of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

In other words, the 9/11 attacks were used as a means to trigger a military agenda which was already on the drawing board of both the Pentagon and NATO.

The repeal of civil liberties in America was launched in parallel with the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. Immediately following 9/11, the PATRIOT legislation was adopted. The Homeland Security apparatus was launched, with a view to “protecting Americans against terrorists”. This post-911 legal and institutional framework had been carefully crafted prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty: NATO’s Legal Argument

In invoking Article 5 on the morning of September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council endorsed a criminal military agenda, in derogation of international law.

The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defense”.

On the morning of September 12, 2001, NATO’s North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, responded to the decision of the War Cabinet taken a few hours earlier at 11pm on 9/11, adopted the following resolution:

“if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against “The North Atlantic area“, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. (emphasis added)

In this regard, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates that if:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary,including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” (NATO, What is Article 5, NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)

An act of war by a foreign nation (Afghanistan) against a member of the Atlantic Alliance (the USA) was considered as an act of war against all members under NATO’s doctrine of collective security.

Under no stretch of the imagination, can the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon be categorized as an act of war by a foreign country. But nobody seemed to have raised this issue.

“Use of Armed Force” only “If It is Determined…”

There was an “if” in the September 12 resolution. Article 5 would apply only if it is determined that Afghanistan as a Nation State was complicit or behind the 9/11 attacks.

In practice, the “if” had already been waived prior to 9/11. The entire NATO arsenal was already on a war footing. In military terms, NATO and the US were already in an advanced state of readiness. Known to military analysts, but never revealed in the Western media, the implementation of a large scale theater war takes at least one year of advanced operational planning, prior to the launching of an invasion.

The use of article 5 of the Washington Treaty had in all likelihood been contemplated by military planners, as a pretext for waging war, prior to 9/11.

There was, however, no official declaration of war on September 12th. The Alliance waited until 3 days before the invasion to declare war on Afghanistan, an impoverished country which by no stretch of the imagination could have launched an attack against a member state of “The North Atlantic area”.

The September 12 resolution of the Atlantic Council required “determination” and corroborating evidence, that:

1) Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden with the support of a foreign power had ordered the “attack from abroad” on the United States of America;

2) The terrorist attacks of 9/11 constituted a bona fide military operation (under the provisions of Article 5) by an alleged foreign country (Afghanistan) against a NATO member state, and consequently against all NATO member states under the doctrine of collective security:

“Article 5 and the case of the terrorist attacks against the United States: The United States has been the object of brutal terrorist attacks. It immediately consulted with the other members of the Alliance. The Alliance determined that the US had been the object of an armed attack. The Alliance therefore agreed that if it was determined that this attack was directed from abroad, it would be regarded as covered by Article 5. NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance’s decision.

Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination has yet been made whether the attack against the United States was directed from abroad. If such a determination is made, each Ally will then consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be decided by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN Charter.

Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.

If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States. (Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances.

No collective action will be taken by NATO until further consultations are held and further decisions are made by the the North Atlantic Council. (NATO, NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)

The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report

The final decision to invoke Article 5 in relation to the 9/11 attacks came three weeks later upon the submission to the NATO Council of a mysterious classified report by a US State Department official named Frank Taylor. The report was submitted to NATO on October 2nd, 5 days before the commencement of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.

Frank Taylor was working in the US State Department. He had been entrusted with the writing of a brief to establish whether the US “had been attacked from abroad”, pursuant to the North Atlantic Council’s resolution of September 12 2001.

US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism Frank Taylor briefed the North Atlantic Council on October 2nd, five days before the commencement of the bombings.

On October 2nd he handed his brief to NATO “on the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks…. ” NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009).

The classified report was not released to the media. And to this date, to our knowledge, it has remained classified.

NATO’s Secretary General Lord Robertson casually summarised the substance of the Frank Taylor report in a press release:

“This morning, the United States briefed the North Atlantic Council on the results of the investigation into who was responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks which took place on September 11.

The briefing was given by Ambassador Frank Taylor, the United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-terrorism.

This morning’s briefing follows those offered by United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and illustrates the commitment of the United States to maintain close cooperation with Allies.

Today’s was classified briefing and so I cannot give you all the details.

Briefings are also being given directly by the United States to the Allies in their capitals.

The briefing addressed the events of September 11 themselves, the results of the investigation so far, what is known about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organisation and their involvement in the attacks and in previous terrorist activity, and the links between al-Qaida and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The facts are clear and compelling. The information presented points conclusively to an al-Qaida role in the September 11 attacks.

We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were part of the world-wide terrorist network of al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.

On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined that the attack against the United States on September 11 was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

I want to reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism.” (Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General, statement to the NATO Council, State Department, Appendix H, Multinational Response to September 11 NATO Press, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)

In other words, 2 days before the actual commencement of the bombing campaign on October 7, the North Atlantic Council decided, based on the information provided by Frank Taylor to the Council “that the attacks were directed from abroad” by Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, thereby requiring an action on the part of NATO under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009):

NATO action under article 5, was outlined in an October 4 decision, 3 days before the commencement of the bombings.

Two days later, on 4 October, NATO agreed on eight measures in support the United States, which were tantamount to an illegal declaration of war on Afghanistan:

to enhance intelligence sharing and co-operation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it;

to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities,[military] assistance to Allies and other states which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;

to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory;

to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism;

to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations against terrorism, including for refueling, in accordance with national procedures;

that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; and that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism. NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009 emphasis added)

Press reports of Frank Taylor’s brief to the NATO Council were scanty. The invocation of Article 5, five days before the bombings commenced, was barely mentioned. The media consensus was: “all roads lead to Bin Laden” as if bin Laden was a Nation State which had attacked America.

What stands out are outright lies and fabrications. Moreover, prior to October 2nd, NATO had no pretext under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty to intervene militarily in Afghanistan.

The pretext was provided by Frank Taylor’s classified report, which was not made public.

The two UN Security Council resolutions adopted in the course of September 2001, did not, under any circumstances, provide a justification for the invasion and illegal occupation of a UN member country of 28 million people. (see Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts).

UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) called for prevention and suppression of terrorist acts, as well suppression of the financing of terrorism:

“(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offenses in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;

“3. Calls upon all States to:

“(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;

“(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;

“(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;

“4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, sub-regional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;

“5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (excerpts of UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001, See also UN Press Release SC 7178 SECURITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS WIDE-RANGING ANTI-TERRORISM RESOLUTION; CALLS FOR SUPPRESSING FINANCING, IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, Security Council, 4385th Meeting, September 2001)

Nowhere in this resolution is there any mention of military action against a UN member State.

The US led war on Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a pretext and a justification is illegal and criminal.

The US and NATO heads of state and heads of government from 2001 to the present are complicit in the launching of a criminal and illegal war.

The Big Lie: Al Qaeda Made in America

Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress, which the mainstream media chose to either dismiss or ignore. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.

Both the 9/11 Commission Report as well as the Western media have largely upheld the “outside enemy” mythology, heralding Al Qaeda as the “mastermind” organization behind the 9/11 attacks. The official 9/11 narrative has not only distorted the causes underling the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, it has also erased the historical record of US covert support to international terrorism, while creating the illusion that America and “Western Civilization” are threatened.

Without an “outside enemy”, there could be no “Global War on Terrorism”. The entire national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.

After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive Al Qaeda “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.

This is why a legal procedure directed against the actual perpetrators of 9/11 is absolutely essential.

History of Al Qaeda

Important to the understanding of 9/11, US intelligence is the unspoken architect of “Islamic terrorism” going back to the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.

Bin Laden was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerrilla training camp. Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. With religious textbooks produced in Nebraska, the number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.

“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad.” (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

”The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings….The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..”, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

Under the Reagan administration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic “freedom fighters”. This endorsement has not in any way been modified.

In a twisted irony, throughout the post 911 era, US intelligence in liaison with Britain’s MI6, an Israel’s Mossad, continues to provide covert support to the radical Islamist organization allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda and its various affiliated groups including the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and factions within the Free Syria Army (FSA) are directly supported by the US and NATO.

In a bitter irony, the US and its allies claim to be waging a “war on terrorism” against the alleged architects of 9/11, while also using Al Qaeda operatives as their foot-soldiers.

9-11 crimes 2 isi_and_cia_directors_in_mujahideen_camp1987
Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.
(source RAWA)

9-11 crimes 3 reaganandmujahideen1
Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)

Iraq: Alleged State Sponsor of the 9/11 Attacks

The formulation of a war of retribution conducted in the name of 9/11 was not limited to Afghanistan.

In the course of 2002, leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain. While Washington’s official position was that Saddam Hussein was not behind the 9/11 attacks, insinuations abounded both in presidential speeches as well as in the Western media. According to Bush, in an October 2002 press conference:

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. .,.. We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability — even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source [Iraq], that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, October 7, 2002)

Barely two weeks before the invasion of Iraq, September 11, 2001 was mentioned abundantly by president Bush. In the weeks leading up to the March invasion, 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was “personally involved” in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. (See: The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq / The Christian Science Monitor –, March 14, 2003)

Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United Nations Security Council, in February 2003, detailed “documentation” on a sinister relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was presented, focussing on his ability to produce deadly chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with the full support and endorsement of the secular Baathist regime. The implication of Colin’s Powell’s assertions, which were totally fabricated, was that Saddam Hussein and an Al Qaeda affiliated organization had joined hands in the production of WMD in Northern Iraq and that the Hussein government was a “state sponsor” of terrorism.

9-11 crimes 4 0_21_al_zarqawi_tape

The main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of “terrorists opposed to democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on television screens and news tabloids across the globe.

Iran: Condemned by a New York City Court for Supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11 Attacks

In the wake of the Iraq invasion, the same alleged “state sponsorship” of terrorism accusations emerged in relation to Iran.

In December 2011, the Islamic Republic of Iran was condemned by a Manhattan court, for its alleged role in supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.

The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role was launched in 2004, pursuant to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 9/11 Commission’s recommendation was that this “apparent link” required “further investigation by the U.S. government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241). (See Iran 911 Case ).

In the December 2011 court judgment (Havlish v. Iran) “U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case”.

According to the plaintiffs attorneys “Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s. Citing their national security and intelligence experts, the attorneys explained “how the pragmatic terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi’a divide in order to confront the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel (the “Lesser Satan”)”. Iran and Hezbollah allegedly provided “training to members of al Qaeda in, among other things, the use of explosives to destroy large buildings.” (Ssee Iran 911 Case ).

This judicial procedure is nothing more than another vicious weapon in the fabricated “War on Terror” to be used against another Muslim country, with a view to destabilizing Iran as well as justifying ongoing military threats. It also says a lot more about the people behind the lawsuit than about the accused. The expert witnesses who testified against Iran are very active in warmongering neocon circles. They belong to a web of architects of the 21st century Middle-Eastern wars, ranging from high profile propagandists to intelligence and military officers, including former U.S. officials.

But what makes this case absurd is that in September 2011, a few months before the judgment, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has questioned the official 9/11 narrative, was accused by Al-Qaeda leaders of “spreading conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks”. The semi-official media outlet of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, insisted that al-Qaeda “had been behind the attacks and criticised the Iranian president for discrediting the terrorist group.” (See Julie Levesque, Iran Accused of being behind 9/11 Attacks. U.S. Court Judgment, December 2011 (Havlish v. Iran), Global Research, May 11, 2012)

Al Qaeda: US-NATO Foot-soldiers

Ironically, while Washington accuses Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, the historical record and evidence indelibly point to the “state sponsorship” of Al Qaeda by the CIA, MI6 and their intelligence counterparts in Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Realities are turned upside down. Al Qaeda death squads have been recruited to wage America’s humanitarian wars throughout the Middle East an d North Africa.

In Syria Al Qaeda units were recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command:

“Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels.” ( Debkafile, August 31, 2011).

In Libya, jihadists from Afghanistan trained by the CIA were dispatched to fight with the “pro-democracy” rebels under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj:

Western policy makers admit that NATO’s operations in Libya have played the primary role in emboldening Al Qaeda’s AQIM faction (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). The Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution’s Bruce Riedel in his article, “The New Al Qaeda Menace,” admits that AQIM is now heavily armed thanks to NATO’s intervention in Libya, and that AQIM’s base in Mali, North Africa, serves as a staging ground for terrorist activities across the region.

“Crimes against Civilization”

9/11 mythology has been the mainstay of war propaganda, which in itself constitutes a criminal act under international law.

Fiction prevails over reality. For propaganda to be effective, public opinion must firmly endorse the official 9/11 narrative to the effect that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. A well organized structure of media disinformation is required to reach this objective. Perpetuating the 9/11 Legend also requires defying as well smearing the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Throughout the post 9/11 era, a panoply of Al Qaeda related events and circumstances is presented to public opinion on a daily basis. These include terrorist threats, warnings and attacks, police investigations, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, country-level regime change, social conflict, sectarian violence, racism, religious divisions, Islamic thought, Western values, etc.

Muslims are presented as the perpetrators of the 9/11, thereby unleashing a Worldwide demonization campaign.

In turn, 9/11, Al Qaeda – War on Terrorism rhetoric permeates political discourse at all levels of government, including bipartisan debate on Capitol Hill, in committees of the House and the Senate, at the British House of Commons, and, lest we forget, at the United Nations Security Council. All these various bodies are complicit in a criminal project.

September 11 and Al Qaeda concepts, repeated ad nauseam have potentially traumatic impacts on the human mind and the ability of normal human beings to analyze and comprehend the “real outside World” of war, politics and the economic crisis.

What is at stake is human consciousness and comprehension based on concepts and facts.

With September 11 there are no verifiable “facts” and “concepts”, because 9/11 as well as Al Qaeda have evolved into a media mythology, a legend, an invented ideological construct, used as an unsubtle tool of war propaganda.

Al Qaeda constitutes a stylized, fake and almost folkloric abstraction of terrorism, which permeates the inner consciousness of millions of people around the World.

Reference to Al Qaeda has become a dogma, a belief, which most people espouse unconditionally. According to the media, “Muslims were behind the attacks”, thereby justifying a war of retribution against Muslim countries.

Racism and Islamophobia are an integral part of war propaganda.

Is this political indoctrination? Is it brain-washing? If so what is the underlying objective?

People’s capacity to independently analyse World events, as well as address causal relationships pertaining to politics and society, is significantly impaired. That is the objective!

The routine use of 9/11 and Al Qaeda to generate blanket explanations of complex political events is meant to create confusion.

It prevents people from thinking. It strikes at the core of human values. In a sense, it destroys civilization.

All of these complex Al Qaeda related occurrences are explained by politicians, the corporate media, Hollywood and the Washington think tanks under a single blanket “bad guys” heading, in which Al Qaeda is casually and repeatedly pinpointed as “the cause” of numerous terror events around the World.

The criminality underlying post 9/11 propaganda is of much broader nature, affecting people’s mindsets, redefining fundamental social, political and institutional relations.

“Crimes against Civilization” have been committed.

9/11 mythology precipitates the World into barbarity.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism”(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

Posted in 4th Media, 9-11 Videos and Articles, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, Fascism in America, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, MSM Mainstream Media Sycophancy, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Psychopaths and Sociopaths in Politics, Psychopaths in Management, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, U.S. Terrorism, Veterans issues | Leave a comment

The Visible Government: How the U.S. Intelligence Community Came Out of the Shadows

The Visible Government: How the U.S. Intelligence Community Came Out of the Shadows

Post Categories: Canada

Tom Engelhardt | Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 15:19 Beijing


Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon Share on favorites More Sharing Services 2Print

Weren’t those the greatest of days if you were in the American spy game? Governments went down in Guatemala and Iran thanks to you. In distant Indonesia, Laos, and Vietnam, what a role you played! And even that botch-up of an invasion in Cuba was nothing to sneeze at. In those days, unfortunately, you — particularly those of you in the CIA — didn’t get the credit you deserved.

You had to live privately with your successes. Sometimes, as with the Bay of Pigs, the failures came back to haunt you (so, in the case of Iran, would your “success,” though so many years later), but you couldn’t with pride talk publicly about what you, in your secret world, had done, or see instant movies and TV shows about your triumphs.

You couldn’t launch a “covert” air war that was reported on, generally positively, almost every week, or bask in the pleasure of having your director claim publicly that it was “the only game in town.”

You couldn’t, that is, come out of what were then called “the shadows,” and soak up the glow of attention, be hailed as a hero, join Americans in watching some (fantasy) version of your efforts weekly on television, or get the credit for anything.

Nothing like that was possible — not at least until well after two journalists, David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, shined a bright light into those shadows, called you part of an “invisible government,” and outed you in ways that you found deeply discomforting.

Their book with that startling title, The Invisible Government, was published in 1964 and it was groundbreaking, shadow-removing, illuminating. It caused a fuss from its very first paragraph, which was then a shockeroo: “There are two governments in the United States today. One is visible. The other is invisible.”

I mean, what did Americans know at the time about an invisible government even the president didn’t control that was lodged deep inside the government they had elected?

Wise and Ross continued: “The first is the government that citizens read about in their newspapers and children study about in their civics books. The second is the interlocking, hidden machinery that carries out the policies of the United States in the Cold War. This second, invisible government gathers intelligence, conducts espionage, and plans and executes secret operations all over the globe.”

The Invisible Government came out just as what became known as “the Sixties” really began, a moment when lights were suddenly being shone into many previously shadowy American corners.

I was then 20 years old and sometime in those years I read their book with a suitable sense of dread, just as I had read those civics books in high school in which Martians landed on Main Street in some “typical” American town to be lectured on our way of life and amazed by our Constitution, not to speak of those fabulous governmental checks and balances instituted by the Founding Fathers, and other glories of democracy.

I wasn’t alone reading The Invisible Government either. It was a bestseller and CIA Director John McCone reportedly read the manuscript, which he had secretly obtained from publisher Random House. He demanded deletions. When the publisher refused, he considered buying up the full first printing. In the end, he evidently tried to arrange for some bad reviews instead.

