ARE ALL TELEPHONE CALLS RECORDED AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT? (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

Are All Telephone Calls Recorded And Accessible To US Government?
Post Categories: Society
Glenn Greenwald | Monday, May 6, 2013, 12:57 Beijing
FROM 4TH MEDIA

telephone calls recorded by government

The real capabilities and behavior of the US surveillance state are almost entirely unknown to the American public because, like most things of significance done by the US government, it operates behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy. But a seemingly spontaneous admission this week by a former FBI counterterrorism agent provides a rather startling acknowledgment of just how vast and invasive these surveillance activities are.

Over the past couple days, cable news tabloid shows such as CNN’s Out Front with Erin Burnett have been excitingly focused on the possible involvement in the Boston Marathon attack of Katherine Russell, the 24-year-old American widow of the deceased suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. As part of their relentless stream of leaks uncritically disseminated by our Adversarial Press Corps, anonymous government officials are claiming that they are now focused on telephone calls between Russell and Tsarnaev that took place both before and after the attack to determine if she had prior knowledge of the plot or participated in any way.

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: “No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: “So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”

“All of that stuff” – meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant – “is being captured as we speak”.

On Thursday night, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that “all digital communications in the past” are recorded and stored:

Let’s repeat that last part: “no digital communication is secure”, by which he means not that any communication is susceptible to government interception as it happens (although that is true), but far beyond that: all digital communications – meaning telephone calls, emails, online chats and the like – are automatically recorded and stored and accessible to the government after the fact. To describe that is to define what a ubiquitous, limitless Surveillance State is.

There have been some previous indications that this is true. Former AT&T engineer Mark Klein revealed that AT&T and other telecoms had built a special network that allowed the National Security Agency full and unfettered access to data about the telephone calls and the content of email communications for all of their customers. Specifically, Klein explained “that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T” and that “contrary to the government’s depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists . . . much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic.” But his amazing revelations were mostly ignored and, when Congress retroactively immunized the nation’s telecom giants for their participation in the illegal Bush spying programs, Klein’s claims (by design) were prevented from being adjudicated in court.

That every single telephone call is recorded and stored would also explain this extraordinary revelation by the Washington Post in 2010:

Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications.

It would also help explain the revelations of former NSA official William Binney, who resigned from the agency in protest over its systemic spying on the domestic communications of US citizens, that the US government has “assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about US citizens with other US citizens” (which counts only communications transactions and not financial and other transactions), and that “the data that’s being assembled is about everybody. And from that data, then they can target anyone they want.”

Despite the extreme secrecy behind which these surveillance programs operate, there have been periodic reports of serious abuse. Two Democratic Senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, have been warning for years that Americans would be “stunned” to learn what the US government is doing in terms of secret surveillance.

tia

Strangely, back in 2002 – when hysteria over the 9/11 attacks (and thus acquiescence to government power) was at its peak – the Pentagon’s attempt to implement what it called the “Total Information Awareness” program (TIA) sparked so much public controversy that it had to be official scrapped. But it has been incrementally re-instituted – without the creepy (though honest) name and all-seeing-eye logo – with little controversy or even notice.

Back in 2010, worldwide controversy erupted when the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates banned the use of Blackberries because some communications were inaccessible to government intelligence agencies, and that could not be tolerated. The Obama administration condemned this move on the ground that it threatened core freedoms, only to turn around six weeks later and demand that all forms of digital communications allow the US government backdoor access to intercept them. Put another way, the US government embraced exactly the same rationale invoked by the UAE and Saudi agencies: that no communications can be off limits. Indeed, the UAE, when responding to condemnations from the Obama administration, noted that it was simply doing exactly that which the US government does:

“‘In fact, the UAE is exercising its sovereign right and is asking for exactly the same regulatory compliance – and with the same principles of judicial and regulatory oversight – that Blackberry grants the US and other governments and nothing more,’ [UAE Ambassador to the US Yousef Al] Otaiba said. ‘Importantly, the UAE requires the same compliance as the US for the very same reasons: to protect national security and to assist in law enforcement.’”

That no human communications can be allowed to take place without the scrutinizing eye of the US government is indeed the animating principle of the US Surveillance State. Still, this revelation, made in passing on CNN, that every single telephone call made by and among Americans is recorded and stored is something which most people undoubtedly do not know, even if the small group of people who focus on surveillance issues believed it to be true (clearly, both Burnett and Costello were shocked to hear this).

Some new polling suggests that Americans, even after the Boston attack, are growing increasingly concerned about erosions of civil liberties in the name of Terrorism. Even those people who claim it does not matter instinctively understand the value of personal privacy: they put locks on their bedroom doors and vigilantly safeguard their email passwords. That’s why the US government so desperately maintains a wall of secrecy around their surveillance capabilities: because they fear that people will find their behavior unacceptably intrusive and threatening, as they did even back in 2002 when John Poindexter’s TIA was unveiled.

Mass surveillance is the hallmark of a tyrannical political culture. But whatever one’s views on that, the more that is known about what the US government and its surveillance agencies are doing, the better. This admission by this former FBI agent on CNN gives a very good sense for just how limitless these activities are.

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

Tags: Bush Patriot Act security US
Print
Related articles:
The 9/11 Plan: Cheney, Rumsfeld and the “Continuity of Government”
The “War On Terror” – By Design – Can Never End
The Grand Irony of the Petraeus Scandal Done in by the Patriot Act?

Posted in 4th Media, Faces of Fascism, FALSE FLAGS, Fascism in America, Government Corruption, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, MIND CONTROL AND PROPAGANDA, New World Order, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism | Leave a comment

BUSH WAS A HORRIBLE CRONY NEPOTIST WHO FAVORED THE SUPER-ELITE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LITTLE GUY–OBAMA’S WORSE (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

bushbama33

Bush Was a Horrible Crony Nepotist, Who Favored the Super-Elite at the Expense of the Little Guy … Obama’s Worse
Post Categories: Afghanistan
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/ | Saturday, May 11, 2013, 12:06 Beijing
Print

Obama Names Top Fundraisers to Major Political Posts

obmc252way

Glenn Greenwald notes today:

Last week, the Obama administration announced its choice to lead the Federal Communications Commission: Tom Wheeler, who is not only a former telecom lobbyist but also a huge bundler for the Obama campaign. The New York Times Editorial Pagetoday explains that this choice is “raising serious questions about [Obama’s] 2007 pledge that corporate lobbyists would not finance his campaign or run his administration.” It also notes that “given his background, it is almost certain that [Wheeler] raised money [for Obama] from people whose companies he would regulate, creating potential conflicts of interest.”

Last week, President Obama named another big bundler of his, the billionaire heiress Penny Pritzker, to be his Commerce Secretary; at the Nation, Rick Perlstein details just some of the interesting questions about that choice that need to be explored. At this point, the only surprising thing is that there are any more bundlers left for Obama to appoint to important administration positions.

While despicable, this is nothing new.

OBAMA2

The Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011 that Obama had rewarded as many big money bundlers in 2 years as Bush had appointed in 8:

OBAMA3063011-bundlers-infographic

Source: Public Citizen, iWatchNews analysis. Graphic: Jeremy Borden/iWatch News.

The Center wrote:

As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests and making the White House more accessible to everyday Americans. In kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,” who he said had “turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”
***
[But:]
• Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third, of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised more than half a million.

• The big bundlers had broad access to the White House for meetings with top administration officials and glitzy social events. In all, campaign bundlers and their family members account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them raised $200,000 or more.

• Some Obama bundlers have ties to companies that stand to gain financially from the president’s policy agenda, particularly in clean energy and telecommunications, and some already have done so. Level 3 Communications, for instance, snared $13.8 million in stimulus money. At least 18 other bundlers have ties to businesses poised to profit from government spending to promote clean energy, telecommunications and other key administration priorities.
***
Bundling is controversial because it permits campaigns to skirt individual contribution limits of $2,500 in federal elections. Bundlers pool donations from fundraising networks and as a result “play an enormous role in determining the success of political campaigns,” according to Public Citizen. The group has tracked bundlers on a websitewww.whitehouseforsale.org in the belief that they are “apt to receive preferential treatment if their candidate wins.”
***
Ambassadorships have been the classic payoff for big bundlers. But it’s not just the posts in foreign capitals that are attractive. Light, the NYU expert on presidential transitions, said that in recent years many have sought jobs with deep reach into the federal bureaucracy — and found a receptive ear in the White House.

“When they get a resume from a bundler, that is a real signal of seriousness,” Light said. “It’s also a thinly veiled quid pro quo,” and it “goes without saying they will get considered.”

Bringing in a lot of cash to the campaign, Light added, “seems to be well established as a signaling device for getting into key jobs running the government. It’s become more significant and nobody seems to have much outrage about it.”
***
Passing over career diplomats in favor of mega-donors amounts to “selling ambassadorships,” said Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association. She said it runs contrary to the law and is unethical, yet, “That hasn’t stopped anybody.”

Thomas Pickering, who served as ambassador to Russia and several other countries during a diplomatic career spanning four decades, said turning to bundlers adds a “new dimension” to what he termed “buying offices” through aggressive fundraising.
***
Hyatt hotels heiress Penny Pritzker, Wall Street titan Robert Wolf and financier Mark Gallogly, for instance, all served on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Commission.
***
In late February, in creating a new commission to take on the task of creating jobs, Obama again appointed the three business people. Transcripts of the recovery board meetings show that commission members are free to press for an agenda that could significantly benefit their business interests.