Time Machines and Shadow Worlds

By 1964, the “U.S. Intelligence Community,” or IC, had nine members, including the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the National Security Agency (NSA). As Wise and Ross portrayed it, the IC was already a labyrinthine set of secret outfits with growing power.

It was capable of launching covert actions worldwide, with a “broad spectrum of domestic operations,” the ability to overthrow foreign governments, some involvement in shaping presidential campaigns, and the capacity to plan operations without the knowledge of Congress or full presidential control. “No outsider,” they concluded, “can tell whether this activity is necessary or even legal.

No outsider is in a position to determine whether or not, in time, these activities might become an internal danger to a free society.” Modestly enough, they called for Americans to face the problem and bring “secret power” under control. (“If we err as a society, let it be on the side of control.”)

Now, imagine that H.G. Wells’s time machine had been available in that year of publication. Imagine that it whisked those journalists, then in their mid-thirties, and the young Tom Engelhardt instantly some 48 years into the future to survey just how their cautionary tale about a great democratic and republican nation running off the tracks and out of control had played out.

The first thing they might notice is that the Intelligence Community of 2012 with 17 official outfits has, by the simplest of calculations, almost doubled. The real size and power of that secret world, however, has in every imaginable way grown staggeringly larger than that. Take one outfit, now part of the IC, that didn’t exist back in 1964, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

With an annual budget of close to $5 billion, it recently built a gigantic $1.8 billion headquarters — “the third-largest structure in the Washington area, nearly rivaling the Pentagon in size” — for its 16,000 employees.

It literally has its “eye” on the globe in a way that would have been left to sci-fi novels almost half a century ago and is tasked as “the nation’s primary source of geospatial intelligence, or GEOINT.” (Don’t ask me what that means exactly, though it has to do with quite literally imaging the planet and all its parts — or perhaps less politely, turning every inch of Earth into a potential shooting range.)

Or consider an outfit that did exist then: the National Security Agency, or NSA (once known jokingly as “no such agency” because of its deep cover). Like its geospatial cousin, it has been in a period of explosive growth, budgetary and otherwise, capped off by the construction of a “heavily fortified” $2 billion data center in Bluffdale, Utah.

According to NSA expert James Bamford, when finished in 2013 that center will “intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks.”

He adds: “Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails — parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital ‘pocket litter.’”

We’re talking not just about foreign terrorists here but about the intake and eternal storage of vast reams of material from American citizens, possibly even you.

Or consider a little-known post-9/11 creation, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is not even a separate agency in the IC, but part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration has just turned that organization into “a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens — even people suspected of no crime.”

It has granted the NCTC the right, among other things “to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them… copy entire government databases — flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students, and many others.

The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited.”

Or take the Defense Intelligence Agency, which came into existence in 1961 and became operational only the year their book came out. Almost half a century ago, as Wise and Ross told their readers, it had 2,500 employees and a relatively modest set of assigned tasks. By the end of the Cold War, it had 7,500 employees. Two decades later, another tale of explosive growth: the DIA has 16,000 employees.

In their 2010 Washington Post series, “Top Secret America,” journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin caught a spirit of untrammeled expansion in the post-9/11 era that would surely have amazed those two authors who had called for “controls” over the secret world: “In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings — about 17 million square feet of space.”

Similarly, the combined Intelligence Community budget, which in deepest secrecy had supposedly soared to at least $44 billion in 2005 (all such figures have to be taken with a dumpster-ful of salt), has by now nearly doubled to an official $75 billion.

Let’s add in one more futuristic shocker for our time travelers. Someone would have to tell them that, in 1991, the Soviet Union, that great imperial power and nemesis of the invisible government, with its vast army, secret police, system of gulags, and monstrous nuclear arsenal, had disappeared largely nonviolently from the face of the Earth and no single power has since arisen to challenge the United States militarily.

After all, that staggering U.S. intelligence budget, the explosion of new construction, the steep growth in personnel, and all the rest has happened in a world in which the U.S. is facing a couple of rickety regional powers (Iran and North Korea), a minority insurgency in Afghanistan, a rising economic power (China) with still modest military might, and probably a few thousand extreme Muslim fundamentalists and al-Qaeda wannabes scattered around the planet.

They would have to be told that, thanks to a single horrific event, a kind of terrorist luck-out we now refer to in shorthand as “9/11,” and despite the diminution of global enemies, an already enormous IC has expanded nonstop in a country seized by a spasm of fear and paranoia.

Preparing Battlefields and Building Giant Embassies

Staggered by the size of the invisible government they had once anatomized, the two reporters might have been no less surprised by another development: the way in our own time “intelligence” has been militarized, while the U.S. military itself has plunged into the shadows.

Of course, it’s now well known that the CIA, a civilian intelligence agency until recently headed by a retired four-star general, has been paramilitarized and is now putting a significant part of its energy into running an ever spreading “covert” set of drone wars across the Greater Middle East.

Meanwhile, since the early years of the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. military has been intent on claiming some of the CIA’s turf as its own. Not long after the 9/11 attacks, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld began pushing the Pentagon into CIA-style intelligence activities — the “full spectrum of humint [human intelligence] operations” — to “prepare” for future “battlefields.” That process has never ended.

In April 2012, for instance, the Pentagon released the information that it was in the process of setting up a new spy agency called the Defense Clandestine Service (DCS). Its job: to globalize military “intelligence” by taking it beyond the obvious war zones. The DCS was tasked as well with working more closely with the CIA (while assumedly rivaling it).

As Greg Miller of the Washington Post reported, “Creation of the new service also coincides with the appointment of a number of senior officials at the Pentagon who have extensive backgrounds in intelligence and firm opinions on where the military’s spying programs — often seen as lackluster by CIA insiders — have gone wrong.”

And then just this month the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, originally a place for analysis and coordination, announced at a conference that his agency was going to expand into “humint” in a big way, filling embassies around the world with a new corps of clandestine operators who had diplomatic or other “cover.”

He was talking about fielding 1,600 “collectors” who would be “trained by the CIA and often work with the Joint Special Operations Command.” Never, in other words, will a country have had so many “diplomats” who know absolutely nothing aboutdiplomacy.

Though the Senate has balked at funding the expansion of the Defense Clandestine Service, all of this represents both a significant reshuffling of what is still called “intelligence” but is really a form of low-level war-making on a global stage and a continuing expansion of America’s secret world on a scale hitherto unimaginable, all in the name of “national security.”

Now at least, it’s easier to understand why, from London to Baghdad to Islamabad, the U.S. has been building humongous embassies fortified like ancient castles and the size of imperial palaces for unparalleled staffs of “diplomats.” These will now clearly include scads of CIA, DIA, and perhaps DCS agents, among others, under diplomatic “cover.”

Into this mix would have to go another outfit that would have been unknown to Wise and Ross, but — given the publicity Seal Team Six has gotten over the bin Laden raid and other activities — that most Americans will be at least somewhat aware of.

An ever-greater role in the secret world is now being played by a military organization that long ago headed into the shadows, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). In 2009, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh termed it an “executive assassination ring” (especially in Iraq) that did not “report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days… directly to the Cheney office.”

In fact, JSOC only emerged into the public eye when one of its key operatives in Iraq, General Stanley McChrystal, was appointed U.S. war commander in Afghanistan. It has been in the spotlight ever since as it engages in what once might have been CIA-style paramilitary operations on steroids, increases its intelligence-gathering capacity, runs its own drone wars, and has set up a new headquarters in Washington, 15 convenient minutes from the White House.

Big Screen Moments and “Covert” Wars

At their top levels, the leadership of the CIA, the DIA, and JSOC are now mixing and matching in a blur of ever more intertwined, militarized outfits, increasingly on a perpetual war footing. They have, in this way, turned the ancient arts of intelligence, surveillance, spying, and assassination into a massively funded way of life and are now regularly conducting war on the sly and on the loose across the globe.

At the lowest levels, the CIA, DIA, JSOC, and assumedly someday DCS train together, work in teams and in tandem, and cooperate, as well as poach on each other’s turf.

Today, you would be hard-pressed to write a single volume called The Invisible Government. You would instead have to produce a multi-volume series. And while you were at it — this undoubtedly would have stunned Wise and Ross — you might have had to retitle the project something like The Visible Government.

Don’t misunderstand me: Americans now possess (or more accurately are possessed by) a vast “intelligence” bureaucracy deeply in the shadows, whose activities are a mass of known unknowns and unknown unknowns to those of us on the outside. It is beyond enormous.

There is no way to assess its actual usefulness, or whether it is even faintly “intelligent” (though a case could certainly be made that the U.S. would be far better off with a non-paramilitarized intelligence service or two, rather than scads of them, that eschewed paranoia and relied largely on open sources). But none of that matters.

It now represents an irreversible way of life, one that is increasingly visible and celebrated in this country. It is also part of the seemingly endless growth of the imperial power of the White House and, in ways that Wise and Ross would in 1964 have found inconceivable, beyond all accountability or control when it comes to the American people.

It is also ready to take public credit for its “successes” (or even a significant hand in shaping how they are viewed in the public arena). Once upon a time, a CIA agent who died in some covert operation would have gone unnamed and unacknowledged. By the 1970s, that agent would have had a star engraved on the wall of the lobby of CIA headquarters, but no one outside the Agency would have known about his or her fate.

Now, those who die in our “secret” operations or ones launched against our “invisible” agents can become public figures and celebrated “heroes.” This was the case, for instance, with Jennifer Matthews, a CIA agent who died in Afghanistan when an Agency double agent turned out to be a triple agent and suicide bomber.

Or just last week, when a soldier from Seal Team Six died in an operation in Afghanistan to rescue a kidnapped doctor. The Navy released his photo and name, and he was widely hailed. This would certainly have been striking to Wise and Ross.

Then again, they would undoubtedly have been no less startled to discover that, from Jack Ryan and Jason Bourne to Syriana, the Mission Impossible films, and Taken, the CIA and other secret outfits (or their fantasy doppelgangers) have become staples of American multiplexes. Nor has the small screen, from 24 to Homeland, been immune to this invasion of visibility.

Or consider this: just over a year and a half after Seal Team Six’s super-secret bin Laden operation ended, it has already been turned into Zero Dark Thirty, a highly pre-praised (and controversial) movie, a candidate for Oscars with a heroine patterned on an undercover CIA agent whose photo has made it into the public arena.

Moreover, it was a film whose makers were reportedly aided or at least encouraged in their efforts by the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House, just as the SEALs aided this year’s high-grossing movie Act of Valor (“an elite team of Navy SEALs… embark on a covert mission to recover a kidnapped CIA agent”) by lending the film actual SEALs as its (unnamed) actors and then staging a SEAL parachute drop onto a red carpet at its Hollywood premier.

True, at the time The Invisible Government was published, the first two James Bond films were already hits and the Mission Imposible TV show was only two years from launch, but the way the invisible world has since emerged from the shadows to become a fixture of pop culture remains stunning. And don’t think this was just some cultural quirk.

After all, back in the 1960s, enterprising reporters had to pry open those invisible agencies to discover anything about what they were doing. In those years, for instance, the CIA ran a secret air and sizeable ground war in Laos that it tried desperately never to acknowledge despite its formidable size and scope.

Today, on the other hand, the Agency runs what are called “covert” drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia in which most strikes are promptly reported in the press and about which the administration clearly leaked information it wanted in the New York Times on the president’s role in picking those to die.

In the past, American presidents pursued “plausible deniability” when it came to assassination plots like those against Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, and Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem. Now, assassination is clearly considered a semi-public part of the presidential job, codified, bureaucratized, and regulated (though only within the White House), and remarkably public.

All of this has become part of the visible world (or at least a giant publicity operation in it). No need today for a Wise or Ross to tell us this. Ever since President Ronald Reagan’s CIA-run Central American Contra wars of the 1980s, the definition of “covert” has changed. It no longer means hidden from sight, but beyond accountability.

It is now a polite way of saying to the American people: not yours. Yes, you can know about it; you can feel free to praise it; but you have nothing to do with it, no say over it.

In the 48 years since their pioneering book was published, Wise and Ross’s invisible government has triumphed over the visible one. It has become the go-to option in this country.

In certain ways, it is also becoming the most visible and important part of that government, a vast edifice of surveilling, storing, spying, and killing that gives us what we now call “security,” leaves us in terror of the world, never stops growing, and is ever freer to collect information on you to use as it wishes.

With the passage of 48 years, it’s so much clearer that, impressive as Wise and Ross were, their quest was quixotic. Bring the “secret power” under control? Make it accountable? Dream on — but be careful, one of these days even your dreams may be on file.

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The United States of Fear as well as The End of Victory Culture, his history of the Cold War, runs the Nation Institute’s His latest book, co-authored with Nick Turse, is Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050. You can see his interview with Bill Moyers on supersized politics, drones, and other subjects by clicking here.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch book, Nick Turse’s The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare.

Copyright 2012 Tom Engelhardt

Posted in 4th Media, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, New World Order, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


The following Indictment, also published in The 4thMedia in Beijing has been submitted as supporting evidence and argument in several legal cases in Canada, and in several official submissions to high levels of the U.S. Government, without rebuttals of any kind to its content. It is also published, along with other documents, at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the specific request and invitation of the Center and its founder the late Dr. Stephen C. Feinstein who was a real “Mensch” and visionary, rigorously honest and principled, from whom I learned so much in our conversations and many exchanges that I will always remember and cherish. Dr Feinstein could not only see the parallels between the Nazi Holocaust against Jews and other targeted victims, but he saw how Hitler personally, and the Nazi Holocaust were directly “inspired”, from Hitler’s own mouth and speeches (see “Hitler’s Table Talk” also as “Hitler’s Secret Conversations” by Hugh Trevor-Roper) by Hitler’s ideas and take on the American and Canadian genocides against Indigenous Peoples. After he had read some of my work he contacted me and that began a friendship until his death that still saddens me to this day as he was a remarkable human being and a true visionary.

Dr. Feinstein understood that in the rank-ordering of evil, certainly that which inspired the likes of Hitler and his policies (the U.S. and Canadian genocides against Indigenous Peoples), along with the later post-World War II policies applied against Indigenous Peoples that Hitler and the Nazis, along with the likes of the infamous Japanese Unit 731 inspired (with a long list of wanted war criminals brought to the U.S. and Canada and protected in return for their “research” on human subjects being turned over to the U.S. and Canadian and other allied governments), also had to rank highly as pure evil.

Here at the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies

CHGS logo

Blackfoot Indictment was originally written for an Investigatory Tribunal on the Indian Residential School Systems of the U.S. and Canada convened on the Apatohsipiikaanii (Northern Peigan) Reserve of the Blackfoot at Brocket, Alberta conducted by Traditional Authorities of the Blackfoot Nation (Hereditary Chiefs, Bundle Holders, Pipe Carriers, Medicine Persons, Elders) under Emergency and Exigent Circumstances (the near extinction of Blackfoot People as a People and indifference/genocidal actions and policies of the U.S. and Canadian Governments)


By James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii



Long before there were recognized nations called The United States of America and Canada, and for many years since the genesis and recognition of those nations, Blackfoot People lived as and formed a Whole People and Nation. By any and all criteria under international law that legitimate and mandate recognition of The United States of America and Canada as sovereign nations, that have the unalienable right to recognition, security and self-determination as nations, Blackfoot People have collectively constituted a “People” and Nation. Specifically, Blackfoot People, historically have possessed, and in the present-day possess and/or can and have the right to reconstitute to stop genocide and extinction:

1) Recognized and Commonly-shared Territory;
2) Recognized and Commonly-shared History, Culture, Spirituality and Language;
3) Recognized and Commonly-shared Legal and Political Institutions, Processes and
4) Recognized and Commonly-shared Economic Institutions, Processes and Traditions;
5) Recognized and Commonly-shared Mechanisms and Institutions for Determination of
Membership in and Leadership/Composition of the Nation;
6) Recognized and Commonly-shared Ancestors and Ties of Blood–Family, Clan and
7) Recognized Capacity to Enter Into Relations with Other Nations;
8) Recognized and Expressed Common Will of Blackfoot Individuals to Live Together in
Collectives Forming Whole Societies Greater Than the Sums of the Parts;
9) Close Attachment to Ancestral Lands and their Resources;
10) Self-identification and Identification by Others as Members of a Distinct Nation or
Cultural Group;
11) Recognized and Expressed Desire to Remain Distinct as Blackfoot and Not to be Assimilated;

As in the case of any Nation, the status and legitimacy of the Blackfoot Nation and the unalienable rights of the Blackfoot Nation and its members to security, peace, prosperity and self-determination do not depend upon any degree or kind of recognition or non-recognition by any other Nation or entity. The objective reality and status (under international law and as a de-facto reality) of Blackfoot People as a Nation, and the derivative rights of the Blackfoot Nation to security, peace, prosperity and self-determination demand–rather than depend upon–recognition by all those Nations seeking or asserting similar recognition (often with less authority) for themselves.

Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in international law, that no members of one nation can be summarily declared to be members or citizens of another nation without their consent. Blackfoot Peoples and members of the Blackfoot Nation were summarily declared to be “citizens” of the United States of America in 1924 without their consent and were summarily declared to be “citizens” of Canada in 1963 without their consent. Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in International law, that no nation or representative government of any nation makes “treaties” with its own citizens; treaties are instruments and agreements between and among sovereign nations. Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in international law, that nations have the right to seek, expose and indict those who commit crimes in the name of/against members of a nation and/or against international law, and to prosecute, on their soil, or in recognized international venues, those alleged to have committed such crimes.