The Center pointed out in 2012:

At least 68 of 350 Obama bundlers for the 2012 election or their spouses have served in the administration, ranging from seats on advisory boards that tackle critical national issues such as economic growth, to ceremonial posts such as serving on the board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

At least 250 of the bundlers have been cleared to attend a White House event since January 2009. Most have come twice while others are frequent visitors. The events range from policy briefings to coveted invitations to state dinners and music and entertainment nights featuring top-draw performers at the executive mansion.

At least 30 of the 2012 bundlers have ties to companies that conduct business with federal agencies or hope to do so. They range from Wall Street investors to green energy, technology and defense firms with multimillion-dollar government contracts.
***
Bundlers have been cleared for more than 5,000 visits to the White House from January 2009 through August 2011, according to visitor logs.
***
Boyle of Common Cause said that wealthy bundlers can amass political clout and use it to “further enrich themselves, and their circle of friends and business acquaintances.”

“Money buys access and influence and that’s the big problem,” she said. “Those who don’t have it are left out in the cold. That’s not how our democracy is supposed to work, and it must change.”

That’s not likely, according to Tufts political science professor Berry.

Asked if a Republican presidential challenger would end the practice should he win the office next year, Berry said: “It would be shocking if they decided not to try to reward their most loyal fundraisers. It would make no sense.”

Of course, Obama’s top donors in the 2008 election included:

Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan Chase
Citigroup
General Electric
Morgan Stanley

Goldman Sachs folks held so many top jobs in the Obama administration in his first term that everyone called the cozy relationship “Government Sachs”.

Obama appointed GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt as his jobs czar.

And of course, Obama rewarded his big contributors with tidal waves of government money.

Bush was a horrible crony nepotist, who favored the super-elite at the expense of the little guy.

Obama’s worse.

OBAMA44050674207_obama_bush_xlarge

Under capitalism, everything is a commodity for profitable sale; that includes the academics who write the textbooks of the history and realities of capitalism and imperialism

Under capitalism, everything is a commodity for profitable sale; that includes the academics who write the textbooks of the history and realities of capitalism and imperialism

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

Tags: Obama officials the White House White House

Related articles:
Benghazi Spin: The New York Times Trying To Sell Some Administration Spin
Israeli Bombs Interrupt CNN Interview in Gaza: Reality Of Life In Gaza Exposes Israeli Propaganda
Election Predictions: The Candidate in favor of GMOs, Bankster Bailouts and Corporate Domination Will Win!
Activists Occupy Dept of [IN]Justice to Demand an End to Racist Mass Incarceration

Posted in 4th Media, Decline of the American Imperium, ELITES AND NEW WORLD ORDER, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, Imperial Hypocrisy and Intrigue, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MEMEONOMICS: Economics and EconomistS;: Capitalism and its Theories, NED and other Fronts of Imperialism, Neoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism as Neo-Imperialism, Neoliberalism and Neoclassical Theory, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Psyops | 1 Comment

THE DEEP POLITICS OF HOLLYWOOD (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

4TH MEDIA

The Deep Politics of Hollywood
Post Categories: Politics
Matthew Alford | Friday, May 10, 2013, 13:37 Beijing
Print

HOLLYWOOD th

Tom Cruise – “the world’s most powerful celebrity” according to Forbes Magazine – was unceremoniously sacked in 2006. His dismissal was particularly shocking for the fact that it was carried out not by his immediate employer, Paramount Studios, but rather by Paramount’s parent company, Viacom. Viacom’s notoriously irascible CEO Sumner Redstone – who owns a long list of media companies including CBS, Nickelodeon, MTV, and VH1 – said that Cruise had committed “creative suicide” following a spate of manic public activity. It was a sacking worthy of an episode of The Apprentice.[i]

The Cruise case points to the overlooked notion that the internal mechanisms of Hollywood are not determined entirely by audience desires, as one might expect, nor are they geared to respond solely to the decisions of studio creatives, or even those of the studio heads themselves. In 2000, The Hollywood Reporter released a top 100 list of the most powerful figures in the industry over the past 70 years. Rupert Murdoch, chief of News Corporation, which owns Twentieth Century Fox, was the most powerful living figure. With the exception of director Steven Spielberg (no. 3), no artists appeared in the top 10.

Each of the dominant Hollywood studios (“the majors”) is now a subsidiary of a much larger corporation, and therefore is not so much a separate or independent business, but rather just one of a great many sources of revenue in its parent company’s wider financial empire.

The majors and their parents are: Twentieth Century Fox (News Corp), Paramount Pictures (Viacom), Universal (General Electric/Vivendi), Disney (The Walt Disney Company), Columbia TriStar (Sony), and Warner Brothers (Time Warner). These parent companies are amongst the largest and most powerful in the world, typically run by lawyers and investment bankers.[ii]

Their economic interests are also sometimes closely tied to politicised areas such as the armaments industry, and they are frequently inclined to cozy-up to the government of the day because it decides on financial regulation.

As Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Professor Ben Bagdikian puts it, whereas once the men and women who owned the media could fit in a “modest hotel ballroom,” the same owners (all male) could now fit into a “generous phone booth.” He could have added that, whilst a phone box may not exactly be the chosen venue for the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone, these individuals do indeed meet at plush venues such as Idaho’s Sun Valley to identify and forge their collective interests.

Of course, the content of a studio’s films is not, as a rule, determined entirely by the political and economic interests of its parent company. Studio CEOs typically have considerable leeway to make the pictures they want to make without direct interference from their ultimate masters.

At the very least, however, the content of Hollywood studios broadly reflects their wider corporate interests, and, at times, the parent companies behind the studios take a conscious and deliberate interest in certain movies. There is a battle between “top down” and “bottom up” forces, but mainstream media and academia have traditionally focused on the latter, rather than the former.

Consider last year’s blockbuster Australia, the epic from Baz Luhrmann. Two of the film’s most salient aspects were that, firstly, it glossed-over the history of Aboriginal people, and, secondly, it made Australia look like a fantastic place to go on holiday. This should come as no surprise – Twentieth Century Fox’s parent company (Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp) – worked hand-in-hand with the Australian government throughout the film’s production for mutual interests.

The government benefited from Luhrmann’s huge tourist campaign, which included not just the feature film itself but also a series of extravagant tie-in advertisements (all in apparent support of its ham-fisted Aborigine “reconciliation” programme). In turn, the government gave its favourite son tens of millions of dollars in tax rebates.

The West Australian newspaper even alleged that Murdoch had his “journalistic foot soldiers” ensure that every aspect of his media empire awarded Australia glowing reviews, an assessment nicely illustrated by The Sun, which enjoyed the “rare piece of good old fashioned entertainment” so much that its reviewer was “tempted to nip down to the travel agent.”

There are historical precedents for such interference. In 1969 Haskell Wexler –cinematographer on One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest – had considerable trouble releasing his classic Medium Cool, which riffed on the anti-war protests at the Democrat Convention the previous year.

Wexler claims he has Freedom of Information documents revealing that on the eve of the film’s release, Chicago’s Mayor Richard J. Daley and high sources in the Democratic Party let it be known to Gulf and Western (then the parent company of Paramount) that if Medium Cool was released, certain tax benefits and other perks in Gulf and Western’s favor wouldn’t happen. “A stiff prick has no conscience,” Wexler told us angrily, referring to Hollywood’s business leaders, “and they have no conscience.”

Wexler explained how this corporate plot was enacted so as to minimize attention: “Paramount called me and said I needed releases from all the [protestors] in the park, which was impossible to provide. They said if people went to see that movie and left the theatre and did a violent act, then the offices of Paramount could be prosecuted.”

Although Paramount was obliged to release the film they successfully pushed for an X rating, advertised it feebly, and forbade Wexler from taking it to film festivals. Hardly the way to make a profit on a movie, but certainly an effective way to protect the broader interests of the parent.

Then there’s the more famous case of Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), the Michael Moore blockbuster which the Walt Disney Company tried to scupper despite it “testing through the roof” with sample audiences. Disney’s subsidiary Miramax insisted that its parent had no right to block it from releasing the film since its budget was well below the level requiring Disney’s approval.

Disney representatives retorted that they could veto any Miramax film if it appeared that its distribution would be counterproductive to their interests. Moore’s agent Ari Emanuel alleged that Disney’s boss Michael Eisner had told him he wanted to back out of the deal due to concerns about political fallout from conservative politicians, especially regarding tax breaks given to Disney properties in Florida like Walt Disney World (where the governor was the then US President’s brother, Jeb Bush).

Disney also had ties to the Saudi Royal family, which was unfavourably represented in the film: a powerful member of the family, Al-Walid bin Talal, owns a major stake in Eurodisney and had been instrumental in bailing out the financially troubled amusement park. Disney denied any such high political ball game, explaining they were worried about being “dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle,” which it said would alienate customers.

Disney has consistently spread pro-establishment messages in its films, particularly under subsidiary banners such as Hollywood Pictures and Touchstone Pictures (although Oliver Stone’s 1995 Nixon biopic is a notable exception). Several received generous assistance from the US government: the Pentagon-backed In the Army Now (1994), Crimson Tide (1995), and Armageddon (1998), as well as the CIA-vetted Bad Company (2002) and The Recruit (2003).

In 2006, Disney released the TV movie The Path to 9/11, which was heavily skewed to exonerate the Bush administration and blame the Clinton administration for the terrorist attacks, provoking outraged letters of complaint from former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.

The nature of Disney’s output makes sense when we consider the interests of the higher echelons of the corporation. Historically, Disney has had close ties with the US defense department, and Walt himself was a virulent anti-communist (though reports about him being a secret FBI informant or even a fascist are rather more speculative).

In the 1950s, corporate and government sponsors helped Disney make films promoting President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” policy as well as the infamous Duck and Cover documentary that suggested to schoolchildren that they could survive an atomic attack by hiding under their desks.