Prior to the precedents set at the Nuremberg and other International Tribunals, it was thought that “established and customary” practice of international law, and the whole of international law itself, applied only between nations. It was the “customary and established practice” in international law that what governments or parties of nations did or didn’t do to their “own citizens” or their “own national minorities” that caused harm to these “citizens” or “national minorities” was not a matter for or concern of international law. Documents of and research on, the periods during which the U.S. and Canadian Governments summarily declared Blackfoot Peoples to be “citizens” of the United States and Canada without their consent, reveal that one of the clear and stated motives and intent of summary declaration of citizenship was to summarily declare removed–and to remove–certain “national minorities” of the United States and Canada (including Blackfoot People) from any protection, coverage or application of international law or conventions or treaties to which the U.S. and Canada were signatories and were bound by summarily changing their status to that of “citizens” and thus making their status and treatment an “internal matter” and supposedly not subject to international law; this is in violation of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Any extent to which any of the core elements of the Blackfoot Nation have been diminished or extinguished as a result of conquest, occupation, and ethnocidal/genocidal policies and practices, does not, and should not, in any way call into question the existence, legitimacy, or fundamental rights to sovereignty and self-determination of the Blackfoot Nation and its members. Were it so, those who sought to eliminate Indigenous Peoples in general and Blackfoot in particular, would be rewarded for and assisted in the commission of the very genocidal crimes against Blackfoot Peoples and International Law for which they are being legitimately brought to a Tribunal of Blackfoot Justice.

Indigenous Nations in general and Peoples of the Blackfoot Nation in particular have recognized, established and codified rights to national recognition, national sovereignty, national preservation and protection of lands and resources, national self-determination and the national right to take any and all measures necessary to preserve and protect the Nation against genocide, wars of aggression, crimes against humanity, war crimes or any other kinds of crimes or threats against the existence and survival of the Nation as a whole or its members.

Legal support for and/or codification of these fundamental rights are to be found in:

The Nuremberg Charter; The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide;
Convention on the Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States Dec. 26, 1933 (to which Canada was not a signatory);
Charter of the United Nations, Article I (2) and Article 55;
United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles I and 27;
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article I;
UN General Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations;
UN General Assembly’s Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations;
Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (e.g. “the right of colonial peoples to exercise their right to self-determination by breaking away from the ‘imperial power’ is ‘now undisputed’.”);
UN General Assembly Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (GA Res. 1803, XVII, 17 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 17 at 15 U.N. Doc. A/5217, 1962)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 15 and 17;
UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514, XV (Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14.12.1960) and 1541;
UN GA Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24.10.1970, Annex, “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
Basket I, Final Act, Article VIII of the Helsinki Conference on Cooperation and Security in Europe;
Article 38 no. 1 b of ICJ Statute ( two elements needed to create valid customary law in international law: general customary practice and opinio juris);
Article 38 para. 1 d) of the ICJ Statute (judicial decisions can be used as “subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law”);
The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Namibia in 1971 (“Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia);
ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Western Sahara (Order of 22 May 1975, ICJ Rep. 1975)
ICJ Judgment on U.S. Military and Paramilitary Activities Against Nicaragua, ICJ Rep. 1986;
ICJ Judgment on East Timor (Portugal v Australia), ICJ Rep. 1995;
Permanent ICJ Ruling in the Case of Greco-Bulgarian Communities, P.C.I.J. [1930], Series B, No. 17,21;
International Commission of Jurists, East Pakistan Staff Study, 1972 (“a people begins to exist only [and] when it becomes conscious of its own identity and asserts its will to exist”, p. 47);
International Labor Organization Convention 107;
The draft “Inter-American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” by the Organization of American States;
Declaration of President Richard Nixon, 1973(“self-determination as the key concept that would govern relations between Indian tribes [sic] and the government of the U.S.”);
Declaration of President Ronald Reagan in 1983 (“…the government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and Indian tribes had endured…consistently recognized a unique political relationship between Indian Tribes and the U.S. which this Administration pledges to uphold”);
Declaration of President William Clinton in 1994 (“This is our first principle: respecting your values, your religions, your identity, and your sovereignty…[We want to]…become full partners with the tribal nations.”);
Memorandum of the U.S. Department of Justice (opinio juris) ([Clinton’s position] “builds on the firmly established federal policy of self-determination for Indian tribes.”);
Helsinki Final Act; “Fulfilling Our Promises: The United States and the Helsinki Final Act” by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in the U.S., 1979;
“Compact of Self-governance Between the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe and the United States of America”;
Article I, Section 10 and Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States;


From the fundamental right of the Blackfoot Nation to survival and self-determination, other facts and conclusions flow inexorably. For example, Canada’s Indian Act, and the Indian Reorganization Act of the U.S., strip recognized Indigenous sovereign nations, such as the Blackfoot Nation, with its recognized right to self-determination, of the power to govern the internal affairs of the Nation and transfer that power to entities of a foreign power (DIA , Minister of Indian Affairs and their “Tribal Council” creations in Canada and the BIA, Department of the Interior and their “Tribal Council” creations of the U.S. Government) thus summarily eliminating the right of self-determination as a prelude to and instrument of elimination of the Nation itself. The paternalistic policies of the Canadian and U.S. Governments purporting to “protect” Indigenous Peoples through a “trustee relationship”, have demonstrably created, and inexorably create, not “protecting powers”, but rather, powers, exploitative relationships and indeed genocidal policies from which Indigenous Peoples need protection through the exercise of the right of self-determination and through international law.

For the above-mentioned and other clear reasons, agencies such as the BIA and DIA, and their creations the “Tribal Councils”, whose policies and actions are all subject to final approval and ratification by the BIA and DIA, can never be recognized as the legitimate leadership and political authority of the Blackfoot Nation. The mechanisms through which the Blackfoot Tribal Councils are selected are non-Blackfoot in nature and in terms of the “final authority” conducting and sanctioning them. Indeed historically and in the present, corrupt Tribal Councils (not an indictment of every person serving or who has served on a Tribal Council) have been selected, used and run by the Canadian and U.S. governments as key instruments of genocide. It would be absurd and inherently illogical to suppose that only those same Tribal Councils could have the authority standing to bring charges against those who have committed crimes against the Blackfoot Nation— crimes in which they were often intimately involved as co-conspirators and key instruments of genocide.


It was clearly established and accepted, by the parties participating in prosecution and judgment at the Nuremberg and later International Tribunals (which included the U.S. and Canada), that their findings would constitute binding precedents adding to the corpus of evolving international law to which the parties prosecuting and sitting in judgment themselves also would be bound. Specifically, in his opening argument at Nuremberg, the U.S. Chief Prosecutor Justice Robert Jackson noted:

“Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals, and innumerable events…Unfortunately, the nature of these crimes is such that both prosecution and judgment must be by victor nations over vanquished foes [but] we must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice. “(Nuremberg transcript)

The findings, arguments and judgments of the Nuremberg and later International Tribunals and Conventions clearly established, and incorporated into the corpus of evolving international law that:

1. Universal jurisdiction exists with respect to crimes against humanity and genocide (no nation can claim immunity from international law or a “sovereign right” to conduct crimes against humanity and genocide against persons living under the control of that nation);

2. No nation may legally arrogate the “sovereign right” to selectively and conveniently meet or not meet the terms of legitimate treaties or international conventions it has ratified and accepted; nor may any nation summarily assert primacy of national law over international law, treaties or conventions in the event of conflicts between national laws and policies and international laws;

3. Even when certain crimes against humanity and genocidal acts against persons and groups have been traditionally practiced and accepted by members of dominant exploiting groups, and even in the absence of certain explicit laws prohibiting such crimes, established principles against retroactivity or ex-post-facto prosecution and punishment (punishing someone for violating laws that did not exist when the crime was committed on the basis the person (s) had no warning that they were culpable for their conduct) may not preclude prosecution and punishments in present circumstances when it can be shown, that alleged perpetrators violated established and customary practices, sensibilities, laws and principles that nations commonly recognized, asserted and obeyed for themselves for their own protection;

4. Individuals and organizations may be held to be criminal and culpable and prosecuted/punished even when acting as agents of broader governmental entities and policies, and, the argument of “only following orders” would no longer be acceptable;

5. Mens rea, intentions, motives and interests may be inferred and considered “proved” on the basis of the highly probable, clearly foreseeable (by an average and reasonable prudent person) or inexorable consequences of given actions or policies even in the absence of witnesses to or recordings of specific utterances or documents explicitly detailing mens rea, intentions, motives and interests;

6. Common plans to wage aggressive wars (crimes against peace), war crimes or crimes against humanity constitute criminal conspiracies and are in violation of international law and established treaties to which the U.S. and Canada were bound even before Nuremberg;
7. Waging aggressive wars and barbaric practices against other nations or groups within a nation constitute “Crimes Against Peace” and “Crimes Against Humanity” in violation of international law and treaties existing even before Nuremberg and to which the U.S. and Canada were bound;

8. Even in all-out war there are limits in terms of outlawed barbaric practices and outlawed targets of those practices that constitute “War Crimes” and “Crimes Against Humanity”;

9. Any “designated authorities”, collaborators or “contrived institutions” placed in control by occupiers over the occupied victims of crimes and aid in the commission of crimes (–e.g. Vichy Government in France during World War II) by those being prosecuted, are also criminal and can never be held to be or recognized as the legitimate and representative authorities and institutions of those seeking prosecution of and punishment for any crimes or violations of international law;

10. Citizens of a given nation are also citizens of a World Community, and since reckless, genocidal and aggressive crimes, policies and actions by parties of one nation have spillover effects on the World Community, and since no one is free and all are threatened when anyone is oppressed, all human beings of the World Community have both the unalienable right and sacred duty to sit in judgment of (and attempt to stop) genocidal and other criminal acts and policies by or against any members of that World Community;

11. Racial stereotyping and caricatures, racial policies objectively create environments that make genocide and crimes against humanity more likely and easier to conduct and accept, and are themselves crimes, even without a specific nexus between a specific policy or polemics on the one hand and the death of specific persons on the other hand;

The governments of Canada (represented by the British government) and the United States were both participants (as prosecutors and sitting in judgment) at the Nuremberg Tribunals. In his opening address, the U.S. Prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson noted:
“The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs, which we seek to condemn and punish, have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captives to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to reason.”

There was more than grotesque irony and hypocrisy in this statement. The architect (Hitler) of many of the very crimes and policies committed by the Nazis and their collaborators for which they were being tried at Nuremberg, had been directly “inspired” by aspects of U.S. and Canadian histories, policies and actions related to Indigenous Peoples. According to James Pool in his book Hitler and His Secret Partners:

“Hitler drew another example of mass murder from American history. Since his youth he had been obsessed with the Wild West stories of Karl May. He viewed the fighting between cowboys and Indians in racial terms. In many of his speeches he referred with admiration to the victory of the white race in settling the American continent and driving out the inferior peoples, the Indians. With great fascination he listened to stories, which some of his associates who had been in America told him about the massacres of the Indians by the U.S. Calvary. He was very interested in the way the Indian population had rapidly declined due to epidemics and starvation when the United States government forced them to live on the reservations. He thought the American government’s forced migrations of the Indians over great distances to barren reservation land was a deliberate policy of extermination.

Just how much Hitler took from the American example of the destruction of the Indian nations his hard to say; however, frightening parallels can be drawn. For some time Hitler considered deporting the Jews to a large ‘reservation’ in the Lubin area where their numbers would be reduced through starvation and disease.” (p. 273-274).

And also from James Pool:

“ The next morning Hitler’s ‘plan’ was put in writing and sent out to the German occupation authorities as ‘The Fuehrer’s Guidelines for the Government of the Eastern Territories: ‘ the Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we don’t need them, they may die. Therefore compulsory vaccination and German health services are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable. They may use contraceptives and practice abortion, the more the better. Education is dangerous.

It is sufficient… if they can count up to a hundred. At best an education is admissible which produces useful servants for us. Every educated person is a future enemy. Religion we leave to them as a means of diversion. As to food, they are not to get more than necessary. We are the masters, we come first.

Always contemptuous of the Russians, Hitler said: ‘For them the word ‘liberty’ means the right to wash only on feast-days. If we arrive bringing soft soap, we’ll obtain no sympathy…There’s only one duty: to Germanize this country by the immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins.’ Having been a devoted reader of Karl May’s books on the American West as a youth, Hitler frequently referred to the Russians as ‘Redskins’. He saw a parallel between his effort to conquer and colonize land in Russia with the conquest of the American West by the white man and the subjugation of the Indians or ‘Redskins’. ‘I don’t see why’, he said, ‘a German who eats a piece of bread should torment himself with the idea that the soil that produces this bread has been won by the sword. When we eat wheat from Canada, we don’t think about the despoiled Indians.” (James Pool, Ibid, pp. 254-255)

And from a speech by Heinrich Himmler (date not given):

“I consider that in dealing with members of a foreign country, especially some Slav nationality…in such a mixture of peoples there will always be some racially good types. Therefore I think that it is our duty to take their children with us, to remove them from their environment, if necessary, by robbing or stealing them… (Telford Taylor “Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials”, Alfred A Knopf, N.Y. 1992, p. 203)

And from John Toland, preeminent biographer of Adolf Hitler:

“Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa And for the Indians in the Wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination—by starvation and uneven combat—of the ‘Red Savages’ who could not be tamed by captivity.” (John Toland, “Adolf Hitler” Vol II, p 802, Doubleday & Co, 1976)

Scholars such as Charles Higham, Christopher Simpson, John Loftus, Mark Aarons and others have thoroughly documented that the U.S. and British Governments that prosecuted and sat in judgment at Nuremberg and at other war crimes trials of Japanese war criminals, and certain companies of the U.S. and Britain, were actively complicit in some of the crimes of the Nazi and Japanese fascists through various economic and political relationships that continued throughout the war between U.S. and British Governments and companies and German and Japanese Governments and companies. These scholars have also documented that many of the wanted war criminals of Germany and Japan were sheltered, employed, placed in post-war political positions and aided in escape by the U.S. and British Governments that prosecuted and sat in judgment of other Japanese and German war criminals. Despite the myriad and naked forms of hypocrisy and duplicity on the part of the U.S. and British Governments at Nuremberg and at other war crimes trials, the precedents and judgments they set were nonetheless valid and incorporated into international law.

We have and will present, solid evidence that many of the genocidal practices and policies for which German and Japanese fascists were put on trial and punished at Nuremberg and other International Military Tribunals, were inspired by and directly paralleled, U.S. and Canadian histories, policies and practices (past and present) with respect to Indigenous Peoples in general and Blackfoot People in particular. Specifically, and not limited to:

1) Forced relocations and transfers of Indigenous children and adults;

2) Coerced/deceptive sterilizations of Indigenous children and adults;

3) Coerced and deceptive uses of Indigenous children and adults for medical experimentation;

4) Coerced and deceptive uses of “blood-quantum” criteria and categories to establish categories of “status” (versus non-recognized and “non-status”) Indians specifically designed and intended to define Indigenous Peoples (and eliminate the ‘persistent Indian problem’) out of existence;

5) Arrogating to summarily eliminate traditional Indigenous institutions and ways of determining Indigenous leadership (Chiefs) and membership/composition of Indigenous Nations and replacing those traditional Indigenous institutions and ways with non-Indigenous organizations, entities, mechanisms and criteria designed to impose compliant and collaborationist/sell-out agents of the non-Indigenous forces intent on policies and practices defined as “genocide” under Article II of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide;

6) Outright thefts and takings of traditional Indigenous lands and resources and making and summarily breaking treaties constructed and imposed through unconscionable relationships, threats, fraud, deception etc;

7) Designating and using Indigenous Reserves/Reservations as dump sites for highly toxic wastes and causing a wide range of diseases and disease trends that served as instruments of genocide;

8) Calculated uses of various instruments of chemical and biological warfare designed to exterminate large populations of Indigenous Peoples;

9) Practicing and/or knowing about and/or tolerating and/or covering-up and/or being willfully blind to: routine murder, sexual and physical abuse, mind control, torture, illegal confinement, starvation, unsanitary conditions, deleterious non-Indigenous diets, abductions, illegal “adoptions”, forced assimilation into non-Indigenous cultures, denial of basic due process, coerced abortions and forced religious conversions in Residential and Boarding Schools and other institutions;

10) Establishing and/or knowing about and/or tolerating and/or covering-up and/or being willfully blind to corrupt Government-sanctioned “Tribal” authorities, institutions, policies and practices that resulted in losses/misappropriations of billions of dollars of desperately-needed and owed Nation/Tribal resources

11) Systematic refusal to ratify and apply various precedents, Conventions and principles of international law as they relate to Indigenous Peoples.

These are but some of the issues and particulars that we propose to charge and prove with witnesses and documents in this Tribunal and/or use to suggest future lines of investigation and research demanded by the evidence that gives more than probable cause to investigate further these allegations made by so many witnesses and victims from so many diverse places and venues.

The U.S. Government and the Canadian Government (represented by the British Government) were major forces initiating and conducting the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and those Tribunals were a major force in the origination and content of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide. Yet the U.S. Government did not ratify the UN Convention on Genocide until 1988, forty years after the original UN Convention on Genocide. Further, the U.S. government summarily placed a “restriction” on its ratification of the UN Convention on Genocide known as the “Lugar-Helms-Hatch Sovereignty Package” which stated in Article I (2):

“Nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.”

This is a clear violation of Article 29 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as the definitive international law on treaties) as it is in violation of Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution itself:
“[treaties are] the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary Notwithstanding.”

Documents of the U.S. Government reveal clearly consciousness of guilt on the part of the Government and its agencies. Debates in the U.S. Senate reveal that there was a general awareness of and fear that the U.S. Government could/would be charged with genocide and related acts for historical and present-day policies and actions related to African-Americans and American Indians.

The Government of Canada was even more disingenuous in its duplicity and attempts to appear to ratify the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide while effectively obstructing its recognition and application. The government of Canada put the crime of genocide in the criminal code of Canada as a crime. However, of the five specific acts mentioned as constituting genocide in Article II of the UN Convention on Genocide, three were deleted from the definition of genocide in the Canadian criminal code.