Even now, a longtime Directors Board member of Disney is John E. Bryson who is also a director of The Boeing Company, one of the world’s largest aerospace and defence contractors. Boeing received $16.6bn in Pentagon contracts in the ­aftermath of the US invasion of Afghanistan[iii]. This would have been no small incentive for Disney to avoid commissioning films critical of Bush’s foreign policy, such as Fahrenheit 9/11.

hollywood_politics_deep_pockets (1)

It is hardly surprising that when Disney released Pearl Harbor (2001) – a simplistic mega-budget movie made with full cooperation from the Pentagon, and which celebrated the American nationalist resurgence following that “day of infamy”– it was widely received with cynicism.

Yet, despite lamentable reviews, Disney unexpectedly decided in August 2001 to extend the film’s nationwide release window from the standard two-to-four months to a staggering seven months, meaning that this ‘summer’ blockbuster would now be screening until December.

In addition, Disney expanded the number of theatres in which the film was showing, from 116 to 1,036. For the corporations due to profit from the aftermath of 9/11, Pearl Harbor provided grimly convenient mood music.

But whilst movies like Australia and Pearl Harbor receive preferential treatment, challenging and incendiary films are frequently cast into the cinematic memory hole. Oliver Stone’s Salvador (1986) was a graphic expose of the Salvadorian civil war; its narrative was broadly sympathetic towards the left wing peasant revolutionaries and explicitly critical of U.S. foreign policy, condemning the United States’ support of Salvador’s right wing military and infamous death squads.

Stone’s film was turned down by every major Hollywood studio – with one describing it as a “hateful piece of work” – though it received excellent reviews from many critics. The film was eventually financed by British and Mexican investors and achieved limited distribution.

More recently controversial documentaries such as Loose Change (2006/2007), which argued that 9/11 was an “inside job,” and Zeitgeist (2007), which presents a frightening picture of global economics, have been viewed by millions through the Internet when corporate media wouldn’t touch them.[iv]

Universal studios’ contemporary output has been less rigidly supportive of US power, as films like Children of Men (2006), Jarhead (2005), and The Good Shepherd (2006) indicate.

Still, with movies like U-571 (2000) and Charlie Wilson’s War (2007), it makes sense that Universal’s parent company is General Electric, whose most lucrative interests relate to weapons manufacturing and producing crucial components for high-tech war planes, advanced surveillance technology, and essential hardware for the global oil and gas industries, notably in post Saddam Iraq.

GE’s board of directors has strong ties to large liberal organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation. Whilst ‘liberal’ may sound like a positive term after the unpopularity of Bush’s brand of conservatism, liberal organizations are cemented firmly in the bedrock of US elites and have frequently been architects of American interventionist foreign policy, including against Vietnam.

They are prepared to ally themselves with conservatives over certain issues, particularly national security, so it should come as no shock to find that GE was close to the Bush Administration through both its former and current CEOs.

Jack Welch (CEO from 1981-2001) openly declares disdain for “protocol, diplomacy and regulators” and was even accused by California Congressman Henry Waxman of pressuring his NBC network to declare Bush the winner prematurely in the 2000 “stolen election” when he turned up unannounced in the newsroom during the poll count.

Welch’s successor, the current GE CEO Jeff Immelt, is a neoconservative and was a generous financial contributor to the Bush re-election campaign.

Perhaps GE/Universal’s most eyebrow-raising release was United 93 (2006), billed as the “true account” of how heroic passengers on 9/11 “foiled the terrorist plot” by forcing the plane to crash prematurely in rural Pennsylvania.

Although the film made a return on its relatively low investment, it was greeted with a good deal of public apathy and hostility prior to its nation-wide release.

At the time, Bush’s official 9/11 story was being seriously interrogated by America’s independent news media: according to the results of a 2004 Zogby poll, half of New Yorkers believed “US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and ‘consciously failed’ to act,” and, just one month prior to the release of United 93, 83% of CNN viewers recorded their belief “that the US government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks.”

With the official narrative under heavy fire, the Bush Administration welcomed the release of United 93 with open arms: the film was a faithful audio-visual translation of the 9/11 Commission Report, with “special thanks” to the Pentagon’s Hollywood liaison Phil Strub tucked away discreetly in the end credits.

Soon after the film’s nationwide release date, in what might be interpreted as a cynical PR move and as gesture of official approval, President Bush sat down with some of the victims’ family members for a private screening at the White House. [v]

GE/Universal’s Munich (2005) – Steven Spielberg’s exploration of Israeli vengeance following the Palestinian terrorist attack at the 1972 Olympics – raises similar suspicions. Although the Zionist Organisation of American called for a boycott of the film because they felt it equated Israel with terrorists, such a reading is less than convincing.

Indeed, by the time Munich’s credits begin to roll its overriding messages have been stamped indelibly into the brain by the film’s Israeli Special Forces characters: “Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values,” “We kill for our future, we kill for peace,” and “Don’t f*ck with the Jews.”

Predictably, Israel is one of GE’s most loyal customers, buying Hellfire II laser missiles as well as propulsion systems for the F-16 Falcon fighter, the F-4 Phantom fighter, the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, and the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.

In Munich’s 167 minute running time the voice of the Palestinian cause is restricted to two and a half minutes of simplistic dialogue. Rather than being an “evenhanded cry for peace,” as the Los Angeles Times hailed it, General Electric’s Munich is more easily interpreted as a subtle corporate endorsement of the policies of a loyal customer.

On the most liberal end of the spectrum for movies in recent years has been Warner Bros. – JFK (1991), The Iron Giant (1999), South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut (1999), Good Night and Good Luck (2005), V for Vendetta (2005), A Scanner Darkly (2006), Rendition (2007), and In the Valley of Elah (2007).

It is indicative that following complaints about racial stereotyping in Warner Bros.’ Pentagon-sponsored action adventure, Executive Decision (1996), the studio took the unusual step of hiring the services of Jack Shaheen, an on-set adviser on racial politics, resulting in what was critically received as one of the best films of its genre in a generation, Three Kings (1999).[vi] It may be no coincidence that Warner Brothers’ parent company, Time Warner, is less intimately tied to the arms industry or the neoconservative clique.

But to have an idea of what happens to movies when you remove multinational interests from the industry, consider the independent distributor Lions Gate Films, which is still very much a part of the capitalist system (formed in Canada by an investment banker) but not beholden to a multibillion dollar parent corporation with multifarious interests.

Although Lions Gate has generated a good deal of politically vague and blood ‘n’ guts products, it has also been behind some of the most daring and original popular political cinema of the past ten years, criticizing corporatism in American Psycho (2000), US foreign policy in Hotel Rwanda (2004), the arms trade in Lord of War (2005), the U.S. healthcare system in Michael Moore’s Sicko (2007), and the U.S. establishment in general in The U.S. vs. John Lennon (2006).

It hardly needs re-stating that Hollywood is driven by the desire for dollars rather than artistic integrity. As such, cinema is open to product placement in a variety of forms, from toys, to cars, to cigarettes, and even state-of-the art weaponry (hence the “special thanks” to Boeing in the credits of Iron Man (2008)).

Less obvious though – and less well investigated – is how the interests of the studios’ parent companies themselves impact on cinema – at both systemic and individual levels. We hope to see critical attention shifted onto the ultimate producers of these films to help explain their deradicalised content, and ultimately to assist audiences in making informed decisions about what they consume. As we peer up from our popcorn it is as well to remember that behind the magic of the movies are the wizards of corporate PR.

Matthew Alford is author of the forthcoming book “Projecting Power: American Foreign Policy and the Hollywood Propaganda System.” Robbie Graham is Associate Lecturer in Film at Stafford College. References available on request.

By Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham

Global Research 21 February 2009

NOTES

[i] Most memorably, Cruise declared his love for Katie Holmes whilst bouncing up and down on Oprah (the chat show, not the woman).

[ii] The 2008 Fortune Global 500 list placed General Electric at no. 12 with revenue of $176bn. Sony was at 75, Time Warner at no. 150, The Walt Disney Company at no. 207, and News Corp at no. 280. By way of comparison, Coca Cola is at no. 403.

[iii] Interestingly, Disney’s CEO Michael Eisner was personally involved when it pulled Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect show after the host committed the cardinal sin of saying that the US use of cruise missiles was more cowardly than the 9/11 attacks, with Eisner “summoning Maher into his office for a hiding” according to Mark Crispin Miller in the Nation.

[iv] A less convincing but nevertheless intriguing case can be made for high political/economic influence over the distribution of John Carpenter’s satirical sci-fi They Live (1988), which depicted the world as being run by an invading force of evil space aliens, allied with the US establishment. The film was well received by critics (with the notable exceptions of the NYT and Washington Post) and opened at number one in the box office. It easily made its $4m investment back over the weekend, and although by the second weekend it had dropped to fourth place, it still made $2.7m. The distributing studio, Universal Pictures, published an advertisement during its run that showed a skeletal alien standing behind a podium in suit and tie, with a mop of hair similar to that of Dan Quayle, the new US Vice-President-elect. The Presidential election had been just a few days previous, on November 8th. Co-star Keith David observed: “Not that anybody’s being paranoid but… suddenly you couldn’t see it [They Live] anywhere – it was, like, snatched”.

[v] We stated elsewhere that representatives from Universal attended the screening. This was erroneous.

[vi] Shaheen also later assisted on Warner Bros.’ Syriana (2005).