So from Article II of the Genocide Convention, b) “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”, and d) “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”, and e) “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” were deliberately not included in the Canadian criminal code definition of the crime of genocide. Only a) [deliberate] killing members of the group, and part of c) an intentional plan to “bring about the physical destruction the group in whole or in part” were retained. The clear intent was to make the definition of “intent” very narrow and the proving of mens rea or intent next to impossible–and therefore prosecution next to impossible to pursue. Indeed there has been only one case of anyone being charged with the Canadian Criminal Code’s “genocide” and that resulted in an acquittal.

For these and other clearly calculated, duplicitous and obstructionist machinations on the part of the Canadian and U.S. Governments and some of their agencies, they are also in violation of the following articles of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Article I:
The contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law for which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable: Genocide; Conspiracy to commit genocide; Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; Attempt to commit genocide; Complicity in genocide;

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

The Contracting parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III

Persons charged with genocide or any other acts enumerated in Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition In accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III.

Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

The calculated, systematic and ongoing violations of Articles I to IX of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, by the Governments of the United States of America and Canada, along with Articles I to IX themselves, and all authority under international law recognizing/supporting the sovereignty and self-determination of the Blackfoot Nation and People, legitimate and give “standing” and authority to this Tribunal of the Blackfoot Nation. The Governments of the United States of America and Canada have refused to recognize, and have sought to exterminate, the traditional elements, authorities and institutions of the Blackfoot Nation and replace them with collaborationist elements and institutions that would/could never charge those Governments of crimes against international law or with crimes against their own laws even if they were so inclined and the evidence mandated such charges.

The Governments of the United States and Canada have refused to allow their own genocidal policies and actions to be submitted to the ICJ and have refused to recognize traditional Blackfoot authorities or institutions as having “standing” or authority to bring charges at the ICJ and have been refused/obstructed in any real exercises in Blackfoot self-determination that would result in the Blackfoot Nation and its traditional authorities and institutions having standing and becoming/being recognized as a “Contracting Party” able to bring charges at the ICJ. The U.S. Government has refused to accept the authority of the ICJ on any matters other than those related to “commercial affairs”. The narrow language of the UN Convention on Genocide has been selectively interpreted by the Governments of the United States of America and Canada in such ways as to allow those who practice genocide and other crimes against international law to either physically eliminate and/or summarily non-recognize any victims, evidence or traditional institutions that might bring charges against them. This is like the Nazis recognizing only their puppet/collaborationist regimes in the occupied territories as being “Contracting Parties” or “competent authorities” with the “standing” to charge them with various crimes, and, recognizing only Nazi courts as the legitimate venues in which any charges could be brought.

The long history of barbaric, criminal and genocidal activities committed by the Governments of the United States and Canada and their accomplices, against Indigenous Peoples in general and Blackfoot People in particular, continues today. Every attempt to expose, stop and obtain redress for various criminal activities through the institutions of the perpetrators has been met with more denial, cover-up and repression. Further, attempts to establish a World Court or International Criminal Court free of the biases and influences of the perpetrators of crimes against Indigenous Peoples have been obstructed by those very perpetrators. We therefore assert this constituted Tribunal and its constituted authorities and procedures to be legitimate (in traditional Blackfoot Law and in International Law) in composition, location and standing. Any final decisions of this Blackfoot Tribunal will qualify as binding “judicial decisions” within the meaning of Article 38 (1) (d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and will therefore constitute a “Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of Law” for international Law and practice.

As the “Statute of the International Court of Justice” is an “integral part” of the United Nations’ Charter under Article 92 and to which both the U.S. and Canada are signatories, this Tribunal’s decision may be relied upon by some future International Criminal Court or Tribunal or by any People or State of the World Community. Were this not so, the Nazis of World War II, for example, could never have been brought to justice for crimes in “occupied territories” as the “designated representatives” and “recognized authorities” of the occupied nations and victims, supposedly charging and judging those Nazis, would have been the very collaborators and accomplices of the Nazis against whom also charges were also properly made and later proved.

Indeed, not one of those “governments” or “governmental agencies” recognized by the Nazis as “legitimate”, sat as judges and prosecutors at Nuremberg; they all sat as defendants. As to the standing, fairness and legitimacy of this Blackfoot Tribunal, composed of potential victims judging alleged victimizers, A. L. Good heart in his “The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials”, Juridical Review, April 1946, took on this argument succinctly:

“It has been argued that the Tribunal cannot be regarded as a court in the true sense because, as its members represent the victorious Allied Nations, they must lack that impartiality which is an essential in all judicial procedure. According to this view only a court consisting of neutrals, or, at least, containing some neutral judges could be considered to be a proper tribunal. As no man can be a judge in his own case, so no allied tribunal can be a judge in a case in which members of the enemy government or forces are on trial.

Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has a right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Writ has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law because ‘a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens.”


The traditionally recognized and responsible authorities of the Blackfoot Nation, present at this Tribunal and acting on behalf of the Blackfoot Nation and whole People, specifically charge that the Government of the United States of America and its agencies, the Government of Canada and its agencies, the British Crown authority in Canada and named Church or religious organizations resident on Blackfoot lands and/or in which Blackfoot were placed (Catholic Church, United Church, Anglican Church, LDS or Mormon Church, Presbyterian Church) directly committed, and/or conspired to commit, and/or sanctioned and tolerated, and/or facilitated, and/or covered-up, and/or refused to prosecute and/or obstructed the prosecution of and/or were willfully blind to the following crimes specified further in the following:

1) Article I of the UN Convention on Genocide;
2) Article II of the UN Convention on Genocide;
a) Killing Blackfoot persons as Blackfoot;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to Blackfoot persons as Blackfoot;
c) Deliberately inflicting on Blackfoot persons and the Blackfoot Nation conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Blackfoot People and Nation in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent biological reproduction of the Blackfoot People and Nation;
e) Forcibly transferring Blackfoot children to other (non-Blackfoot) groups, lands and cultures;
3) Article III of the UN Convention on Genocide;
4) Article IV of the UN Convention on Genocide;
5) Article V of the UN Convention on Genocide;
6) Article VI of the UN Convention on Genocide;
7) Article VII of the UN Convention on Genocide;
8) Article VIII of the UN Convention on Genocide;
9) Article IX of the UN Convention on Genocide;
10) Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions of 1949;
11) Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg:
A) Article 6
1) Crimes against Peace
2) War Crimes
3) Crimes against Humanity
B) Article 7
C) Article 8
12) Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal as adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations 1950 and UN General Assembly Resolution 177
a) Principle I
b) Principle II
c) Principle III
d) Principle IV
e) Principle V
f) Principle VI
g) Principle VII
13) Articles of the Statute of the International Criminal Court for Former Yugoslavia Specifying the Acts within the Court’s Jurisdiction
a) Article 2
b) Article 3
c) Article 4
d) Article 5
14) Articles of the Statute of the International Criminal Court for Rwanda Specifying the Acts within the Court’s Jurisdiction:
a) Article 2 (2, 3)
b) Article 3
c) Article 4


The Blackfoot Nation and People are on the verge of extinction. Victims of and witnesses to the various charged crimes are dying. Blackfoot People individually and collectively cannot wait for the formation of an International Criminal Court (blocked by the U.S. Government) to hear Blackfoot charges against the Governments of the U.S and Canada and other named parties. The Blackfoot and People cannot wait for the U.S. and Canadian Governments to allow charges to be heard by the ICJ at The Hague. The Blackfoot Nation and People Blackfoot cannot wait for the traditional authorities, institutions and self-determination of the Blackfoot Nation to be recognized and respected by the very Governments of the U.S. and Canada intent on elimination of the Blackfoot Nation and People and their self-determination. The Blackfoot Nation and People cannot wait for the U.S. and Canadian Governments to “decertify” and de-recognize their puppet and complicit entities (Tribal Councils, BIA and DIA) and to recognize the traditional authorities and institutions of the Blackfoot Nation that are certified and legitimated by the recognized right of and international law governing self-determination of the Blackfoot Nation and People.

For all of the above-mentioned reasons, and under all of the above-mentioned legal authority (and more to be specified later) this Tribunal, structured and conducted by the competent and traditionally recognized authorities and institutions of the Blackfoot Nation, has standing and authority under international law and any decisions or findings of this Tribunal can be considered binding judicial decisions under Blackfoot Law and International Law.

The competent, legal and traditional authorities of the Blackfoot Nation propose that ultimate authority and power is truth, reason, law and evidence. Power pays no real ‘tribute to reason’ when the conquerors put on trial—rather than summarily executing or jailing without due process—the conquered. Power pays only a ‘tribute to reason’ and law when the powerful submit to the very laws, standards, precedents and morality to which they purport to hold others and to which the powerful purport to be bound–by their own words and deeds.

We will hold these named Governments and agencies or entities to their own laws, words, precedents, deeds and professed values in addition to specific Blackfoot laws and values that they have violated and for which the Blackfoot Nation and People have sovereign rights to protect.

Finally, on the question of the amount of time that has lapsed since some or many of these alleged crimes have been committed (and we allege that many of the crimes continue in various forms today), we note that it is widely recognized in international law that there is no “statute of limitations” on gross violations of human rights (Article 1, “Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity”, Nov. 26, 1968 see “A Comprehensive Handbook of the United Nations”, Vol. II, 1979) Also, under the U.S. Document “The Third Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Section 702):

“A state violates international law if, as a matter of State policy, it practices, encourages or condones: a) genocide; b) slavery or slave trade… and… g) a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights

Posted in 4th Media, Aboriginal Law, Canadian and American Holocausts, Canadian Genocide, Canadian Racism and Genocide, Capitalism and Psycho-Sociopathy, Eugenics Movement, Fascism in America, First Nations in Canada, Free Leonard Peltier, Genocide in and From America, Government Corruption, Indigenous Issues, Indigenous Science, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Investigating Mormonism pro and con, Legal Actions on Genocide, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, Mormon Racism, MSM Mainstream Media Sycophancy, Nuremberg Precedents, Political Economy, Rockefellers and Nazi Eugenics, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, U.S. Terrorism, Uncategorized, US and Candian Holocausts | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Revolutionary Consciousness as a Material and Motive Force

Revolutionary Consciousness as a Material and Motive Force
By James Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

An old aphorism says: “A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged; and a liberal is a conservative who has been downsized or outsourced.” Indeed it is amazing how when one’s material circumstances or interests change, changes in consciousness may soon follow. But the relationships between material being and interests and subjective consciousness are not one way or as one way as many vulgar materialists would have it. Indeed all of human history gives ample evidence of individuals and groups driven by transcendent causes and beliefs accomplishing heroic, often near impossible, things with very meager material resources to work with.

At an “International Symposium on the Reform of Property Rights and Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries”, held at Tsinghua University in Beijing, September 1-2, 2004, at which I was one of the invited speakers, an interesting and very revealing exchange took place during the question and answer period following one session of presentations.

Some of the neoclassical-economics-based speakers, with the usual hubris of end-of-history triumphalism, asserted as “proved”, or “self-evident”, or “axiomatic”, backed by nothing more the mere strength or apparent certitude of their assertions, the predicate that capitalism beats socialism in all the possible ways that matter (e.g. assuring “personal liberty” of the individual, “efficiency” and “satisfying” “consumer preferences”, etc.) I posed some questions.

I posed the following question: If anyone here were sick, perhaps gravely ill, which kind of physician would you prefer to have? Would you prefer to have a capitalist-minded/driven doctor or one like Bai QiuEn (Dr. Norman Bethune)? The implication of the question–and compound metaphor–was clear:

Would you prefer to have a capitalist-minded/driven doctor; one who:

• sees the patient, and his/her disease, as a mere commodity and instrument of profit and capital accumulation, market share and power?;

• sees the patient in very narrow terms, doing only what it takes to avoid malpractice litigation, and just enough to get the patient (customer) to “feel” satisfied enough to return when another problem (perhaps even related and not caught in the original examination as is common and whose focus is sales–>customers–>sales)?;

• does what it takes to minimize costs (avoid or socialize) relative to expected revenues or maximize revenues relative to expected costs; doing only what it takes to get the “customer” (not whole and precious human being) in and out in order to maximize the potential number of patients (customers or profit instruments) in and out–and revenues and profits–per day?

• went into medicine, and chose the locations and specializations solely on the basis of the likely profit, status and power potentials with no regard to where the greatest mass needs were?;

• subject only to the “Golden Rules of Capitalism”: a) “Those who have the Gold make the rules; b) “Do unto thine competitors as thine competitors find imperative to do unto thou, but do it first and do it worst.”?

Memorial to Dr. Norman Bethune Bai QiuEn in Shijiazhuang Hebei Province

Memorial to Dr. Norman Bethune Bai QiuEn in Shijiazhuang Hebei Province

The inscription is from Mao Zedong's Tribute to Dr. Bethune: "What kind of spirit is this that makes a foreigner selflessly adopt the cause of the Chinese people's liberation as his own? It is the spirit of internationalism, the spirit of communism, from which every Chinese Communist must learn. "

The inscription is from Mao Zedong’s Tribute to Dr. Bethune: “What kind of spirit is this that makes a foreigner selflessly adopt the cause of the Chinese people’s liberation as his own? It is the spirit of internationalism, the spirit of communism, from which every Chinese Communist must learn. “

Or, would you prefer a doctor like Bai QiuEn or Dr. Norman Bethune? A physician who, not only highly skilled as a physician in narrow technical terms, but:

• one with the type of revolutionary consciousness and values that leads him or her to view the patient as a total and precious human being and not simply as a patient or customer–certainly never as a mere commodity;

• One who does not view the particular pathology as a mere commodity;

• one who views each and every “patient” as a whole and precious human being to be treated as one would want one’s own loved ones–or oneself–to be treated;

• One who sees the mind and body not as a duality but as conceptual or analytical parts of an integrated and inseparable unity;

• one who sees “efficiency” not in terms of the narrow (capitalist) minimizing input (time and narrow costs) relative to “output” (relieving symptoms or “cure” in the narrow sense) but who sees and defines “efficiency” in broad, holistic and long-run terms, with probable true social not only private costs, and probable true social not only private benefits considered before acting;

• One who does what he or she does not from motives of greed, selfishness, status needs or capitalist profit/competitive imperatives, but out of a sense of dedication to the transcendent cause and a genuine desire to “serve the people heart and soul.”
Which type of doctor (or system) would you prefer to have and live under?

One of the speakers, an esteemed and rising professor from another university, not Tsinghua, obviously very “bright” and “educated” in narrow and formalistic terms, answered. With, what appeared to me to be a rather self-congratulatory and kind of “gotcha” smile, he answered:

“Well, if I was sick, and it would take me thirty years to find a doctor like Bai QiuEn, I would prefer a capitalist doctor.”

Because of time and other constraints (there was never any censorship in any form at that conference except that which inevitably occurred as a result of time constraints, the number of people who were scheduled to speak and the need to be sensitive to others who also wanted to speak) I could not answer but my blood boiled. He was doing what the many of neoclassical/neo-liberal/ ideologues typically do. They love controlling the microphone and debate (they typically only hire and promote their own kind and allow only their own ideologically-driven curricula in academia, politics, media and in other spheres).

They love summarily asserting (as axiomatic, self-evident and “proved” beyond any doubt for anyone who knows anything) the core predicates of their arguments. Their argument, which is basically a set of assumptions of/for contrived syllogisms, is that in the competition (race) between capitalism and socialism, in terms all of the ways that matter for human beings, for example in the scope of provision of physicians and in the quality/efficiency of those physicians, capitalism wins over socialism every time. This is but one of the many tautologies and predicates–asserted and even engineered–as axiomatic and “proved” of that which still remains to be “proved” even in narrow neoclassical and capitalist terms.

Of course, tautologically, capitalism becomes accepted as the most “efficient” and “progressive” system, especially when the very definitions of “efficiency” and “progress” are as contrived as the syllogisms they serve, and, when they are then summarily asserted and accepted as the only possible “operational” and rhetorical definitions. Yet, as Marx, and so many others like Chairman Mao so aptly demonstrated, that capitalism, when viewed “holistically” and dialectically, with the highly probable true costs and “benefits” (social as well as private, long-run as well as short-run) realistically assessed and understood, becomes not only increasingly inefficient, but even increasingly anti-efficient and regressive. This is apparent even using the six main capitalist Neoclassical concepts of “efficiency” (technological, economic, productive, consumer, exchange and allocative “efficiencies”) and “utilitarian” notions of “progress” (the greatest economic welfare for the greatest number).

Let’s take some concrete examples that even the Neoclassicals admit in a limited sense. Even the conventional textbooks in economics concede, finally, that, for example, the notion of technological efficiency (maximum output, minimum input) or economic efficiency (maximum Total Revenues and lowest possible Total Costs) coupled with greed and the imperatives of competition between capitals, leads to inefficiencies in terms of “exchange efficiency” (P=MSC=MSB or prices reflecting all true costs and benefits—-marginal social as well as private costs and benefits). A common example is when profit-maximizing firms pollute the environment, or free-riding increases, in unregulated markets, less and less are true costs (marginal private costs plus marginal costs of negative externalities) assessed and paid by those who receive the true benefits. Similarly, less and less are true benefits (marginal private benefits plus marginal benefits of positive externalities) received by those who pay the true costs.

Typically, when negative externalities are not recognized and/or assessed and/or paid, inefficiencies (in capitalist Neoclassical terms) of overproduction and under-pricing (relative to “optimum” levels) result. And when positive externalities are not recognized and/or assessed and/or paid, the inefficiencies of underproduction and under-pricing result.

This is but one example out of many of the imperatives and “logic” of capitalism resulting in self-negation of “efficiency” (anti-efficiency) and “progress” (instability and regression) even in narrow and contrived capitalist Neoclassical terms. The production of output and potential surplus value embodied in it, increasingly outstrips the means of purchase and consumption of that output and thus of the realization, through effective sales and accounts receivable clearing, of the potential surplus value embodied in production but not yet realized as not sales are ever guaranteed under capitalism.