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-deep-politics-of-hollywood/12465

Related articles:
Hollywood Goes Jewish: What Went Wrong?
Oscar to Hollywood’s “Argo”: And the Winners Are … the Pentagon and the Israel Lobby
Hollywood Culture: CIA and Other Government Agencies Dominate Movies and Television
Hollywoodism Geared Up to Incite Iranophobia Across the Globe

Posted in 4th Media, Faces of Fascism, FALSE FLAGS, Fascism in America, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, Imperial Hypocrisy and Intrigue, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Masters of the Universe, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MEMEONOMICS: Economics and EconomistS;: Capitalism and its Theories, MIND CONTROL AND PROPAGANDA, NED and other Fronts of Imperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

DOMESTIC SPYING AND SOCIAL MEDIA: GOOGLE, FACEBOOK AND ‘BACK DOORS’ FOR U.S. WIRETAPS

Domestic Spying & Social Media: Google, Facebook “Back Doors” For US Wiretaps
Post Categories: Head Stories
Andre Damon | Friday, May 10, 2013, 13:20 Beijing
Print

BIG BROTHER Beyond-Privacy-Are-Facebook-and-Google-Spying-on-Us-300x214

The Obama administration is close to announcing its support for a law that would force Google, Facebook and other Internet communications companies to build back doors for government wiretaps, according to an article in the New York Times Wednesday.

Such a measure would allow intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI, to monitor a vast array of communications, including Facebook messages, chats, and email using services such as Gmail.

The move comes as the National Security Agency’s sprawling new data center in Utah prepares to come online in September of this year. The facility is rumored to store data on the scale of trillions of terabytes, meaning that it can easily house the contents of every personal computer in the world.

Under the terms of the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA, hardware used to facilitate Internet and voice communications—the networks through which data is transmitted—must have the technical means to allow the government to conduct wiretaps.

The spying capabilities created in the context of this earlier law made possible the massive illegal domestic spying programs conducted under the Bush administration, and tens of thousands of ongoing secret court-approved wiretaps conducted under Obama. Under Bush, reports emerged that the government was essentially given full access to transmission systems by many Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as AT&T.

US intelligence agencies were satisfied with these capabilities up until around 2010, when, in response to a series of security breaches, services such as Gmail and Facebook enabled encryption by default.

As a result of this move, communications using these services became inaccessible to conventional wiretapping, which relied on intercepting the (now encrypted) data traveling between users and routed by ISPs.

To offset the effects of encryption, the FBI has sought to force companies to create back doors for surveillance, with varying degrees of success. Following its purchase by Microsoft, Skype, the online chat and voice service, last year voluntarily reengineered its architecture to allow the US and other governments to monitor chat communications.

The FBI claims that, under current laws, Internet communications companies can effectively refuse to comply with a court-ordered wiretap by claiming that there is no practical way for them to allow the government to spy on their users’ communications.

BIGBROTHERbig_brother

The proposed law would force social networks and other communications companies to provide government access or face fines that, according to the Washington Post, would multiply exponentially and threaten companies with bankruptcy.

While keeping silent on the unconstitutional nature of the US government’s vast domestic spying apparatus, groups representing major Silicon Valley corporations have raised concerns about the difficulty of implementing the proposed government wiretapping capabilities, particularly for start-ups and small companies, which behemoths like Facebook and Apple rely on for developing new technologies.

According to the Times, officials are working to reformulate the law to satisfy these concerns while forcing the most widely used services to allow wiretapping.

“While the F.B.I.’s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders,” the Times reported. “The difference, officials say, means that start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department’s attention.”

In addition to forcing Internet communications companies to allow wiretapping, the law would also put even more pressure on ISPs to ensure that they do not break the government’s existing wiretapping capabilities by upgrading their systems.

The Obama administration’s drive to expand the government’s wiretapping comes in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, which have been used as the pretext for the implementation of a range of police state measures, including most notably the lockdown of Boston following the blasts.

BIGBROTHERwiretaps

The Obama administration has claimed that its wiretapping activities are conducted under warrants issued by a FISA court, which essentially rubber-stamp government spying applications. In 2012, the FISA court did not deny a single application for spying.

However, the full extent of the government’s wiretapping programs is kept totally secret, and its real scope is far more sweeping than what has already been admitted.

A hint of the potentially vast extent of domestic spying was indicated by Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, last week, in an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett. Burnett asked Clemente if there was any way that the government would be able to implicate the widow of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev in playing a role in the bombing.

Clemente responded by saying, “We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that [phone] conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her.”

By stating that the evidence would not be admissible in court, Clemente was implying that the evidence was gathered illegally. Faced with skepticism from Burnett about the government’s ability to access such data, Clemente added, “Welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”

By Andre Damon, World Socialist Web Site

<a href="“>Global Research, May 09, 2013

Posted in 4th Media, FALSE FLAGS, Fascism in America, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, Imperial Hypocrisy and Intrigue, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism | Tagged | Leave a comment

Al-Qaeda Now in Control of CIA’s Covert War in Syria (FROM 4TH MEDIA AND THE GUARDIAN)

Al-Qaeda Now in Control of CIA’s Covert War in Syria
Post Categories: France
Mona Mahmood and Ian Black / The Guardian | Friday, May 10, 2013, 17:30 Beijing
Print

Free Syrian Army rebels defect to Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra

The well-resourced organisation, which is linked to al-Qaida, is luring many anti-Assad fighters away, say brigade commanders

The flag of the Islamist rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra flies over the main square of the city of Raqqa

The flag of the Islamist rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra flying over the main square of the city of Raqqa in Syria. Photograph: Reuters

Syria‘s main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad‘s regime.

Evidence of the growing strength of al-Nusra, gathered from Guardian interviews with FSA commanders across Syria, underlines the dilemma for the US, Britain and other governments as they ponder the question of arming anti-Assad rebels.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said that if negotiations went ahead between the Syrian government and the opposition – as the US and Russia proposed on Tuesday – “then hopefully [arming the Syrian rebels] would not be necessary”.

The agreement between Washington and Moscow creates a problem for the UK and France, which have proposed lifting or amending the EU arms embargo on Syria to help anti-Assad forces. The Foreign Office welcomed the agreement as a “potential step forward” but insisted: “Assad and his close associates have lost all legitimacy. They have no place in the future of Syria.” Opposition leaders were sceptical about prospects for talks if Assad remained in power.

Illustrating their plight, FSA commanders say that entire units have gone over to al-Nusra while others have lost a quarter or more of their strength to them recently.

“Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra because that means power and influence,” said Abu Ahmed, a former teacher from Deir Hafer who now commands an FSA brigade in the countryside near Aleppo. “Al-Nusra fighters rarely withdraw for shortage of ammunition or fighters and they leave their target only after liberating it,” he added. “They compete to carry out martyrdom [suicide] operations.”

Abu Ahmed and others say the FSA has lost fighters to al-Nusra in Aleppo, Hama, Idlib and Deir al-Zor and the Damascus region. Ala’a al-Basha, commander of the Sayyida Aisha brigade, warned the FSA chief of staff, General Salim Idriss, about the issue last month. Basha said 3,000 FSA men have joined al-Nusra in the last few months, mainly because of a lack of weapons and ammunition. FSA fighters in the Banias area were threatening to leave because they did not have the firepower to stop the massacre in Bayda, he said.

The FSA’s Ahrar al-Shimal brigade joined al-Nusra en masse while the Sufiyan al-Thawri brigade in Idlib lost 65 of its fighters to al-Nusra a few months ago for lack of weapons. According to one estimate the FSA has lost a quarter of all its fighters.

Al-Nusra has members serving undercover with FSA units so they can spot potential recruits, according to Abu Hassan of the FSA’s al-Tawhid Lions brigade.

Ideology is another powerful factor. “Fighters are heading to al-Nusra because of its Islamic doctrine, sincerity, good funding and advanced weapons,” said Abu Islam of the FSA’s al-Tawhid brigade in Aleppo. “My colleague who was fighting with the FSA’s Ahrar Suriya asked me: ‘I’m fighting with Ahrar Suriya brigade, but I want to know if I get killed in a battle, am I going to be considered as a martyr or not?’ It did not take him long to quit FSA and join al-Nusra. He asked for a sniper rifle and got one immediately.”

FSA commanders say they have suffered from the sporadic nature of arms supplies. FSA fighter Adham al-Bazi told the Guardian from Hama: “Our main problem is that what we get from abroad is like a tap. Sometimes it’s turned on, which means weapons are coming and we are advancing, then, all of a sudden, the tap dries up, and we stop fighting or even pull out of our positions.”

The US, which has outlawed al-Nusra as a terrorist group, has hesitated to arm the FSA, while the western and Gulf-backed Syrian Opposition Coalition has tried to assuage concerns by promising strict control over weapons. “We are ready to make lists of the weapons and write down the serial numbers,” Idriss told NPR at the weekend. “The FSA is very well organised and when we distribute weapons and ammunition we know exactly to which hands they are going.”

Syria’s government has capitalised successfully on US and European divisions over the weapons embargo by emphasising the “jihadi narrative” – as it has since the start of largely peaceful protests in March 2011. Assad himself claimed in a recent interview: “There is no FSA, only al-Qaida.” Syrian state media has played up the recent pledge of loyalty by Jabhat al-Nusra to al-Qaida in Iraq.

Western governments say they are aware of the al-Nusra problem, which is being monitored by intelligence agencies, but they are uncertain about its extent.

“It is clear that fighters are moving from one group to another as one becomes more successful,” said a diplomat who follows Syria closely. “But it’s very area-specific. You can’t talk about a general trend in which [Jabhat al-Nusra] has more momentum than others. It is true that some say JAN is cleaner and better than other groups, but there are as many stories about it being bad.” Critics point to punishments meted out by Sharia courts and its use of suicide bombings.

aqusa2

The FSA’s shortage of weapons and other resources compared with Jabhat al-Nusra is a recurrent theme. The loss of Khirbet Ghazaleh, a key junction near Dera’a in southern Syria, was blamed on Wednesday on a lack of weapons its defenders had hoped would be delivered from Jordan.