The "Dharma Wheel" or "Logic" of Capitalism and Imperialism that shapes the Fate of the System

The “Dharma Wheel” or “Logic” of Capitalism and Imperialism that shapes the Fate of the System

Instead of being a system that once produced maybe six positives for each negative, as capitalism ripens, becoming imperialism, spreading globally, it increasingly produces maybe six negatives for every one positive. The meta-contradiction governing all modes of production, between continual development of productive forces for human survival on the one hand, versus increasingly regressive and sabotaging relations of production (e.g. class/strata/interests) on the other hand, steadily intensifies and hollows out the very foundations of the system itself. And not only does capitalism become less and less “efficient”, even in capitalist Neoclassical terms, as it ripens, but capitalist constructs and methods of assessment of “efficiency” themselves, in their contrived limits and ideological purposes, produce other inefficiencies not even considered or measured until they come home to roost and threaten the survival of the planet and humankind itself–like Global Warming and Nuclear War.

So in other words, the different capitalist forms and constructs of “efficiency” are potentially—and actually—contradictory and self-negating: e.g. technological and economic efficiencies cause, via the normal imperatives and “logic” of capitalism, inefficiencies and anti-efficiencies in terms of other forms of “efficiency–say exchange efficiency. Many probable true costs (private plus social) go unmentioned, and/or not properly assessed and/or “socialized” to be paid by those who receive none of the purported benefits. Many probable true benefits (private plus social) go unmentioned and/or not properly assessed and/or not paid for by “free riders” who get benefits without paying true costs.

In a system like Capitalism, that not only celebrates but even requires, for its expanded reproduction, greed, selfishness, ultra-individualism, narcissism, clinical psychopathy, sociopathy, competition, short-run thinking, ultra-reductionism etcm under such a system: “Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die”. Everyone appears to want, and Capitalism certainly promises through seductive social capital, the gain without the pain, the benefits without the costs, the immortality without mortality. So true costs (private plus social) typically get hidden, un-assessed, not mentioned, or socialized by sellers, while true benefits (private plus social) often get privatized, understated and concentrated for some while exaggerated and hyped for others.

Take Capitalist-based commoditized law. In the profit-based legal system of Capitalism, it is about winning and losing and having the money for commoditized “effective representation”. The discovery of truth or administration of justice do not enter the equations and calculations of efficiency and profitability. Typically, competition and profit imperatives, along with the rewards for “winning”, cause lawyers to hide and understate the inculpatories (negatives) and hyping and magnifying the exculpatories (positives) in their own cases, while trying to do the reverse to the opposition lawyers: magnifying their negatives while minimizing their positives. The inevitable and increasing result or typical “efficiencies” of capitalist-based and commoditized law is that increasingly many rich and clearly guilty can buy acquittals, while many poor and clearly innocent wind up in prison and on Death Row.

Let’s take one more example to drive home the point. Another form of “efficiency” in neoclassical theory is called “Consumer Efficiency”. It means that the consumer has “efficiently” allocated his/her income among competing commodities such that he/she cannot reallocate that income and improve, in net terms, his/her total utility gained from the spending of that income. It is assumed that the consumer is driven to maximize or at least “satisfice” total utility. And to do that, the consumer seeks to maximize Marginal Utility gained from consuming a particular commodity X (MUx) relative to what was paid (Price of X or Px) to obtain that marginal utility (Maximizing Mux/Px or “Utility Bang for the Buck”) that adds in net terms, to total utility. When the Mux/Px = Muy/Py = Muz/Pz for example, the consumer can no longer consume less of x, y or z and more of another, and improve his/her total utility gained.

But the imperatives of capitalism (commoditization, effective competition, realization of maximum possible real, after-tax, risk-adjusted surplus value, accumulation of capital, maximization of productivity, expanded market share/power etc) lead to increasingly commoditized and asymmetrically-available information and fraud against consumers that compromise “consumer efficiency” (MUx/Px= MUy/Py = MUz/Pz…Consumers, among the masses who are not “connected”, increasingly have less and less access to the requisite information necessary to assess true comparative marginal utilities relative to comparative prices paid to realize those utilities, so that incomes cannot be reallocated and improve net total utilities gained. As for the concept “allocative efficiency”(no “person” can be made better off without making some “person” worse off), that is the pure metaphysics of Pareto masquerading as “science”.

Back to the conference. One reason my blood boiled when I heard this flippant and rhetorical answer from this esteemed professor, is that I come from a people, Blackfoot, who like Indigenous Peoples everywhere, and indeed poor people everywhere in the U.S. and elsewhere, are surrounded by technically skilled–and not so skilled—physicians that exist, in the sense of physically existing at a certain time and space, but, for the poor, do not really exist in any meaningful way because they have no money nor insurance. Since these doctors are driven by capitalist imperatives and associated requisite mentalities, these doctors only exist for those with sufficient incomes to pay for their services and/or who do not live on isolated Reserves/Reservations or rural areas, with no transportation, and are unable to travel to see these doctors.

If I am ill, and the most highly-skilled physician in the world is practicing down the street, what good is it to me that capitalism, capitalist “values” and capitalist imperatives, produced a physician who will not see me and treat me because I am poor? Better that physician does not exist as his or her existence, in the physical sense, will only piss me off and perhaps even exacerbate my illness due to the mind-body unity. In the U.S., an estimated 44 million people have no health insurance, another 37 million have only marginal health insurance, and since the “right to life” itself (like the right to justice etc.) is itself a commodity, for sale only to those that can afford it under capitalism, what does capitalism REALLY deliver and for whom?. What good is the supposed rapid development of material forces or production that capitalism allegedly produces greater than socialism, when those forces produce commodities (and derivative spread effects) only for a relative few? [1]

Dr. Bethune, a product of the capitalist systems of Canada and England in terms of his medical training, and by his own admission, in terms of his early ideas of reformism, developed his technical skills not, primarily BECAUSE of capitalist-based education and medical practice, but IN SPITE of them. Even in his own case, when he was ill with Tuberculosis, the conventional medical practice, highly risk-aversive to “guarantee success” in narrow capitalist terms, refused him the emerging and experimental technique of pneumothorax (collapsing the lung to rest the infected lung) such that he had to self-administer the technique–on himself while awake.

Dr. Bethune’s own inventions, of techniques and instruments still being used in thoracic surgery today, all came from his own humanitarianism and revolutionary consciousness without any regard as to the potential “profitability” or income/status-enhancing results of his inventions. It was the imperatives and “logic” of capitalist-based medicine in the days of Dr. Bethune, as is the case today in many areas, that caused the choking-off and even regression of the development of the material forces and techniques of production in medicine. Dr. Bethune’s innovations–in instruments and techniques–that actually reduced costs, risks to patients and increased “efficiency”, even in capitalist terms, were consistently resisted by the capitalist-minded/driven medical establishment of his time; the same applies today.

Another reason my blood boiled when I heard the answer to my question from this esteemed professor is that capitalism only develops certain productive forces more rapidly than socialism.

The basic questions for all modes of production and social formations are: What, How, For Whom, Where, When, Why (to produce and distribute). The “What” question is critical because it leads to and shapes the answers to the other questions. But in capitalist terms, efficiency means producing more and more of output X with less and less inputs, but never gets into the actual nature of output X and implications (private and social) of that output. So if grotesque pornography is the output, and it is “legal”, then “efficiency” means producing more and more pornography using less and less inputs, focusing ONLY on present likely revenues versus costs, ignoring any other possible or probable private and social costs associated with pornography. A capitalist enterprise producing pornography at lower total costs than a socialist enterprise producing mass-affordable medicines is said to be more “efficient” in Neoclassical terms.

Because capitalism is about profits for power and power for profits (like the slogan of the Medici family: “Money to Acquire Power; Power to Protect Money”), and is about “effective” demand (purchasing power or “dollar votes” to back up tastes and preferences many of which are also created and conditioned for profit, and not natural from basic subsistence needs), capitalism does a great job in developing forces of production in areas like: superficial and soul-destroying forms of “entertainment”; dope; pornography; rigging elections; allowing rich criminals to escape justice; narcissistic sports events; mansions and toys for the rich; placing clones in government; “quality education” for the few who can afford it; “quality” medicine for the few that can afford it; weapons of death and destruction; instruments of mind and soul control and manipulation (advertising); specialty foods; “high-fashion” clothing for the few; unevenly developed infrastructure; etc. But in such areas as affordable housing for the many, basic health care available to all, universal access to education, basic medicines available to all, balanced development of infrastructure, minimizing social costs of private endeavors and maximizing social benefits of private endeavors, etc. socialism beats capitalism anytime. That is, when real socialism is allowed to develop without aggression and subversion–outside and inside–from imperialist machinations and the old weeds of capitalism threatening the full, free and fair development of socialism and free competition of ideas and systems–capitalism versus socialism.

The communist, on the other hand, guided by a spirit of “wei ren min fu wu” (Serve the People) not “wei zi gi fu wu” (Serve Myself) is supposed to look not only at levels and productive functions of costs or inputs, or utility functions of consumers consuming, including the nature and implications of WHAT is being produced or consumed, but, also, looks at the real costs (private plus social, on the individual as well as on society, political, social, cultural, ideological, spiritual, long-run as well as short run) of WHAT it is that is being produced, and HOW it is really being produced and FOR WHOM it is really being produced.

Extending the metaphor from medicine, if, as is quite common, and sadly is increasingly common, a person goes through an operation that is botched, requiring a second or third operation to fix what went wrong in the first operation (like leaving surgical instruments in the patient, unqualified staff, operation rushed to get more patients through a given operating room per day–capitalist “efficiency”), then the real costs of a given procedure (for purposes of assessing level of “efficiency”) should include the costs of the second and third procedures necessitated by the first botched one as part of the true costs.

In the U.S., with touted as having the most “advanced” and “efficient” medicine in the world, over 100,000 patients die each year from hospital-based infections. Under capitalism, each procedure would be assessed independently in terms of assessing the “costs” relative to the “benefits”; and in any comparisons of capitalist versus socialist efficiency. But, if, in accordance with the old adage, “a stitch in time saves nine”, we are able to conceptualize and assess all true costs and true benefits (short-run versus long-run, private plus social), the case can be made that socialism, with communist revolutionary values and practices, will beat capitalism, even in terms of “efficiency”, and even in terms of capitalist constructs and calculations of “efficiency.” Certainly Bai QiuEn, under the most unfavorable conditions possible, driven by communist spirit and consciousness, was able to do medically, what capitalist minded-driven physicians under the most favorable conditions would have never been able to do.

And the imperialists understand this well. This one of the main reasons for imperialist encirclement and social systems engineering campaigns: to engineer the predicate or conditions and constraints in present or emerging socialist social formations that will never allow free competition and debate between systems and ideologies; conditions and constraints that will make socialism look like the supposed “barbarism” and “inefficiency” portrayed by bourgeois ideology.

This leads to another reason my blood boiled when I heard this answer from this esteemed professor: Why does someone have to teach this “educated” and “bright” Chinese professor basic Chinese–and world–history as well as about some present-day realities and irrefutable facts? In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels, in reference to China, and of course other places as well, noted that colonialism (and imperialism) is a force that ‘batters down all Chinese walls’, and is one that ‘compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e. to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.[2]

When has there ever been free, fair and open competition between socialist versus capitalist systems or ideas? From the very beginning of the People’s Republic of China (actually long before), as was the case of Cuba, the early USSR, DPRK, Albania, Vietnam, etc. and so many other examples of socialism, socialist societies, often inheriting horrible conditions and legacies of imperialism and colonialism, have been subject to: imperialist embargos; outright threats of nuclear annihilation; social systems engineering and destabilization campaigns; covert operations; exacerbations of historical ethnic and religious rivalries; denials of critical technologies and resources; military aggression; cultural subversion; arrogant missionaries; forced importations of drugs and soul-destroying foreign “culture”; denial of access to international organizations and the global community of nations,; coup d’états and overthrows of sovereign and freely-elected governments; assassination campaigns. All of this was designed to destabilize, overthrow and never to allow developing— and thus showing in concrete practice, over capitalism—the superiority of socialism and communist values and ideas.[3]

If international recognition by the imperialist powers and the international organizations they control is some kind of test of the reality, existence and legitimacy of any nation or nation state, then the People’s Republic of China (portions of which still remain manipulated by foreign powers–e.g. Taiwan) did not “exist” for almost thirty years after its existence in reality (and under international law). The same apples to Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and other nation states summarily and arrogantly not “recognized” by some imperialist powers. This has caused large-scale diversions of precious resources from socialist growth and development into necessary defense against imperialist machinations. Indeed this was the object of imperial social systems engineering and aggression all along: engineering, to make “axiomatic” and self-evident, the basic tautologies, predicates and syllogisms of imperialism:

IF, A=B; and
IF, B=C;

IF, Country A (say China or Cuba for example) = System B (Socialism or Communism);
IF, System B (Socialism or Communism) = C (Inefficiency, Repression…)

The answer according to neoliberals and other kinds of imperialists and their stooges? For China or Cuba or other socialist systems to become “Developing”, “Efficient”, “non-Repressive”, “non-Terrorist” etc., the only answer is to become like the U.S. or some other imperialist power asserted to be the opposites in the above-mentioned syllogism of imperialist repression and legitimation. And the imperialists have no limits. Just imagine, for but one example: Even before World War II was over, the Class-A War Criminals of the infamous Japanese fascist Unit 731 were all shielded from prosecution by the U.S. and its allies (in return for using the fruits of their barbaric “research”) and one of them even became a Prime Minister of Japan; and the same was done with shielding German Nazi war criminals before the end of World War II, while the nominal allies of the U.S., who had saved many U.S. lives (Communists in China and Soviets in Europe) were being attacked by the U.S. and its allies using wanted war criminals from the formal enemies of the U.S. and its allies. There are simply no limits to the treachery and crimes the imperialists are prepared to undertake and cover-up in what they call “World War III of Contending Systems and Ideologies—Socialism versus Capitalism—For Global Hearts and Minds”.

These are but some of the reasons my blood boiled when I heard that answer from the esteemed professor, not from Tsinghua University, to my question when I attended the symposium at Tsinghua University. When I return, this debate, no doubt, will continue, in another venue and forum. And this response will be passed on to that professor with an invitation to debate in a forum and venue when we both have ample access and time for the microphone.

Jim Craven (Omahkohkiaaiipooyii)

[1] At present, the U.S. the only industrialized nation without universal health care, spends $8,000 per capita per year, over 40% higher than the nation second highest in per capita health expenditures or 16% of GDP while in terms of indexes of overall health outcomes, the U.S. ranks globally 37th just below Costa Rico and above Slovenia. In the U.S. some 200,000 die each year from iatrogenic (medical mistakes) causes.

[2] Marx and Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848) in “Selected Works”, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1950, pp. 36-37; quoted in “Mao’s China and After 3rd Edition, by Maurice Meisner, The Free Press, NY. 1999, p 5


December 21, 1939

Comrade Norman Bethune,[1] a member of the Communist Party of Canada, was around fifty when he was sent by the Communist Parties of Canada and the United States to China; he made light of travelling thousands of miles to help us in our War of Resistance Against Japan. He arrived in Yenan in the spring of last year, went to work in the Wutai Mountains, and to our great sorrow died a martyr at his post. What kind of spirit is this that makes a foreigner selflessly adopt the cause of the Chinese people’s liberation as his own? It is the spirit of internationalism, the spirit of communism, from which every Chinese Communist must learn. Leninism teaches that the world revolution can only succeed if the proletariat of the capitalist countries supports the struggle for liberation of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples and if the proletariat of the colonies and semi-colonies supports that of the proletariat of the capitalist countries.[2] Comrade Bethune put this Leninist line into practice. We Chinese Communists must also follow this line in our practice. We must unite with the proletariat of all the capitalist countries, with the proletariat of Japan, Britain, the United States, Germany, Italy and all other capitalist countries, for this is the only way to overthrow imperialism, to liberate our nation and people and to liberate the other nations and peoples of the world. This is our internationalism, the internationalism with which we oppose both narrow nationalism and narrow patriotism.

Comrade Bethune’s spirit, his utter devotion to others without any thought of self, was shown in his great sense of responsibility in his work and his great warm-heartedness towards all comrades and the people. Every Communist must learn from him. There are not a few people who are irresponsible in their work, preferring the light and shirking the heavy, passing the burdensome tasks on to others and choosing the easy ones for themselves. At every turn they think of themselves before others. When they make some small contribution, they swell with pride and brag about it for fear that others will not know. They feel no warmth towards comrades and the people but are cold, indifferent and apathetic. In truth such people are not Communists, or at least cannot be counted as devoted Communists. No one who returned from the front failed to express admiration for Bethune whenever his name was mentioned, and none remained unmoved by his spirit. In the Shansi-Chahar-Hopei border area, no soldier or civilian was unmoved who had been treated by Dr. Bethune or had seen how he worked. Every Communist must learn this true communist spirit from Comrade Bethune.

Comrade Bethune was a doctor, the art of healing was his profession and he was constantly perfecting his skill, which stood very high in the Eighth Route Army’s medical service. His example is an excellent lesson for those people who wish to change their work the moment they see something different and for those who despise technical work as of no consequence or as promising no future.

Comrade Bethune and I met only once. Afterwards he wrote me many letters. But I was busy, and I wrote him only one letter and do not even know if he ever received it. I am deeply grieved over his death. Now we are all commemorating him, which shows how profoundly his spirit inspires everyone. We must all learn the spirit of absolute selflessness from him. With this spirit everyone can be very useful to the people. A man’s ability may be great or small, but if he has this spirit, he is already noble-minded and pure, a man of moral integrity and above vulgar interests, a man who is of value to the people.