“If you join al-Nusra, there is always a gun for you but many of the FSA brigades can’t even provide bullets for their fighters,” complained Abu Tamim, an FSA man who joined Jabhat al-Nusra in Idlib province. “My nephew is in Egypt, he wants to come to Syria to fight but he doesn’t have enough money. Al-Nusra told him: ‘Come and we will even pay your flight tickets.’ He is coming to fight with al-Nusra because he does not have any other way.”

Jabhat al-Nusra is winning support in Deir al-Zor, according to Abu Hudaifa, another FSA defector. “They are protecting people and helping them financially. Al-Nusra is in control of most of the oil wells in the city.” The Jabhat al-Nusra media, with songs about jihad and martyrdom, is extremely influential.

Abu Zeid used to command the FSA’s Syria Mujahideen brigade in the Damascus region and led all its 420 fighters to al-Nusra. “Since we joined I and my men are getting everything we need to keep us fighting to liberate Syria and to cover our families’ expenses, though fighting with al-Nusra is governed by very strict rules issued by the operations command or foreign fighters,” he said. “There is no freedom at all but you do get everything you want.

“No one should blame us for joining al-Nusra. Blame the west if Syria is going to become a haven for al-Qaida and extremists. The west left Assad’s gangs to slaughter us. They never bothered to support the FSA. They disappointed ordinary Syrian protesters who just wanted their freedom and to have Syria for all Syrians.”

Mona Mahmood and Ian Black
The Guardian, Wednesday 8 May 2013

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group

Posted in 4th Media, CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, FALSE FLAGS, Fascism in America, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, Imperial Hypocrisy and Intrigue, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MEMEONOMICS: Economics and EconomistS;: Capitalism and its Theories, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Psyops, U.S. Govt and Al Qaeda | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FAIR USE NOTICE…

FAIR USE NOTICE
Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This site makes such material available in efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information.

Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Common Dreams and Information Clearinghouse.

From the Screenplay to The Russia House by John Le Carre

Barley Scott Blair: “If there is to be hope, we must all ‘betray'[?] our country. We have to save each other because all victims are equal and none is more equal than others. It is everyone’s duty to start the avalanche.”

Woman at Dacha: “Oh Barley, you want everyone to be a hero”

Barley Scott Blair: “Listen, nowadays you have to think like a hero just to behave like a merely decent human being.”

“The fact that the candidate you’re being asked to vote for is at this moment rotting in an English jail shouldn’t put you off. Sure I was in one myself until a week ago. They can jail us. They can shoot us. They can conscript us. They can use us as cannon fodder in The Somme. But, but, we have a weapon more powerful than any in the whole arsenal of the British Empire. And that weapon is our refusal. Our refusal to bow to any order but our own; any institution but our own. The Royal Irish Constabulary want to shut me up. Jail me again, shoot me, who knows. But I’d like you to send them a message. If they shut me up, who’ll take my place? I Can’t hear you. Who’ll take my place.”

Michael Collins

[CRAZY HORSE (His Horse Is Enchanted) 1877 said this smoking a pipe with Sitting Bull 4 days before his assassination.]

“Upon suffering beyond suffering: the Red Nation shall rise again and it shall be a blessing for a sick world. A world filled with broken promises, selfishness and separations. A world longing for light again. I see a time of Seven Generations when all the colors of mankind will gather under the Sacred Tree of Life and the whole Earth will become one circle again. In that day, there will be those among the Lakota who will carry knowledge and understanding of unity among all living things and the young white ones will come to those of my people and ask for this wisdom. I salute the light within your eyes where the whole Universe dwells. For when you are at that center within you and I am that place within me, we shall be one.”

Quote | Posted on by | Leave a comment

THE NEED TO WORK FOR PEACE ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

The Need To Work For Peace On The Korean Peninsula
Post Categories: Asia
Martin Hart-Landsberg | Tuesday, May 7, 2013, 3:26 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

This long post examines the causes of and offers a response to the dangerous escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula.

While the details of U.S.-North Korean relations are complex, the story is relatively simple. In brief, the U.S. government continues to reject possibilities for normalizing relations with North Korea and promoting peace on the Korean peninsula in favor of a dangerous policy of regime change. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the U.S. media supports this policy choice with a deliberately one sided presentation of events designed to make North Korea appear to be an unwilling and untrustworthy negotiating partner.

As a corrective, in what follows I offer a more complete history of U.S -North Korean relations, focusing on the major events that frame current tensions over North Korea’s nuclear program. This history makes clear that these tensions are largely the result of repeated and deliberate U.S. provocations and that our best hope for peace on the Korean Peninsula is an educated U.S. population ready and able to challenge and change U.S. foreign policy.

Historical Context

Perhaps the best starting point for understanding the logic of U.S.-North Korean relations is the end of Korean War fighting in 1953. At U.S. insistence, the fighting ended with an armistice rather than a peace treaty. A Geneva conference held the following year failed to secure the peace or the reunification of Korea, and U.S. demands were the main reason for the failure.

The United States rejected North Korean calls for Korea-wide elections, supervised by a commission of neutral nation representatives, to establish a new unified Korean government, a proposal that even many U.S. allies found reasonable. Instead, the U.S. insisted, along with South Korea, that elections for a new government be held only in the North and under the supervision of the U.S. dominated United Nations.

Needless to say, the conference ended without any final declaration, Korea divided, and the United States and North Korea in a continuing state of war.

Up until the late 1980s/early 1990s, an interrelated, contentious but relatively stable set of relationships—between the United States and the Soviet Union and between North Korea and South Korea—kept North Korean-U.S. hostilities in check. The end of the Soviet Union and transformation of Russia and other Central European countries into capitalist countries changed everything.

The loss of its major economic partners threw North Korea’s economy into chaos; conditions only worsened the following years as a result of alternating periods of flood and drought. The North Korean government, now in a relatively weak position, responded by seeking new trade and investment partners, which above all required normalization of relations with the United States. The U.S. government had a different response to the changed circumstances; seeking to take advantage of the North’s economic problems and political isolation, it rejected negotiations and pursued regime change.

It is the interplay of U.S. and North Korean efforts to achieve their respective aims that is largely responsible for the following oft repeated pattern of interaction: the North tries to force the United States into direct talks by demonstrating its ability to boost its military capacities and threaten U.S. interests while simultaneously offering to negotiate away those capacities in exchange for normalized relations. The United States, in turn, seizes on such demonstrations to justify ever harsher economic sanctions, which then leads North Korea to up the ante.

There are occasional interruptions to the pattern. At times, the United States, concerned with North Korean military advances, will enter into negotiations. Agreements are even signed. But, the U.S. rarely follows through on its commitments. Then the pattern resumes. The critical point here is that it is the North that wants to conclude a peace treaty ending the Korean War and normalize relations with the United States. It is the U.S. that is the unwilling partner, preferring to risk war in the hopes of toppling the North Korean regime.

The Framework Agreement, 1994-2002

The U.S. government began to raise public concerns about a possible North Korean nuclear threat almost immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. These concerns were driven my many factors, in particular the U.S. need for a new enemy to justify continued high levels of military spending. Colin Powell, then head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained in testimony to Congress that with the Soviet Union gone, the United States was running out of enemies. All that was left, he said, was Fidel Castro and Kim Il Sung.

The North had shut down its one operating reactor in 1989 for repairs. In 1992, the CIA claimed that the North used the shutdown to reprocess plutonium and was now in possession of one or two nuclear weapons, a claim disputed at the time by the State Department. The North also denied the claim but offered to settle U.S. nuclear concerns if the United States would enter into normalization talks.

The Clinton Administration rejected the invitation and began planning for war. War was averted only because of Jimmy Carter’s intervention. He traveled to North Korea and brokered an agreement with Kim Il Sung that Clinton reluctantly accepted. The resulting 1994 Framework Agreement required the North to freeze its graphite-moderated reactor and halt construction of two bigger reactors. It also required the North to store the spent fuel from its operating reactor under International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) supervision.

In exchange, the U.S agreed to coordinate the building of two new light water reactors (which are considered less militarily dangerous) that were to be finished by 2003. Once the reactors were completed, but before they were fully operational, the North would have to allow full IAEA inspections of all its nuclear facilities. During the period of construction, the U.S. agreed to provide the North with shipments of heavy oil for heating and electricity production.

Perhaps most importantly, the agreement also called for the United States to “move toward full normalization of political and economic relations” with the North and “provide formal assurances to the DPRK against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the United States.”

Tragically, although rarely mentioned in the U.S. media, the U.S. government did little to meet its commitments. It was repeatedly late in delivering the promised oil and didn’t begin lifting sanctions until June 2000. Even more telling, the concrete for the first light water reactor wasn’t poured until August 2002. Years later, U.S. government documents revealed that the United States made no attempt to complete the reactors because officials were convinced that the North Korean regime would collapse.

The Bush administration had no use for the Framework Agreement and was more than happy to see it terminated, which it unilaterally did in late 2002, after charging the North with violating its terms by pursuing nuclear weapons through a secret uranium enrichment program. Prior to that, in January 2002, President Bush branded North Korea a member of the “axis of evil.” In March, the terms of a new military doctrine were leaked, revealing that the United States reserved the right to take preemptive military strikes and covert actions against nations possessing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well as use nuclear weapons as an option in any conflict; North Korea was listed as one of the targeted nations. In July, President Bush rejected a North Korean request for a meeting of foreign ministers, calling Kim Jong Il a “pygmy” and a “spoiled child at the dinner table”

It is certainly possible that North Korea did begin a uranium enrichment program in the late 1990s, although the Bush Administration never provided proof of the program’s existence. However, what is clear is that the North did halt its plutonium program, allowing its facilities to deteriorate, with little to show for it. The failure of the United States to live up to its side of the agreement is highlighted by the fact that North Korea’s current demands are no different from what it was promised in 1994.

The North Korean government responded to the Bush administration’s unilateral termination of the Framework Agreement by ordering IAEA inspectors out of the country, restarting its plutonium program, and pledging to build a nuclear arsenal for its defense.

Six Party Talks, 2003-7

Fearful of a new war on the Korean peninsula, the Chinese government organized talks aimed at deescalating tensions between the United States and North Korea. The talks began in August 2003 and included six countries—the United States, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia. Two years of talks failed to produce any progress in resolving U.S.-North Korea differences. One reason: the U.S. representative was under orders not to speak directly to his North Korean counterpart except to demand that North Korea end its nuclear activities, scrap its missiles, reduce its conventional forces, and end human rights abuses. The North, for its part, refused to discuss its nuclear program separate from its broader relations with the United States.

Finally, in mid-2005, the Chinese made it known that they were prepared to declare the talks a failure and would blame the United States for the outcome. Not long after, the United States ended its opposition to an agreement. In September 2005, the six countries issued a Joint Statement, which was largely a repackaged Framework Agreement. While all the countries pledged to work towards the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, most of the concrete steps were to be taken by the United States and North Korea “in a phased manner in line with the principle of ‘commitment for commitment, action for action’.”

Unfortunately, the day after the Joint Statement was issued, the United States sabotaged it. The U.S. Treasury announced that it had “proof” that North Korea was counterfeiting $100 bills, so called super notes, an action it said amounted to war. It singled out the Macao-based Banco Delta Asia, which was one of North Korea’s main financial connections to the west, for supporting the country’s illegal activities, froze its dollar accounts, and warned other banks not to conduct business with it or service any North Korean dollar transactions. The aim was to isolate North Korea by denying it access to international credit markets. The charge of counterfeiting was rejected by the North, most Western currency experts, and even China and Russia who were given a presentation of evidence by the U.S. Treasury. However, fearful of possible U.S. retaliation, most banks complied with U.S. policy, greatly harming the North Korean economy.

The timing of the counterfeit charge was telling. The U.S. Treasury had been concerned with counterfeit super notes since 1989 and had originally blamed Iran. The sum total identified was only $50 million, and none of the notes had ever circulated in the United States. This was clearly yet another effort to stop normalization and intensify economic pressure on North Korea.

The North announced that its participation in Six Party talks was contingent on the withdrawal of the counterfeit charge and the return of its Banco Delta Asia dollar deposits. After months of inaction by the United States, the North took action. On July 4, 2006, it test-fired six missiles over the Sea of Japan, including an intercontinental missile. The U.S. and Japan condemned the missile firings and further tightened their sanctions against North Korea. In response, on October 8, 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test. Finally, the U.S. agreed to reconsider its financial embargo and the North agreed that if its money was returned and it received energy supplies and economic assistance it was willing to once again shutdown its nuclear facilities, readmit international inspectors, and discuss nuclear disarmament in line with steps toward normalization of relations with the United States.

The Six Party talks began again in December 2006 but the process of securing implementation of the Joint Statement was anything but smooth. The U.S. chief negotiator at the talks announced in February 2007 that all frozen North Korean deposits would be unfrozen and made available to the North within 30 days; the North was given 60 days to shut down its reactor. However, the Treasury refused to withdraw its charges, and no bank was willing to handle the money for fear of being targeted as complicit with terrorism. It took the State Department until June 25 to work out a back-door alternative arrangement, thereby finally allowing the Six Party agreement to go into effect.

The Six Party Agreement, 2007-9

As noted above, the Six Party agreement involved a phased process. Phase 1, although behind schedule because of the U.S. delay in releasing North Korean funds, was completed with no problems. In July 2007, North Korea shut down and sealed its Yongbyon nuclear complex which housed its reactor, reprocessing facility, and fuel rod fabrication plant. It also shut down and sealed its two partially constructed nuclear reactors. It also invited back IAEA inspectors who verified the North Korean actions. In return, the U.S. provided a shipment of fuel oil.

Phase 2, which began in October, required the North to disable all its nuclear facilities by December 31, 2007 and “provide a complete and correct declaration of all its existing nuclear programs.” In a separate agreement it also agreed to disclose the status of its uranium enrichment activities. In exchange, the North was to receive, in stages, “economic, energy, and humanitarian assistance.” Once it fulfilled all Phase 2 requirements it would also be removed from the U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act and the State Sponsors of Terrorism list.

North Korean complaints over the slow delivery of fuel oil delayed the completion of this second phase. However, in May 2008, North Korea completed the last stage of its required Phase 2 actions when it released extensive documentation of its plutonium program and in June a declaration of its nuclear inventory. In response, the U.S. removed North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

However, the U.S. government failed to release the remaining promised aid or end the remaining sanctions on North Korea. It now demanded that North Korea accept a highly intrusive verification protocol, one that would open up all North Korean military installations to U.S. inspection, and made satisfaction of Phase 2 commitments dependent on its acceptance. The U.S. was well aware that this demand was not part of the original agreement. As Secretary of State Rice stated, “What we’ve done, in a sense, is move up issues that were to be taken up in phase three, like verification, like access to the reactors, into phase two.”

The North offered a compromise—a Six Party verification mechanism which would include visits to declared nuclear sites and interviews with technical personal. It also offered to negotiate a further verification protocol in the final dismantlement phase. The U.S. government rejected the compromise and ended all aid deliveries.

In February 2009, the North Korea began preparation to launch a satellite. South Korea was preparing to launch a satellite of its own in July. The North had signed the appropriate international protocols governing satellites and was now providing, as required, notification of its launch plan. The Obama administration warned the North that doing so would violate sanctions placed on the country after its nuclear test. In response, the North declared that it had every right to develop its satellite technology and if the U.S. responded with new sanctions it would withdraw from the Six Party talks, eject IAEA monitors, restart its reactors, and strengthen its nuclear deterrent.

The North launched its satellite in April. In June, the U.S. won UN support for enhanced sanctions, and the North followed through on its threat. In May the North conducted a second nuclear test, producing yet another round of sanctions.

Recent Events

In April and December 2012 the North again launched earth observation satellites. Although before each of these launches the U.S. asserted that these were veiled attempts to test ballistic missiles designed to threaten the United States, after each launch almost all observers agreed that the characteristics of the launches—their flight pattern and the second stage low-thrust, long burntime–were what is required to put a satellite in space and not consistent with a missile test.

After the December launch, the only successful one, the U.S. again convinced the Security Council to apply a new round of sanctions. And in response, the North carried out its third nuclear test in February 2013. The North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs pointed out that there have been “more than 2,000 nuclear tests and 9,000 satellite launches” in the world, “but the UN Security Council has never passed a resolution prohibiting nuclear tests or satellite launches.” The Security Council responded to the North’s nuclear test by approving stricter sanctions.

In addition to sanctions, the U.S. has also intensified its military provocations against the North in hopes of destabilizing the new North Korean regime led by Kim Jung Un. For example, in 2012, U.S.-South Korean military analysts conducted the world’s largest computerized war simulation exercise, practicing the deployment of more than 100,000 South Korean troops into North Korea to “stabilize the country in case of regime collapse.” As part of their yearly war games, U.S. and South Korean forces also carried out their largest amphibious landing operations in 20 years; 13 naval vessels, 52 amphibious armored vehicles, 40 fighter jets and helicopters, and 9,000 U.S. troops were involved.

As part of its March 2013 war games, the U.S. flew nuclear-capable B-2 Stealth bombers over South Korea; these are also the only planes capable of dropping the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, which was developed to destroy North Korean underground facilities. Nuclear-capable B-52 bombers also flew over South Korea, dropping dummy munitions. The United States also sent the nuclear-powered submarine USS Cheyenne, equipped with Tomahawk missiles, into Korea waters.

The North Korean government responded to these threats in three ways. First, the content of their declarations changed. In particular, they began to focus their own threats on the U.S. as well as South Korea. For example, the government stated, “If the US imperialists brandish nuclear weapons, we — in complete contrast to former times — will by means of diversified, precision nuclear strike in our own style turn not just Seoul, but even Washington, into a sea of fire.” It also asserted, for the first time, that its nuclear weapons were no longer negotiable. At least, not “as long as the United States’ nuclear threats and hostile policy exist.”

Second, the government put North Korean forces on full alert, including all artillery, rockets, and missiles. Kim Jong Un announced that the country would “answer the US imperialists’ nuclear blackmail with a merciless nuclear attack.” Finally, it announced, in April, that it would restart its uranium enrichment program and its Yongbyon reactor.

What Lies Ahead

The Obama administration has adopted what it has called the doctrine of “strategic patience” in dealing with North Korea. But as made clear from above, in reality the U.S. has continued to pursue an aggressive policy towards North Korea, motivated by the hope that the regime will collapse and Korean reunification will be achieved by the South’s absorption of the North, much like the German experience.

The consequence of this policy is ever worsening economic conditions in the North; continuing military buildup in the United States, Japan, China, and both North and South Korea; a strengthening of right-wing forces in South Korea and Japan; and the growing threat of a new war on the Korean peninsula. There are powerful interests in Japan, South Korea, and the United States that are eager to further militarize their respective domestic and foreign policies, even at the risk of war. Tragically, their pursuit of this goal comes at great cost to majorities in all the countries concerned, even if war is averted.