1. The distinguished surgeon Norman Bethune was a member of the Canadian Communist Party. In 1936 when the German and Italian fascist bandits invaded Spain, he went to the front and worked for the anti-fascist Spanish people. In order to help the Chinese people in their War of Resistance Against Japan, he came to China at the head of a medical team and arrived in Yenan in the spring of 1938. Soon after he went to the Shansi-Chahar-Hopei border area. Imbued with ardent internationalism and the great communist spirit, he served the army and the people of the Liberated Areas for nearly two years. He contracted blood poisoning while operating on wounded soldiers and died in Tanghsien, Hopei, on November 12, 1939

2. See J. V. Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”, Problems of Leninism, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, pp. 70-79.

Posted in 4th Media, China, China-U.S. Relations, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, MEMEONOMICS: Economics and EconomistS;: Capitalism and its Theories, Neoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism as Neo-Imperialism, Neoliberalism as Neoimperialism, New World Order, Political Economy, Psychopaths and Sociopaths in Politics, Psychopaths in Management, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, Theorists and Meme Merchants | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Elite Intrigues and Military Purges: It’s Not About Sex Stupid!

petraeus enhanced-buzz-wide-13358-1352673475-4





From 4th Media (Beijing)

Elite Intrigues and Military Purges: It’s Not About Sex, Stupid!
Post Categories: Afghanistan
Prof. James Petras | Sunday, November 25, 2012, 9:10 Beijing
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon Share on favorites More Sharing Services 1 Print

The headline stories claim that CIA Director General David Petraeus resigned as head of the CIA because of an adulterous relation with his young biographer and that General John Allen, Supreme Commander of US troops in Afghanistan, was under investigation and his promotion to top commander of US troops in Europe was on hold, because, we are told, of his ‘inappropriate’ comments in the exchange of e-mails with a civilian female friend.

We are told that a ‘hard-charging’ local FBI agent, Frederick Humphries, Jr., had uncovered amorous e-mails sent by General Petraeus to his girlfriend-biographer in the course of investigating a complaint of ‘cyber-stalking’.

Out of concern that the General’s ‘adulterous behavior’ posed a risk to US national security, Florida-based FBI Agent Humphries handed the evidence over to one of Washington, DC’s most powerful Republican, Congressman Eric Cantor, who in turn passed them on to the Director of the FBI… leading to Petraeus resignation.

In other words, we are asked to believe that a single, low-ranking, zealous FBI agent has toppled the careers of two top US Generals: one in charge of the principle global intelligence agency, the CIA, and the other in command of the US and allied combat forces in the principle theater of military engagement – on the basis of infidelity and flirtatious banter!

Nothing could be more far-fetched simply on prima facie evidence.

In the sphere of tight hierarchical organizations, like the military or the CIA, where the activity and behavior of subordinate functionaries is centrally directed and any investigation is subject to authorization by senior officials (most especially regarding prying into the private correspondences of the heads of the CIA and of strategic military operations), the idea that a lone agent might operate free-lance is preposterous.

A ‘cowboy’ agent could not simply initiate investigation into such ‘sensitive’ targets as the head of the CIA and a General in an active combat zone without the highest level authorization or a network of political operatives with a much bigger agenda.

This has much deeper political implications than uncovering a banal sexual affair between two consenting security-cleared adults despite the agent’s claim that fornication constitutes a threat to the United States.

An old saying is that the definition of a "Cad" is a married man who cheats on his mistress and "Chutzpah" is having both your wife and mistress at your retirement and the wife the only one who does not know who is who and what is what

An old saying is that the definition of a “Cad” is a married man who cheats on his mistress and “Chutzpah” is having both your wife and mistress at your retirement and the wife the only one who does not know who is who and what is what

Clearly we are in deep waters here: This involves political intrigue at the highest level and has profound national security implications, involving the directorship of the CIA and clandestine operations, intelligence reports, multi-billion dollar expenditures and US efforts to stabilize client regimes and destabilize target regimes.

CIA intelligence reports identifying allies and enemies are critical to shaping global US foreign policy. Any shift at the top of the US empire’s operational command can and does have strategic importance.

The ‘outing’ of General Allen, the military commander in charge of Afghanistan, the US main zone of military operations occurs at a crucial time, with the scheduled forced withdrawal of US combat troops and when the Afghan ‘sepoys’, the soldiers and officers of the puppet Karzai regime, are showing major signs of disaffection, is clearly a political move of the highest order.

What are the political issues behind the beheading of these two generals? Who benefits and who loses?

At the global level, both Generals have been unflinching supporters of the US Empire, most especially the military-driven components of empire building.

Both continue to carry out and support the serial wars launched by Presidents Bush and Obama against Afghanistan and Iraq , as well as, the numerous proxy wars against Libya , Syria , Yemen , Somalia , etc. But both Generals were known to have publicly taken positions unpopular with certain key factions of the US power elite.


CIA Director, General Petraeus has been a major supporter of the proxy wars in Libya and Syria . In those efforts he has promoted a policy of collaboration with rightwing Islamist regimes and Islamist opposition movements, including training and arming Islamist fundamentalists in order to topple targeted, mostly secular, regimes in the Middle East .

In pursuit of this policy – Petraeus has had the backing of nearly the entire US political spectrum. However, Petraeus was well aware that this ‘grand alliance’ between the US and the rightwing Islamist regimes and movements to secure imperial hegemony, would require re-calibrating US relations with Israel .

Petraeus viewed Netanyahu’s proposed war with Iran, his bloody land grabs in the Occupied Territories of Palestine and the bombing, dispossession and assassination of scores of Palestinians each month, were a liability as Washington sought support from the Islamist regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Gulf States, Iraq and Yemen.

Petraeus implied this in public statements and behind closed doors he advocated the withdrawal of US support for Israel ’s violent settler expansion into Palestine , even urging the Obama regime to pressure Netanyahu to reach some settlement with the pliable US client Abbas leadership.

Above all, Petraeus backed the violent jihadists in Libya and Syria while opposing an Israel-initiated war against Iran, which he implied, would polarize the entire Moslem world against the Washington-Tel Aviv alliance and ‘provoke the US-proxy supplied Islamist fundamentalists to turn their arms against their CIA patrons.

The imperial policy, according to General Petraeus world view, was in conflict with Israel ’s strategy of fomenting hostility among Islamist regimes and movements against the US and, especially, the Jewish state’s promotion of regional conflicts in order to mask and intensify its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.


Central to Israeli strategy and what posed the most immediate threat to the implementation of a Petraeus’ doctrine was the influence of the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in and out of the US government.

As soon as General Petraeus’ report naming Israel as a ‘strategic liability’ became known, the ZPC sprang into action and forced Petraeus to retract his statements – at least publicly.

But once, he became head of the CIA, Petraeus continued the policy of working with rightwing Islamist regimes and arming and providing intelligence to jihadi fundamentalists in order to topple independent secular regimes, first in Libya, then on to Syria.

This policy was placed under the spotlight in Benghazi with the killing of the US ambassador to Libya and several CIA/Special Forces operatives by CIA-backed terrorists leading to a domestic political crisis, as key Republican Congress people sought to exploit the Obama administration’s diplomatic failure.

They especially targeted the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, whose maladroit efforts to obscure the real source of the attacks in Benghazi , have undermined her nomination to replace Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State.

General Petraeus, faced with mounting pressure from all sides: from the ZPC over his criticism of Israel and overtures to Islamist regimes, from the Republicans over the Benghazi debacle and from the FBI, over the personal investigation into his girlfriend and hyped up media smear, gave in. He ‘fessed up’ to a ‘sexual affair’, saluted and resigned.

In so doing, he ‘sacrificed’ himself in order to ‘save the CIA’ and his strategy of long-term alliance-building with ‘moderate’ Islamist regimes while forming short-term tactical alliances with the jihadists to overthrow secular Arab regimes.

The key political operative behind the high-level FBI operation against Petraeus has been House Majority leader Eric Cantor, who cynically claims that the General’s romantic epistles represent a national security threat.

We are told that Congressman Cantor gravely passed the e-mails and reports he had received from the ‘Lone Ranger’ FBI agent Humphries to FBI Director Mueller ordering Mueller to act on the investigation or else face his own Congressional inquiry.

Washington-based Representative Cantor is a zealous lifetime Israel-firster and has been hostile to the Petraeus report and the General’s assessment of the Middle East.

Florida-based, Agent Humphries was not just any old conscientious gum-shoe: He was a notorious Islamaphobe engaged in finding terrorists under every bed. His claim to fame (or infamy) was that he had arrested two Muslims, one of whom, he claimed, was preparing to bomb the Los Angeles airport while the other allegedly planned a separate bombing.

In a judicial twist, unusual in this era of FBI sting operations, both men were acquitted of the plots for lack of evidence, although one was convicted for publishing an account of how to detonate a bomb with a child’s toy! Agent Humphries was transferred from Washington State to Tampa , Florida – home of the US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM).

Despite their clear differences in station and location, there are ideological affinities between House Majority Whip Cantor and Agent Humphries – and possibly a common dislike of General Petraeus.

Concerns over his Islamophobic and ideological zealotry may explain why the FBI quickly yanked Agent Humphries out from his mission of ‘obsessive’ prying into CIA Director Petraeus and General Allan’s e-mails. Undeterred by orders from his superiors in the FBI, Agent Humphries went directly to fellow zealot Congressman Cantor.

Who would have benefited from Petraeus ouster? One of the top three candidates to replace him as head of the CIA is Jane Harmon, former California Congresswomen and Zionist uber-zealot.

In another twist of justice, in 2005 the Congresswoman had been captured on tape by the National Security Agency telling Israeli Embassy personnel that she would use her influence to aid two AIPAC officials who had confessed to handing classified US documents to the Israeli Mossad, if the AIPAC could round up enough Congressional votes to make her Chairwoman of the US House Committee on Intelligence, an act bordering on treason, for which she was never held to account.

If she were to take his position, the ousting of CIA Director Petraeus could represent to the greatest ‘constitutional coup’ in US history: the appointment of a foreign agent to control the world’s biggest, deadliest and richest spy agency. Who would benefit from the fall of Petraeus? – first and foremost – the State of Israel.

The innuendos, smears and leaked investigation into the private e-mails of General Allen revolve around his raising questions over the US policy of prolonged military presence in Afghanistan.

From his own practical experience General Allen has recognized that the puppet Afghan army is unreliable: hundreds of US and other NATO troops have been killed or wounded by their Afghan counterparts, from lowest foot soldiers to the highest Afghan security officials, ‘native’ troops and officers that the US had supposedly trained for a much ballyhooed ‘transfer of command’ in 2014.

General Allen’s change of heart over the Afghan occupation was in response to the growing influence of the Taliban and other Islamist resistance supporters who had infiltrated the Afghan armed forces and now had near total control of the countryside and urban districts right up to the US and NATO bases.

Allen did not believe that a ‘residual force’ of US military trainers could survive, once the bulk of US troops pulled out. In a word, he favored, after over a decade of a losing war, a policy of cutting the US ’ losses, declaring ‘victory’ and leaving to regroup on more favorable terrain.

Civilian militarists and neo-conservatives in the Executive and Congress refuse to acknowledge their shameful defeat with a full US retreat and a likely surrender to a Taliban regime.

On the other hand, they cannot openly reject the painfully realistic assessment of General Allen, and they certainly cannot dismiss the experience of the supreme commander of US ground forces in Afghanistan.

When, in this charged political context, the rabidly Islamaphobic FBI agent Humphries ‘stumbled upon’ the affectionate personal correspondences between General Allen and ‘socialite’ femme fatale Jill Kelly, the Neocons and civilian militarists whipped up a smear campaign through the yellow journalists at the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal implying another ‘sex’ scandal – this time involving General Allen.

The neo-con– militarist-mass media clamor forced the spineless President Obama and the military high command to announce an investigation of General Allen and postpone Congressional hearings on his appointment to head the US forces in Europe.

While the General quietly retains his supreme command of US forces in Afghanistan , he has become a defeated and disgraced officer and his expertise and professional views regarding the future of US operations in Afghanistan will no longer be taken seriously.

Key Unanswered Questions Surrounding Elite Intrigues and Military Purges

Given that the public version of a lone-wolf, low ranking, zealously Islamophobic and incompetent FBI agent who just happened to ‘discover’ a sex scandal leading to the discrediting or resignation of two of the US highest military and intelligence officials is absurd to any thinking American, several key political questions with profound implications for the US political system need to be addressed. These include:

1. What political officials, if any, authorized the FBI, a domestic security agency to investigate and force the resignation of the Director of the CIA?

2. Have the current police state structures, with their procedures for widespread and arbitrary spying led to our spy agencies spying on each other in order to purge each other’s top personnel? Is this like the sow devouring her own offspring?

3. What were the real priorities of the political power-brokers who protected the insubordinate FBI agent Humphries after he defied top FBI officials’ orders to stop meddling in the investigation of the CIA Director?

4. What were FBI Agent Humphries ties, if any, to the neo-con, Zionist or Islamophobic politicians and other intelligence operatives, including the Israeli Mossad?

5. Despite Obama’s effusive praise of his brilliant ‘warrior-scholar’ General Petraeus in the past, why did he immediately ‘accept’ (aka ‘force’) the CIA Director’s resignation after the revelation of something as banal in civilian life as adultery? What are the deeper political issues that led to the pre-emptive purge?

6. Why are critical political issues and policy disputes resolved under the guise of blackmail, smears and character assassination, rather than through open debates and discussions, especially on matters pertaining to the nation’s choice of strategic and tactical ‘allies’ and the conduct of overseas wars?

7. Has the purge and public humiliation of top US military officers become an acceptable form of “punishment by example”, a signal from civilian militarists that when it comes to dealing with politics toward the Middle East, the role of the military is not to question but to follow their (and Israel’s) directives?

8. How could a proven collaborator with the Israeli-Mossad and Zionist zealot like Jane Harmon emerge as a ‘leading candidate’ to replace General Petraeus, as Director of the CIA, within days of his resignation? What are the political links, past and present between Congressman Eric Cantor, (the fanatical leader of the pro-Israel power bloc in the US Congress, who handed Agent Humphries’ unauthorized files on Petraeus over to the FBI Director Muellar) and Zionist power broker Jane Harmon, a prominent candidate to replace Petraeus?

9. How will the ouster of Director Petraeus and Jane Harman’s possible appointment to head the CIA deepen Israeli influence and control of US Middle East policy and the US overtures to Islamist countries?

10. How will the humiliation of General Allen affect the US ‘withdrawal’ from the disaster in Afghanistan ?


The purge of top-level generals and officials from powerful US foreign policy and military posts reflects a further decay of our constitutional rights and residual democratic procedures: it is powerful proof of the inability of leadership at the highest level to resolve internecine conflicts without drawing out the ‘long knives’.

The advance of the police state, where spy agencies have vastly expanded their political power over the citizens, has now evolved into the policing and purging of each other’s leadership: the FBI, CIA , Homeland Security, the NSA and the military all reach out and build alliances with the mass media, civilian executive and congressional officials as well as powerful foreign interest ‘lobbies’ to gain power and leverage in pursuit of their own visions of empire building.

The purge of General Petraeus and humiliation of General Allen is a victory for the civilian militarists who are unconditional supporters of Israel and therefore oppose any opening to ‘moderate’ Islamist regimes. They want a long-term and expanded US military presence in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The real precipitating factor for this ugly ‘fight at the top’ is the crumbling of the US empire and how to deal with its new challenges.

Signs of decay are everywhere: Military immorality is rampant; the be-medaled generals sodomize their subordinates and amass wealth via pillage of the public treasury and military contracts; politicians are bought and sold by millionaire financial donors, including agents of foreign powers, and foreign interests determine critical US foreign policy.

The disrepute of the US Congress is almost universal – over 87% of US citizen condemn ‘the House and Senate’ as harmful to public welfare, servants of their own self-enrichment and slaves of corruption.

The economic elites are repeatedly involved in massive swindles of retail investors, mortgage holders and each other. Multi-national corporations and the fabulously wealthy engage in capital flight, fattening their overseas accounts.

The Executive himself (the ever-smiling President Obama) sends clandestine death squads and mercenary-terrorists to assassinate adversaries in an effort to compensate for his incapacity to defend the empire with diplomacy or traditional military ground forces or to prop-up new client-states.

Cronyism is rife: there is a revolving door between Wall Street and US Treasury and Pentagon officials. Public apathy and cynicism is rife; nearly 50% of the electorate doesn’t even vote in Presidential elections and, among those who do vote, over 80% don’t expect their elected officials to honor their promises.

Aggressive civilian militarists have gained control of key posts and are increasingly free of any constitutional constraints.

Meanwhile the costs of military failures and burgeoning spy, security and military budgets soar while the fiscal and trade deficit grows.

Faction fights among rival imperial cliques intensify; purges, blackmail, sex scandals and immorality in high places have become the norm. Democratic discourses are hollowed out: democratic state ideology has lost credibility. No sensible American believes in it anymore.

Is there a broom large enough to clean this filthy Augean stable? Will a ‘collective Hercules’ emerge from all this intrigue and corruption with the strength of character and commitment to lead the revolutionary charge?

Surely the sell-out and crude humiliation of American military officials on behalf of the ‘chicken-hawk’ civilian militarists and their foreign interests should make many an officer re-think his own career, loyalty and commitment to the Constitution.