The North has made clear its willingness to enter direct talks with the United States. It is only popular pressure in the United States that will cause the U.S. government to change its policy and accept the North Korean offer. It is time for the U.S. government to sign a peace treaty finally ending the Korean War and take sincere steps towards normalization of relations with North Korea.

Prof. Martin Hart-Landsberg

Posted in 4th Media, Decline of the American Imperium, DPRK AND U.S., DPRK AND WAR WITH US, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, Imperial Hypocrisy and Intrigue, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Korean Issues, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MEMEONOMICS: Economics and EconomistS;: Capitalism and its Theories, Neoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism as Neo-Imperialism, Political Economy, Psyops, U.S. Terrorism | Leave a comment

BOSTON TRUTH: BOTH FBI AND CIA WATCHED BOSTON BOMBING SUSPECTS FOR YEARS

Boston Truth: Both FBI & CIA Watched Boston Bombing Suspects for Years
Post Categories: Afghanistan
Tony Cartalucci | Tuesday, April 30, 2013, 9:49 Beijing
Print
Tony Cartalucci-big

thmedia.org/2013/04/30/boston-truth-both-fbi-cia-watched-boston-bombing-suspects-for-years/” title=”4thmedia”>Reprinted in 4thMedia

FBI & CIA now admit to putting Boston bombing suspect on 2 “watch lists,” directly contradicting previous public statements. CIA most likely sponsored suspect’s trips to meet US-backed terrorists in Chechnya, Russia.

April 25, 2013 (LD) – It is now confirmed that Russian investigators contacted the FBI at least as early as 2011 in regards to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and again just 6 months before the Boston attacks. Additionally, it is now revealed that both the FBI and CIA had Tsarnaev on at least 2 terrorist watch lists, contradicting previous FBI statements that the case was “closed” after not finding “any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign.”

FBI Caught in Staggering Series of Lies

The suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and brother Dzhokar Tsarnaev, would be revealed to the public by the FBI a day after a bizarre press conference cancellation and a security scare at the federal courthouse where a suspect was allegedly being brought.

The FBI would feign ignorance over the suspects’ identity, appealing to the witless public for help identifying and apprehending them. It would be claimed by the suspects’ family members that the FBI had long been in contact with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and that the bombing was a set-up.

The FBI’s bizarre behavior grew more suspicious when CBS reported that initially the FBI denied it had any prior contact with the Tsarnaev’s. In their report, “CBS News: FBI Interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev 2 Years Ago,” CBS claimed:

CBS News reports although the FBI initially denied contacting Tsarnaev, the brothers’ mother said they had in an interview with Russia Today.

That interview with Russia Today, in an article titled, “‘They were set up, FBI followed them for years’- Tsarnaevs’ mother to RT,” stated of the suspects’ mother:

But her biggest suspicion surrounding the case was the constant FBI surveillance she said her family was subjected to over the years. She is surprised that having been so stringent with the entire family, the FBI had no idea the sons were supposedly planning a terrorist act.
She would say of the FBI to Russia Today:

“They used to come [to our] home, they used to talk to me…they were telling me that he [the older, 26-y/o Tamerlan] was really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of him. They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremist sites… they were controlling him, they were controlling his every step…and now they say that this is a terrorist act! Never ever is this true, my sons are innocent!”

bostonmil6 (1)

The FBI would finally recant its earlier denial, and disclose on April 19, 2013 in an official statement on FBI.gov that indeed, they had been in contact with Tamerlan Tsarnaev as early as 2011:

The two individuals believed to be responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings on Monday have been positively identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, now deceased, and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, now in custody. These individuals are brothers and residents of Massachusetts. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a legal permanent resident and Dzhokar Tsarnaev is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Charges have not yet been filed against Dzhokar Tsarnaev and he is presumed innocent.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, age 26, was previously designated as Suspect 1, wearing a black hat. Dzhokar A. Tsarnaev, age 19, was designated as Suspect 2, wearing a white hat. Both were born in Kyrgyzstan.

Once the FBI learned the identities of the two brothers today, the FBI reviewed its records and determined that in early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.

In response to this 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government.

However, the case was not “closed.” Additional evidence would reveal that the FBI had been warnedagain, just 6 months before the Boston bombings by Russian investigators. The FBI was told Tamerlan Tsarnaev had visited Russia and was in contact with known-terrorists operating in and around Chechnya. Somehow, this additional information “escaped” the FBI’s April 19, 2013 public statement.

The British Daily Mail in their article titled, “Russia asked FBI to investigate bomber just 6 MONTHS ago after being spotted with ‘a militant’ on trip to Dagestan: Was it this known terrorist who Boston killer liked on YouTube?,” would state:

Speculation is growing that one of the Boston bombers met a known Jihadist terrorist in 2011 – as it emerged the FBI failed to follow up on a Russian tip that he was seen with an Islamic militant six times.

The Daily Mail would also report that:

The FBI has confirmed that Russia alerted the agency in 2011 that Tsarnaev had ties to ‘radical Islam’ groups in his homeland. Homeland Security sources have also revealed the agency received tips in 2012 about his ties to extremists connected to a Boston mosque.

In the wake of the FBI’s serial lies, yet more evidence is coming to light of now not only the FBI’s increasingly entangled relationship with the suspects prior to the bombing, but the CIA’s role as well. In the New York Times article, “2 U.S. Agencies Added Boston Bomb Suspect to Watch Lists,” it was reported that:

Despite being told in 2011 that an F.B.I. review had found that a man who went on to become one of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings had no ties to extremists, the Russian government asked the Central Intelligence Agency six months later for whatever information it had on him, American officials said Wednesday.

After its review, the C.I.A. also told the Russian intelligence service that it had no suspicious information on the man, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed in a shootout with the police early last Friday. It is not clear what prompted the Russians to make the request of the C.I.A.

The upshot of the American inquiries into Mr. Tsarnaev’s background was that even though he was found to have no connections to extremist groups, his name was entered into two different United States government watch lists in late 2011 that were designed to alert the authorities if he traveled overseas.

Therefore, in addition to first denying, then confirming having interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011 and never mentioning the now confirmed warning by Russia just 6 months ago, the FBI and CIA also put Tsarnaev on at least 2 terrorist watch lists. Inexplicably, the FBI would have the public believe they found no evidence of terrorist activity, but then put Tsarnaev’s name on 2 separate terrorist watch lists anyway – and still somehow failed to prevent the Boston bombings. Clearly, that doesn’t add up.

Evidence Points to Tsarnaev as CIA Asset

tamcia

While the establishment media predictably attempts to make the serial lies told by the FBI, and both FBI and CIA’s involvement and foreknowledge of the suspects years before the Boston attacks, appear to be just an innocent bureaucratic foul-up, former-FBI translator Sibel Edmonds reported in incredible detail what most likely transpired, even before revelations of the CIA’s involvement became public.

In a 45 minute interview on the Corbett Report, Edmonds explained that multiple warnings by Russian investigators to the FBI were likely ignored because the CIA was in all probability using Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an asset to travel to Russia’s Caucasus region and make contact with US-backed terrorists.

It is a long-documented fact that the United States has extensively backed terrorists operating in Russia’s Caucasus region.

It is clear that at the very least, the FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and other federal agencies knew well ahead of time of Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and did nothing to prevent him from allegedly carrying out an attack. Understanding the insidious behavior of both the FBI and CIA, opens up a second and more troubling possibility – that the FBI and/or the CIA were directly involved in the Boston bombings themselves, using the Tsarnaev brothers as patsies.

Regardless of which is true – there is more than enough evidence currently to remove the FBI from the Boston bombing investigation and open an immediate and urgent inquiry into both the FBI and CIA’s involvement and criminal improprieties in the lead up to the attacks.

There is also enough evidence for the American people to realize they have exchanged for the past decade, their liberty and dignity for safety and clearly have been left none of the above. It is also now clear that the American people possess the moral imperative to seize back their liberties and to throw off this expansive, ineffectual, stifling, incompetent and/or criminal federal security apparatus – from the DHS and TSA, to the FBI and CIA – who despite receiving billions annually and nearly limitless authority failed utterly to prevent the Boston Marathon bombings, and in fact appear to have played a central role in facilitating them.

Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer

Global Research, April 26, 2013

Posted in 4th Media, bOSTON, CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Faces of Fascism, FALSE FLAGS, Fascism in America, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, Imperial Hypocrisy and Intrigue, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, U.S. Terrorism | 2 Comments

FINAL DRAFT: A GLOBAL CAMPAIGN TO CALL FOR A PEACE TREATY ON KOREA: AN APPEAL TO ALL READERS AND SUPPORTERS FOR SUPPORT

A Global Campaign Calls for Peace not War on the Korean Peninsula and the Northeast Asian Region (The Final Draft)
Post Categories: Israel
The 4th Media | Thursday, May 16, 2013, 14:10 Beijing
Print

Dear friends and supporters,

In behalf of tens of millions of Koreans, represented by “Anti-War, Peace and People Action” (AWPAPA), from all ends in north, south and overseas, The 4th Media would like to share/present the following document which calls for Peace not War in Korean peninsula and the Northeast Asia region.

The 4th Media, with the support and solidarity from other global alternative, independent medias around the world, would like to launch a collective Global Campaign in order to support those tens of millions of Koreans who call for Peace.

The following English version is the Final Draft The 4th Media came up with.

In behalf of those tens of millions of Koreans, The 4th Media would like to sincerely ask all peace-loving peoples from around the world for their supports and solidarity to promote this urgent Global Campaign for Peace by sending some basic information about you who you are, such as name, organization, and title, etc. to the following address: ChiefEditor@4thmedia.org.

Both individual and organizational support and solidarity are all welcome!

Thank you for the support and solidarity in advance!

Sincerely,

Prof. Kiyul Chung, Editor in Chief, The 4th Media

The 4th Media’s Global Campaign for a Peace Treaty in Korea:

No to War on Korean Peninsula and in the Whole Northeast Asia Region

The Final Draft

May 16, 2013

On July 27, 1953, Korean War hostilities were ended only temporarily by introducing the fragile Armistice Agreement which was signed by DRPK (aka, “North Korea”), China and USA/UN. However, that “temporary cessation” of the deadly military conflicts has not put an end to all hostilities as it was supposed to and as was clearly stated as its intent in the 1953 document. Instead, a situation has continued of the peaceful reunification of Korean peninsula being serially obstructed and with the DPRK put under continual siege and even serial threats of nuclear annihilation by the U.S. since November 1950.

The result has been that critical and scarce resources in both Koreas have been diverted from development into military and defense. This dangerous, unstable and development-damaging situation has been forcibly continued against the will of the great majority of over 80 million Korean populations in north, south and overseas.

The hostilities, past, present and intended for the future have been purposefully maintained on the Korean peninsula for the following several reasons: the military-industrial-complex interests of the U.S. and its allies; the prevention of the self-determined peaceful reunification of Korea under terms and conditions not dictated by the U.S.; the use of Korean peninsula for military bases and staging areas for imperial adventures with specific targets in mind such as China, Russia, etc; probably most importantly the warning message to any future nations seeking independence and self-determination from the U.S. imperial agendas; and so on.

Therefore, for the last 60 years, countless “manufactured crises” have purposefully maintained the DPRK-USA “semi-war status”. The “crises made by U.S.” have fundamentally defined, maintained and structured a “forcibly divided” Korean Peninsula over the last 60 some years. Those crises have been unilaterally imposed against the much weaker party almost in every aspects by “the strongest,” also known as “the only global superpower” since 1990s.

Indeed that unilaterally-imposed military confrontations have continued between the two most incomparable parties: the DPRK and the U.S. There can be no comparison. One side incomparably outweighs the other in everything in number, quality, quantity, size of the wealth, territory and population, and especially the number of WMDs, including tens of hundreds of most-sophisticated and -destructive nuclear weapons.

There has been also a unilaterally-employed nonstop global demonization campaign as “war propaganda” or “psychological warfare,” by “the world’s most strongest” against the incomparably much weaker side for several decades.

The human suffering that has resulted from the forceful division of the Korean people in general, and from the continued economic blockade, war threats, political isolation, financial sanctions and siege against the DPRK in particular cannot be easily measured or described.

It is simply beyond description. Beyond imagination!

The astronomical waste of human and material resources, ecological-environmental devastations, and the Korean national wealth as a whole incurred by the forcibly imposed division for over 60 years in general, by the ongoing US military presence in an unknown number of US military bases and the US-led (so-called) “military drills” and their continued “nuclear war games” in particular cannot be easily described or measured either.

Under those numerous manufactured crises, today symbolized by the declaration of an “All-out War” together with the “nuclear preemptive strikes” warnings against each other, and the continued immeasurable human sufferings, the fate of already-disrespected, -discarded and therefore already-dismantled fragile Armistice Agreement seems finally coming to an end.

In the last 4 months, the Korean peninsula, the Northeast Asia region and thereby the whole world seem to have been thrown into a new reality, i.e., a real possibility of the first-ever, Nuclear War.

Such a war is now again seriously deemed, as it was during the 1950-53 Korean War, a real possibility to most, if not all, Koreans in north, south and overseas. It must also seemed so to many Japanese and US military troops stationed in Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, and other US military bases in the Asia-Pacific region.

This is the very reason why tens of millions of Koreans from all ends in north, south and overseas, together with tens of millions of peace-loving peoples from around the world, in unison and in solidarity, call for Peace on the Korean peninsula and the region, not for Wars not only in the region but also anywhere around the world.

kim-dae-jung-kim-jong-il-2009-8-18-1-40-28

Therefore, WE the undersigned PEOPLE, from all ends, not only in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia region but also in the whole globe, join with the tens of millions of Korean peoples in north, south and overseas to solemnly call for the following demands:

I. The Armistice Agreement must be replaced by a Permanent Peace Treaty signed by those responsible parties such as DPRK, China and the US/UN-South Korea;

II. Once the Peace Treaty signed, the US military troops should immediately leave from the Korean soil once for all, so that Koreans in north, south and overseas could begin to work for their Self-Determined and Peaceful Reunification process, unhindered by any outside foreign forces;

III. The Asia-Pacific region must remain and be encouraged for a new future of a peacefully-coexisting and mutually co-prosperous region;

IV. The Korean Peninsula, the Asia-Pacific region and indeed the whole world must not be further manipulated for the sake of global warmongers, military industrial complexes, and hegemonic muscle-wielding powers that are eager to continuously raise military tensions not only in the region but also the whole world at the expense of peace, security and prosperity for the whole humanity.

Victory to Peace not War!

Replace the already dismantled Armistice Agreement with a permanent Peace Treaty!

On behalf of the tens of millions of peace-loving Koreans in north, south and overseas, one of the largest-ever nationwide coalitions in South Korea, called “Anti-war, Peace and People Action” (AWPAPA) which is collectively led by Mr. Han Choong Mok (Head, Korea Progressive Solidarity), Ms. Sohn Mee Hi (Head, National Women Solidarity), Mr. Yang Sung Yoon (Head, Democratic Labor Union Emergency Committee) and Rev. Jo Hun Jung, The 4th Media presents this document to our global supporters and friends around the world on the day of May 18.

Tags: Armistice Agreement Korea Korean Peninsula Peace Treaty War

Sincerely yours,

Prof. Chung

***********************

Kiyul Chung, PhD
Editor in Chief
The 4th Media
http://www.4thmedia.org
_____________

Visiting Professor
School of Journalism and Communication
Tsinghua University
Beijing, China

Contacts:

Cell: 86-13521708686
Email: ChiefEditor@4thmedia.org

Name===========================Title/Position====================Nationality/Location

JAMES M. CRAVEN/OMAHKOHKIAAIIPOOYII; Professor of Economics; Blackfoot/U.S./Canadian

Carter Urges Obama Should Reach out to DPRK, Cuba, Palestine, Syria for PEACE

Posted: 04 May 2013 06:14 PM PDT

Ex-President Carter at Lafayette College: U.S. failing to promote peace

Ex-president says nation needs to reach out to North Korea and to work harder at mediating Mideast conflict.

By Bill Landauer, Of The Morning Call, blandauer@mcall.com (610-820-6533Carter ImageProxy

The United States must open a dialogue with North Korea to obtain peace with its communist regime, former President Jimmy Carter said Monday at Lafayette College.

“I can tell you that what North Koreans want is a peace treaty with the United States,” Carter said, “and they want the 60-year economic embargo lifted against their people so they can have an equal chance to trade.”

Carter, in Easton as the first speaker in a Lafayette lecture series on international affairs, told thousands who gathered on the chilly quad that he wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry last week about the need for talks with the Kim Jong-un administration.

“It’s a very paranoid country,” he said. “They’re honestly convinced that the United States wants to attack them and destroy the country to eliminate their communist regime.”

The 39th president painted a bleak picture of U.S. foreign policy. He said the nation is in violation of 10 of the 30 articles in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights — a document the United States helped create in 1948.

“We now are detaining people in prison without a trial and without an accusation presented against them for life,” he said, referring to U.S. detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

He also criticized the nation’s use of unmanned “drones” to commit “assassinations.”

Carter said he could think of no effort on the part of the United States to promote peace around the globe.

“I would like for our country in the future to have a reputation as a champion of peace,” he said. “I think that’s one of the characteristics of a superpower.”

The United States should commit itself to mediating conflicts, and its top priority should be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Carter said.

The former president has long advocated direct talks with the North Koreans. His first diplomatic mission there came in 1994, when the regime expelled international inspectors monitoring its nuclear reactors. The move brought the United States to the brink of a second war on the Korean peninsula. At the time, friends in China implored the former president to visit North Korea.

“I hated Kim Il Sung,” said Carter, who served on a submarine during the Korean War and blames the North Korean leader for the deaths of 36,500 of his fellow U.S. service members.

Still, Carter said, he decided he should go for talks with Kim after at first failing to get approval from the administration of then-President Bill Clinton. Carter said that when Clinton learned his predecessor intended to visit North Korea unilaterally, he eventually gave his blessing. Carter’s visit became the first open dialogue between the countries in 40 years.

The mission was a success — North Korea shut down its nuclear reactors, agreed to withdraw troops from the demilitarized zone that separates the two countries and signed other concessions.

Carter placed some of the blame for the current impasse on former President George W. Bush. He said Bush “tore up the agreement that had been consummated, and as you know now, North Korea has nuclear weapons.”

In his 2002 State of the Union speech, Bush referred to North Korea as a member of an “axis of evil,” further damaging relations between the countries, Carter said.

Carter’s speech and question-and-answer session Monday with Lafayette President Daniel Weiss lasted just over an hour. In addition to his thoughts on foreign policy, Carter covered his accomplishments with The Carter Center, the international peace and health organization he founded to help promote democracy worldwide.

“We now are detaining people in prison without a trial and without an accusation presented against them for life,” he said, referring to U.S. detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He also criticized the nation’s use of unmanned “drones” to commit “assassinations.”

“I think