Photoshopped Cover of Broadwell's Book that a publisher apparently mistook for the real thing in a promotion for one of Broadwell's book tour promotions

Photoshopped Cover of Broadwell’s Book that a publisher apparently mistook for the real thing in a promotion for one of Broadwell’s book tour promotions

Prof. James Petras
Global Research, November 22, 2012

Posted in 4th Media, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, Fascism in America, Government Corruption, New World Order, Petraeus, Psychopaths and Sociopaths in Politics, Psychopaths in Management, Schadenfreude Blog, Theorists and Meme Merchants, Zionism as Racism and Fascism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Obama’s Gift to Al-Qaeda: Support for Tyranny and FBI Monitoring of Dissent


alqaeda and Obamas_first_gift_to_Pakistan

al qaeda and Obama vandalTERROR

Glenn Greenwald | Thursday, December 27, 2012, 16:36 Beijing
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon Share on favorites More Sharing Services 0 Print

From 4th Media Beijing:

This week will likely entail light posting, but here are several items worthy of note:

(1) I can’t recall any one news article that so effectively conveys both the gross immorality and the strategic stupidity of Obama’s drone attacks as this one from Monday’s Washington Post by Sudarsan Raghavan. It details how the US-supported Yemeni dictatorship lies to its public each time the US kills Yemeni civilians with a drone attack, and how these civilian-killing attacks are relentlessly (and predictably) driving Yemenis to support al-Qaida and devote themselves to anti-American militancy:

“Since the attack, militants in the tribal areas surrounding Radda have gained more recruits and supporters in their war against the Yemeni government and its key backer, the United States. The two survivors and relatives of six victims, interviewed separately and speaking to a Western journalist about the incident for the first time, expressed willingness to support or even fight alongside AQAP, as the al-Qaeda group is known.


“‘Our entire village is angry at the government and the Americans,’ Mohammed said. ‘If the Americans are responsible, I would have no choice but to sympathize with al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda is fighting America.’

“Public outrage is also growing as calls for accountability, transparency and compensation go unanswered amid allegations by human rights activists and lawmakers that the government is trying to cover up the attack to protect its relationship with Washington. Even senior Yemeni officials said they fear that the backlash could undermine their authority.

“‘If we are ignored and neglected, I would try to take my revenge. I would even hijack an army pickup, drive it back to my village and hold the soldiers in it hostages,’ said Nasser Mabkhoot Mohammed al-Sabooly, the truck’s driver, 45, who suffered burns and bruises. ‘I would fight along al-Qaeda’s side against whoever was behind this attack.’”

Similarly, the LA Times has a long article on drone attacks in Yemen and quotes Ahmed al Zurqua, an expert on Islamic militants, explaining the obvious: “The drones have not killed the real Al Qaeda leaders, but they have increased the hatred toward America and are causing young men to join Al Qaeda to retaliate.”

History will surely record that one of the most moronic collective questions ever posed is “Why do they hate us?” – where the “they” are: “those we continuously bomb and kill and whose dictators we prop up.”

Noting the two US drone attacks on December 24 in his country, the 23-year-old Yemeni writer Ibrahim Mothana asked: “Two US drone strikes in Yemen today. Should we consider them a Christmas gift?!” That’s exactly what al-Qaida undoubtedly considers them to be.

(2) Speaking of the “why-do-they-hate-us?” question, the Bahraini democracy activist Zainab al-Khawaja has a powerful Op-Ed in the New York Times detailing the extreme brutality and repression of the regime against its own citizens, and explaining the self-destructive though steadfast support for that regime by the US and its close Saudi allies:

“But despite all these sacrifices, the struggle for freedom and democracy in Bahrain seems hopeless because Bahrain’s rulers have powerful allies, including Saudi Arabia and the United States.

“For Bahrainis, there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between the Saudis and the Americans. Both are supporting the Khalifa regime to preserve their own interests, even if the cost is the lives and rights of the people of Bahrain.

“The United States speaks about supporting human rights and democracy, but while the Saudis send troops to aid the Khalifa government, America is sending arms. The United States is doing itself a huge disservice by displaying such an obvious double standard toward human rights violations in the Middle East. Washington condemns the violence of the Syrian government but turns a blind eye to blatant human rights abuses committed by its ally Bahrain.

“This double standard is costing America its credibility across the region; and the message being understood is that if you are an ally of America, then you can get away with abusing human rights.”

With rare exceptions, the only people delusional and naive enough to believe the US is serious about its “commitment-to-human-rights” rhetoric – as opposed to exploiting human rights concerns as a tool to undermine regimes it dislikes – are found in the west.

In the regions where the US enthusiastically supports even the most repressive regimes provided those regimes show fealty to US dictates, the stench of this hypocrisy, of this radical dishonesty, is so potent that it cannot be evaded.

But it is an extraordinary testament to the power of propaganda that one constantly finds westerners claiming with a straight face that the same country that hugs and props up the Saudis, the Bahrainis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis and so many others is committed to undermining tyranny and spreading freedom and democracy.

Or, as Hillary Clinton put it in 2009: “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family.”

(3) The long-time Berlin correspondent for Al Jazeera, Aktham Suliman, recently resigned, and he explains in this rather amazing interview that he did so because the regime in Qatar, which owns the network, has been increasingly shaping and dictating the news network’s coverage of events to advance the regime’s interests.

In particular, he cites Al Jazeera’s coverage of the conflicts in Libya and Syria which, he says, has been systematically distorted in order to justify the wars which the Qataris seek against the dictators in those countries which they dislike:

“Of course Muammar Gadhafi was a dictator, and of course he’d ruled for far too long. Of course there was a desire among the Libyans to get rid of him. All that is clear. But it’s also clear that killing a dictator, as happened with Gadhafi, is absolutely unacceptable on human rights grounds, revolution or no. And that’s not emphasized. That is: We stressed the necessity of a revolution in Libya and the humanity of the revolutionaries, but said nothing about the murder of a dictator.

“What should also give us pause for thought is that it wasn’t just Gadhafi who was killed. Many others were killed after him – including, incidentally, the man who shot Gadhafi. He was killed by another group of revolutionaries. That’s the actual environment in Libya. And that’s exactly what you don’t see on today’s Al Jazeera. That’s not professional.

“In Syria, too, society is divided. You have the pro-Assad people, and those who are against him. However, when you make one side out to be mass murderers and turn the others into saints you’re fueling the conflict, not presenting the situation in an appropriate and balanced way. There are murders, injustices and good things on both sides. But you don’t see that on Al Jazeera. My problem is and was: When I see Al Jazeera’s Syrian coverage, I don’t really understand what’s going on there. And that’s the first thing I expect from journalism.”

As was true of Saddam, there is no question that Gadhafi and Assad have committed atrocities. But just as was true in Iraq, that does not justify the grossly simplistic propaganda that distorts rather than clarifies what the realities in those countries are.

(4) Documents just obtained from the FBI by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund reveal, as the New York Times put it, that “the [FBI] used counterterrorism agents to investigate the Occupy Wall Street movement, including its communications and planning” and in general show “how deeply involved federal law-enforcement authorities were in monitoring the activities of the movement.”



The heavily redacted documents, which can be read here, reveal numerous instances of the FBI collaborating with local police forces and private corporations to monitor and anticipate the acts of the protest movement.

As obviously disturbing as it is, none of this should be surprising. Virtually every seized power justified over the last decade in the name of “terrorism” has been applied to a wide range of domestic dissent.

The most significant civil liberties trend of the last decade, in my view, is the importation of War on Terror tactics onto US soil, applied to US citizens – from the sprawling Surveillance State and powers of indefinite detention to the para-militarization of domestic police forces and the rapidly emerging fleet of drones now being deployed in countless ways.

As I’ve argued previously, the true purpose of this endless expansion of state power in the name of “terrorism” is control over anticipated domestic protest and unrest.

It should be anything but surprising that the FBI – drowning in counter-terrorism money, power and other resources – will apply the term “terrorism” to any group it dislikes and wants to control and suppress (thus ushering in all of the powers institutionalized against “terrorists”).

Those who supported (or acquiesced to) this expansion of unaccountable government power because they assumed it would only be used against Those Muslims not only embraced a morally warped premise (I care about injustices only if they directly affect me), but also a factually false one, since abuses of power always – always – expand beyond their original application.

(5) At the excellent online journal Jadaliyya, Max Ajl has a very interesting essay that presents a much different view on the debate over the Chuck Hagel nomination specifically, and on US policy toward Iran and Israel more broadly. I don’t necessarily endorse his argument, but it’s well-argued, provocative and highly worth reading.

(6) After film critics almost unanimously gushed over Zero Dark Thirty and showered it with every accolade they could get their hands on, the list of writers, commentators, officials and others who have denounced the film for its favorable (and false) depiction of torture has grown quite rapidly. Here is the most updated list of just some of those critics; if you read just one of these essays, I’d recommend this by Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney.

In an LA Times Op-Ed strongly condemning the film, Terry McDermott reports that, at one point, FBI agents were chasing around geese in Central Park because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, under torture, had told his CIA interrogators that al-Qaida “had explosives stuffed up their ass”. Had Zero Dark Thirty included a depiction of that scene, it at least would have been mildly more entertaining, offering some redeeming value for this film. As is, there is basically none.

Glenn Greenwald is a columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian. A former constitutional lawyer, he was until 2012 a contributing writer at Salon. He is the author of How Would a Patriot Act? (May 2006), a critique of the Bush administration’s use of executive power; A Tragic Legacy (June, 2007), which examines the Bush legacy; and With Liberty and Justice For Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.
© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited

Banks, The Department of Homeland Security, Universities and the FBI working under the banner fo The Domestic Security Alliance Council were behind a coordinated attack againdst the Occupy movement, documents FOIAed by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund revealed. Naomi Wolfe in the Gaurdian “The DSAC is described by the federal government as ‘a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector.”

“Banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protestors harvested by private security ; plans to crush Occupy events planned for a month down the road.”

Snipers hitting Occupy activists are mentioned in the documents. But the redactions make it hard to tell who would do the sniping.

Naomi Wolf in The Gaurdian:

fishoutofwater @ dailykos:

bobswern @ dailykos:

Posted in 4th Media, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, Fascism in America, Government Corruption, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, MSM Mainstream Media Sycophancy, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Occupy Wall Street and other Occupy Groups, Political Economy, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, Statistics on the Decline of USA, U.S. Terrorism, Veterans issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. Intelligence Analysts: The American Power is in Irrreversible Terminal Decline–from 4th Media

america in decline Dave Lindorff-big

US Intelligence Analysts: The American Power In Irreversible Terminal Decline
Post Categories: Afghanistan
The 4th Media News | Friday, December 14, 2012, 18:47 Beijing
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon Share on favorites More Sharing Services 9 Print

That is the primary conclusion of a new report out of the National Intelligence Council — a government organization that produces mid-term and long-range thinking for the US intelligence community.

Titled Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, this 140-page study says emphatically that the “relative decline” of the US is “inevitable,” but adds that its future role in the international system is “much harder to project,” and goes on to say that “the degree to which the US continues to dominate the international system could vary widely.”

The "Dharma Wheel" or "Logic" of Capitalism and Imperialism that shapes the Fate of the System

The “Dharma Wheel” or “Logic” of Capitalism and Imperialism that shapes the Fate of the System

Among the factors that could determine what the US role in global affairs might be a little less than two decades from now are whether the US dollar continues to be the world’s reserve currency, how China handles the transition from a country of poor workers and peasants to a country with a large middle-class, and whether the US “will be able to work with new partners to restructure the international system.”

The study is interesting in that it represents a complete rejection of the notorious Project for a New American Century, which was a private Neoconservative blueprint for long-term US hegemony over the rest of the globe and which became the driving philosophy underlying the Bush-Cheney administration’s domestic and foreign policy in the first decade of this century.

The PNAC called for the US to establish unchallenged global dominance and to do whatever was necessary to “prevent” any other nation from challenging that dominance going forward.

The authors of this new study take it as a given that the heyday of the US is over. As they put it, “The ‘unipolar moment’ is over and Pax Americana — the era of American ascendancy in international politics that began in 1945 — is fast winding down.”

They say, optimistically, that the US is likely to remain “first among equals” at least into 2030 “because of its preeminence across a range of power dimensions and legacies of its leadership role.” But that’s a far cry from being able to dictate to the rest of the world.

The study offers four possible scenarios for the future. In what it calls the “most plausible worst-case scenario,” the US would withdraw inward, allowing globalization to “stall.”

While many people in other countries would likely consider this scenario an optimistic one, not a “worst-case” one, given the hugely destructive role the US has played over the decades since its emergence at the end of World War II as the world’s dominant power, the report’s authors see such a move towards US isolationism as leading to increased conflict and instability in the world.

A second scenario they postulate, which they term “fusion” and describe as the “most plausible best-case scenario,” would see an increasingly economically dominant and militarily powerful China joining in an era of cooperation with the US.

Such cooperation, they say, could lead to solutions to such global challenges as climate change and to “broader global cooperation.” Again, other countries might view such a two-state collaboration between the world’s two biggest economies and militaries as less benign.

A third scenario postulated as less likely would be a “genie-out-of-the-bottle” world in which growing inequality leads to explosions in many nations, while climate-change and population-pressure driven shortages of water, food and energy, lead to increasing international conflicts, with the US no longer able to act in the role of “international policeman.”
intel on decline of america 1

intel on decline of america 2 51hOW1mqi1L

intel on decline of america 3 statue-of-liberty-america-in-decline

intel on decline of america 4 h.sharifi20121212064303083

Finally, a fourth scenario, which seems almost science fiction, envisions a weakening of nation states, as new technologies allow non-state actors, such as mega cities and shifting coalitions of non-state actors, to become leaders in dealing with the world’s issues like climate change international conflict.

With regard to the Middle East, America’s continued obsession with Iran’s nuclear energy program is on full display, with the Intelligence Council authors worrying that “If the Islamic republic maintains power… and is able to develop nuclear weapons, the Middle East will face a highly unstable future.”

It is an odd apprehension, given the current degree of instability in the region — civil war in Syria and Yemen, public protests in Bahrain and Egypt, uncontrolled violence in Libya, continuing violence in Iraq, and of course war in Afghanistan — and the fact that at present only Israel has nuclear weapons, which it adamantly refuses to submit to international inspection or control — or even to acknowledge.

No one, obviously, can hope to predict with any confidence what the world will look like in 2030, particularly given the unprecedented threat posed by catastrophic climate change, which could see global temperatures even by that year rising significantly, with disastrous consequences for both coastal populations and for countries already facing droughts and water shortages.

Even the US, as the intelligence analysts note, will not escape climate change unscathed, as its drier regions, notably the southwest and midwest — both important crop-growing regions — face unprecedented droughts. If other trends continue too — notably the decline of the dollar as a global reserve currency, and continued growing indebtedness of the US — America could be forced to, as the authors put it, “withdraw inward.”

The good news is that nowhere in this forward-looking study is there a scenario proposed in which the US continues on as the world’s self-designated “cop,” or as the world’s dominant power.

As we contemplate the profound challenges posed by climate change and by the world’s exploding population, that at least is one prediction in the report worth cheering about.

David Lindoff

This article was originally posted at PressTV

Posted in 4th Media, Decline of the American Imperium, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, MEMEONOMICS: Economics and EconomistS;: Capitalism and its Theories, New World Order, Political Economy, Science and Method, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, Statistics on the Decline of USA, Theorists and Meme Merchants, U.S. Terrorism | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Canada’s White Racist Government Like the Former Rhodesia and South Africa–From 4th Media


Canada’s White Racist Government Like the Former Rhodesia and South Africa
Post Categories: Canada
The 4th Media News | Friday, December 28, 2012, 17:30 Beijing
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumble upon Share on favorites More Sharing Services 0 Print

By all measures of governing standards, the Conservative government of Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper embodies the same racist policies as that of the governments of the former Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa. The Harper government’s patronizing policies over Canada’s First Nations is a case in point.

Coupled with Canada’s abhorrent support for Israel’s expansionistic Zionist policies at the expense of the people of Palestine, the Harper government’s attempt to wrest control of resource-rich lands from Canada’s indigenous peoples for exploitation by multinational corporations is reminiscent of the same policies that saw native lands of South Africa and Rhodesia crudely exploited by DeBeers and British American Tobacco…

The Harper government represents the most right-wing government in the recent history of Canada. With its Anglo-Canadian base, it has alienated the French-speaking province of Quebec, where independence sentiment has been renewed; Muslims and Arabs, with its pro-Zionist policies; and Canada’s First Nations, with its attempt to grab native lands protected by treaties.

The only area where the Harper government has shown itself to be “liberal” is that of gay rights. It should be recalled that favoring rights for homosexuals is not necessarily liberal. After the 1934 Nazi Party purge of Ernst Rohm and his coterie of working class homosexual supporters, gay Nazis like Reinhard Heydrich and Baldur von Schirach who originated from the German elite were permitted to hold high office and operate more or less in the open.

In the Canadian government of today, reputed homosexuals like Foreign Minister John “Rusty’ Baird and Immigration Minster Jason Kenney, sometimes called Canada’s deputy prime minister, follow in the footsteps of Heydrich and von Schirach in frolicking with fellow Tory gays at “Fabulous Blue Tent” parties in Ottawa. Similar parties in Berlin were attended by some of the Nazi party’s top lieutenants at the height of Adolf Hitler’s reign.

Most of Harper’s inner circle consists of white males, particularly four bachelors. In addition to Baird and Kenney, Harper’s chief of staff, wealthy businessman Nigel Wright and Heritage Minister James Moore, whose major cause is Canada’s arts – ballet, plays, opera, musicals, and the like – are also single.

All four are fiercely committed to Harper and Canada’s right-wing policies. Wright was formerly the managing director of the Onex Corporation, a Toronto hedge fund that has partnered with the George H W Bush- and CIA-connected Carlyle Group.

For public relations appearances, Harper has appointed minorities to his Cabinet but they hold minor government positions. Bal Gosal, a Sikh, serves as the relatively unimportant Minister of State for Sports; Leona Aglukkaq, the first Inuk appointed to a Canadian Cabinet, is Health Minister; Beverley Joan Oda, the first Japanese-Canadian Cabinet member; and Alice Wong, the first Chinese-Canadian woman in a Cabinet position, is Minister for Seniors.

Harper has sprinkled other women throughout his Cabinet but with exception of Marjory LeBreton, the Leader of the Tory government in the Senate; Minister of Public Works and Government Services Rona Ambrose; Gail Shea, the Minister of National Revenue; and Lisa Raitt, the Minister of Labor in an anti-labor government, all the top jobs are held by white males: Attorney General and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson; Defense Minister Peter Mackay; Public Safety Minister Vic Toews; Treasury Board President Tony Clement; and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

Even white minority-ruled Rhodesia included blacks in the government, but these were mostly black landowners and tribal chiefs. They were all puppets of the white minority government of Prime Minister Ian Smith just like a Sikh turbaned minister, a few Asian-Canadians, and an Inuk in the group photograph of the Harper government represent mere tokenism and a public relations ploy to hide the true nature of Canada’s leadership.

Harper fancies himself as a politician who can unite disparate factions. Harper has managed to lure some Liberal Party politicians to Tory ranks and he named the former premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer, as his ambassador to Washington. Doer, a member of the official opposition, the New Democratic Party (NDP), is more interested in pushing for the building of the Keystone XL pipeline that will pump bitumen from Alberta tar sands to Texas for refining.

Environmentalists in Canada and the United States have decried the left-of-center NDP’s sellout to the Tories and big business. What has occurred in Canada with the imposition of pro-corporate policies within the opposition NDP and the Liberal Party is what happens when big business takes total control of the political process.

Today, there is little difference between the U.S. Republican and Democratic parties and Britain’s Labor, Conservatives, and Liberal Democrats when it comes to total support for the corporate agenda whether it is social services slashing austerity budgets or potentially destructive environmental issues like fracking and oil pipelines.

In Canada, the United States, and Britain, corporations have, through large financial contributions, dulled the differences between major political parties by selling them on the concept of a pro-business “Third Way.” In many respects, the “Third Way” has the same commitment to corporate domination as did the Third Reich.

After the massacre of young school children in Newtown, Connecticut, Harper went ahead with plans to scrap Canada’s long-barreled gun registry system. That decision infuriated the separatist Parti Quebecois government of Quebec, which was already steamed at Harper for not requiring that all senior Canadian officials be fluent in French, an abandonment of Canada’s longstanding bilingualism policy.

Harper has laid down the gauntlet to Quebec Premier Pauline Marois by refusing to grant Quebec any additional powers.

With the Tory budget bill, C-45, Harper has also declared war on the First Nations by dictating how native tribe-controlled land will be managed.

On December 11, Atiwapiskat First Nation Chief Theresa Spence went on a hunger strike and threatened to starve herself to death in her teepee within view of Parliament in Ottawa. Spence’s “Idle No More” cause has been taken up by First Nation leaders across Canada and Harper has smugly decided that he will act out the role of South African apartheid Premier B.J. Vorster in refusing to yield to the demands of Canada’s version of apartheid’s “kaffirs.”

Harper has refused to meet with Spence and is going ahead with plans to turn exploitative multinational mining companies loose on native territories.

Harper and his Tory gang want to introduce the concept of private property rights to tribes that have always believed in “group property” rights. When a few tribal elders gain ownership of communally-held tribal lands, the Tories reason, they will be more than willing to sell the properties and the natural resources found on them to eager corporate buyers.

Native peoples will soon find themselves being ejected from their historical lands by greedy capitalists intent on building hydroelectric dams, deplete fishing and hunting preserves, and conducting strip mining.

Perhaps the First Nation revolt in Canada will spill across the border where anti-Canadian protests among some American Indian tribes over the Keystone pipeline that will transit their own lands have already occurred.

What looms on the horizon is a united front of the descendants of the original inhabitants of North America – the Atiwapiskat, the Aamjiwnaang, the Lakotah Sioux, the Metis, the Anishinaabe, the Iroquois, the Nez Perce, the Inuit, and others — all jointly disregarding the colonialist-imposed U.S.-Canadian border and vowing to take their battle to the halls of power in Ottawa and Washington, DC.

Today, the Native Americans will find they have allies among the descendants of those who invaded and occupied their lands because we all have common foes in the greedy and environmentally-destructive capitalist corporations and their puppets who run the governments of Canada and the United States.

Wayne MADSEN | Strategic Culture Foundation

Posted in 4th Media, Aboriginal Law, Canadian and American Holocausts, Canadian Genocide, Canadian Racism and Genocide, Eugenics Movement, First Nations in Canada, Genocide in and From America, Indigenous Issues, Indigenous Science, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Legal Actions on Genocide, Nuremberg Precedents | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Attempts to Report Crimes to Washington State Attorney General McKenna

September 14, 2011

Dear Mr. McKenna and Mr. Sonntag:

My name is James Michael Craven, Blackfoot Indian name Omahkohkiaaiipooyii. I am a professor of economics and head of the economics department at Clark College (please see attached and background and credentials as an economist and teacher). I was referred to you directly by AAG Ms. Jody Campbell as I have tried, over many years, in my capacity as a public servant/employee of the Government of the State of Washington, to bring to the attention of law enforcement, my reasons and supporting evidence for my belief that there is a climate of serial corruption, misuse of state resources, retribution against whistleblowers of whom I am one, and general repression and denials of basic Constitutional rights which all public employees are guaranteed (see letters to Sgt Dave Trimble Clark County Sheriff, Det. Sgt Rob Brousseau of the WSP, Supervisory Special Agent Kevin Saito Seattle FBI, Mr. Brian Sonntag Auditor and Linda Long Deputy State Auditor, Governor Gary Locke etc)


Specifically, in this case, in a hearing before administrative law judge Richard Knutson, the president of Clark College, Robert Knight, acting in his official capacity as president of Clark College, testified under oath and penalty of perjury, that he never made a statement to my union representatives Dr. Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson that “Morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” He further testified that when asked about his statement in two separate appeal hearings on two quarters off without pay long after the discipline at been imposed, that he refused to deny having made the statement (in the presence Dr. Roi one of whom alleged that he had made the statement to her and Ms Davidson, that he only refused to deny it for the record (taped) because he was there to ask not answer any questions. of At a subsequent arbitration hearing, Dr. Roi, a public employee at Clark College acting in her official capacities as a union officer and public employee, and Ms Lynn Davidson, WEA representative, both testified under oath, under penalty of perjury, that Robert Knight did indeed make those statements and they were not only shocked that the president of the College would make such a statement and harbor such intentions, but that he would reveal them to my union representatives. Someone committed perjury and there is additional evidence in the forms of correspondence and tapes of the meetings in question that suggest that it was Mr. Knight that committed the perjury and it was on a matter that was not only material but central to the case at hand.

Perjury is serious business although often it is treated lightly. Perjury represents not only obstruction of justice per se, and if done by a public employee in the course of official business also misconduct of a public employee and filing a false report by a public employee, but it represents an attempt to hijack and pervert justice and when used, as it was and is used in my case where progressive discipline is involved; it represents also a highly “poisoned tree” used to establish false predicates for further and higher levels of progressive discipline and eventual dismissal into the future. In Illinois, out of 167 prisoners on death row, 13 persons absolutely innocent, one of whom was once 45 minutes away from execution, were released and the death penalty suspended in the other cases on death row and in all 13 cases, perjury was involved along with some prosecutorial misconduct; perjury is serious business.

From the attached materials, which I respectfully ask you to read and consider, my attempts to report what I have a good-faith-based basis to believe are acts of serial corruption and criminality at Clark College and not only against me: RCW 9A.80.010 Official Misconduct; RCW 42.20.100 Failure of Duty by Public Officer; RCW 42.20.050 False Report; RCW 42.20.100 Failure of Duty by a Public Officer; RCW 9A.80.010 Official Misconduct; RCW 42.40.030 Right to Disclose Improper Governmental Actions–Interference Prohibited; RCW 42.40.050 and chapter 49.60 Retaliation Against a Whistleblower; RCW 9A.68.050 Trading in Public Office; RCW 10.14.190 Constitutional Rights (Abridgment of); RCW 9A.76.175 Making a False and Misleading Statement to a Public Servant; RCW 49.44.010 Blacklisting; RCW 9A.36.080 Malicious Harassment; RCW 9.81.120 Constitutional Rights–Censorship or Infringement; RCW 9A.80.010 Official Misconduct; RCW 9A.72.010 Definitions of Material Statements etc; 18 USC Article I Chapter 13 Parts 241 and 242 Conspiracy Against Rights and Conspiracy Under Color of Law; infringement of First, and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights; violations of Americans With Disabilities Act;

I would ask that your investigator speak with the following individuals who have first-hand and direct knowledge of these and other issues: Dr. Marcia Roi, Ms Lynn Davidson, Ms Lisa Lewison all of WEA and Dr. Roi at Clark College (on the perjury issue); Dr. Gerard Smith, Professor Gene Johnson, Mr. Jennifer Wheeler, Professor Larry Mains, and others I can give in the future on other issues raised.

While on sick leave, I was given 7 days off without pay, no Laudermill Hearing, no appeals, with my discipline to commence immediately upon return to work and then with my discipline timed to engineer my non-availability the first week of the quarter; used then as a pretext to take me out of the classroom, deny me my scheduled overtime load and deny the students who had signed up for my course their own rights to the most experience teacher available. My classes were assigned to adjunct teachers none of whom had been hired or vetted for technical competence and teaching of economics by me the only person qualified to do so (two of whom had been recruited to file complaints against me not sustained by outside investigators) me unavailable in the first week of classes and again my classes assigned to adjuncts un-vetted and unqualified to teach the courses assigned to them. There were two appeal hearings on the 8 days off but as my union had “dropped the ball” (the words of the new union representative Ms Lisa Lewison) they did not pursue arbitration. Then came two quarters off with no pay and attempt to take medical benefits from my family, with replacements hired and courses rescheduled and new teachers posted BEFORE the one Laudermill hearing I finally got to determine the very question that had already been answered with the hiring and scheduling of replacements: would I be teaching the next quarter with two levels of appeal and much later arbitration (that I lost) pending well after the imposition of discipline. Now I have just been given one year off without pay, taken out of the classroom immediately, with an upcoming Laudermill hearing and then appeals pending. Further, we have had had six adjuncts teaching economics 4 of whom I have never met and none vetted by me and I am the head of the economics department; those hired were recruited outside of the normal and established protocols for hiring and vetting adjuncts and one of them that I have never met was hired and then let go all without my having met or vetted him and there were complaints that were passed on to me when he was previously hired and let go and then rehired.

I have been charged, judged, convicted and had discipline assessed all by the same individuals who charged me or caused me to be charged and who were the subjects of previous whistle blowing by me. Imagine, person A, who can be provably shown to have expressed openly extreme malice and animus against me (in word and deeds) takes up the complaint of someone refusing to complain and even over the objections of that person (Dr. Ali Aliabadi) and/or recruits unvetted adjuncts to file complaints and then rewards then with teaching loads (mine) and that person is also the person who turns allegations into a formal complaint, then becomes the person to hear and pass on the merits of the complaint and to determine what is or is not allowable as evidence, then Person A becomes the judge of the merits of his own allegations, charges and allowed evidence, then person A becomes the jury finding a verdict, then person A becomes the assessor of discipline, and then person A becomes the reviewing authority for any appeals up to arbitration. What is wrong with that picture. And the irony is that Clark College has received all the due process that I have been serially denied.

Please regard this as a formal request for investigation and a formal complaint vis-à-vis the statutes and issue mentioned above. Someone, a public employee, acting in his or her official capacity, committed perjury as the statements of Robert Knight versus those of Dr. Roi and Ms Davidson are categorical and irreconcilable. Please also note that all or most of the materials in support of my allegations are with your AAGs as I am acting pro se against the ESD ruling in favor of Clark College as I was granted unemployment benefits immediately when off for two quarters without pay. My supporting documentation, along with the tapes of the ESD hearing and closing brief of the WEA on my arbitration showing the contradictions in testimonies are with your AAG and Ms Campbell has them and has read them it is my understanding.

Please note also that I have been taken out of the classroom this quarter prior to any investigations or having received a formal complaint by a complainant and this is injurious to and contemptuous of the students who signed up for my teaching and they will be taught by un-vetted adjuncts hired through the back door and outside of normal protocols for hiring and vetting adjuncts. This is causing irreparable harm to my students who signed up to be taught by me and it is denial of due process per se. What we have is the same words and allegations (never made by any complainant) of harassing, hostile, disrespectful speech and writing (all in intra-union communications on intra-union issues and on a union list, allowed by the Clark College-AHE contract authorizing di minimis use of the email for union business as not all teachers have home computers and to which management is supposed to have no access or control or ability to sanction over) first made as allegations, then merely repeated as a complaint, then repeated again as charges, then repeated again as a verdict and finally repeated again as justification of denial of appeal all without any established or working definitions of the key constructs, without evidence introduced other than portions of statements introduced with no formal complaint or totality of context introduced or considered. This is serial denial of due process per se.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter and this matter is urgent and extremely time-sensitive.


James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Professor of Economics, Department Head, Economics
Clark College

Subject: RE: your question about how to complain
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:31:19 -0700
Dear Ms Campbell,

Thank you for your response. If you examine the attached letter to the Clark County Sheriff’s office and the referral from WSP, along with the dates, perhaps you will understand my problems in attempting to bring what I believe to be a good-faith and evidence-based complaint on a series of issues that I believe, and other legal professionals who have vetted my arguments and evidence, manifest a climate of serial corruption at Clark College. The bottom line is that Dr. Marcia Roi and WEA representative Lynn Davidson both testified, at my arbitration hearing (long after my discipline was imposed and I returned back to work) under oath and penalty of perjury, a felony, that they were shocked and taken aback when the president of the College, Bob Knight, angrily said to them “There will be no morale problem when we get rid of professor Craven”, while at the ESD appeal hearing he not only had testified that he had never made that statement, but further, when asked about it twice, in two separate hearings, if he had made that statement, in the presence of Dr. Roi one of whom who had made the allegation about his statement, he refused to deny the statement or call Dr. Roi a liar to her face only, he testified, because he was there to ask not answer any questions (that is why the tapes of the hearings are also critical). So someone committed perjury on a material–even central–question before the legal processes; and perjury is serious business because it not only represents obstruction of justice per se, it represents an attempt to hijack justice itself and shape legal findings that are false, fruits of an intentionally-poisoned tree and to be used, as they are being used now, for further denials of due process, cover-ups and piling-on progressive discipline.

No need to cover-up what is clean, only what is dirty. No need to frame and pile-on contrived charges and deny basic due process to a guilty person as their own guilt is supposed to expose, indict and convict them; one needs only to frame and pile-on charges to an innocent person. No need for perjury if one’s case is clean and righteous; only if the case is weak or fraudulent. No need to deny due process and the requisite Laudermill and other mandated hearings and appeals if one’s case is righteous (that is when one needs a record that full due process was given and guilt was properly established) only if nefarious intentions are behind it all.

Since I do not know what Ms. Warren represented to you as to what she said to me or what believes that she said and intended to communicate to me, that was witnessed by a friend, I cannot comment on the accuracy of her comments and suggestions but I did appreciate the time she took to present her views and arguments.

Thank you again, and I’m sure that you understand that I am as serious as the heart attacks that I suffered. I will be taking this to the Attorney General, the media and to various whistleblower watch groups. How is it possible, for someone in America to be charged, judged, convicted and have discipline assessed, with no Laudermill hearing, no appeals, all while represented by a union and on sick leave with disciplines imposed immediately upon my return from sick leave and timed so as to make me unavailable to teach and thus lose even more money while my classes are assigned to un-vetted and unqualified adjuncts thus “taking” away overtime income as well? What if you found out that a separate file, separate from your personnel file, some 4900 pages was kept on you, since 1994, without your knowledge and thus without your ability to challenge any allegations in it until 2005? And that is only the tip of the iceberg of serial corruption and criminality going on at Clark College in my opinion and those of many others. How would you feel about being charged, judged, convicted and having discipline assessed by someone who regarded you as the sole source of morale issues that have been picked up on repeated environmental scans and who was apparently angered enough to tell your union representatives that “morale will improve when WE get rid of you”? And finally, if someone wrote say America will improve when WE get rid of the president…”do you think that they might at least get a visit from Secret Service wondering what “get rid of” means?

Again thanks for your help in your capacity as an officer of the court and AAG. By the way, I was so much out of it due to my medical conditions that I thought that the Judge had received and read my own petition for the Subpoena Duces Tecum and why I was asking for it but found that the Court assistant had given it back to me to present personally to the judge and I thought that she had meant a different document that I could not find. That does not mean that I did not understand your argument or the reasons the judge gave for her ruling but I was overloaded at the time through no fault of your own.

Again, good luck on your new assignments.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Subject: RE: your question about how to complain
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:10:30 -0700
From: JodyC@ATG.WA.GOV
Professor Craven,

From my talk with Ms. Warren, it appears everything she told you is true. You can also write to the Attorney General, and I suspect the response you will get will be along the same lines as what Ms. Warren said.

Thank you for your good wishes,
Jody Lee Campbell

From: James Craven []
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:23 PM
To: Campbell, Jody (ATG)
Subject: RE: your question about how to complain
Hi Ms Campbell,

Thanks so much for your prompt reply. My conversation over one hour with another AAG, Ms. Warren, just after court finished, did not yield this definitive information as she finally referred me back to the Clark County Prosecutor’s office. I will write to the Attorney General.

I wish you good luck in your new assignment.


Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Subject: your question about how to complain
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:21:30 -0700
From: JodyC@ATG.WA.GOV

Professor Craven,
With respect to your request for information on how to complain to the Attorney General about criminal acts, you may send a letter to:
Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General
Washington State Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100

You may also submit a complaint via our on-line form through the AGO’s website. Here is a link to the contact form.
I hope that this provides you with the information that you needed.

Jody Lee Campbell
Assistant Attorney General
(360) 664-2475
Print sparingly: save trees.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment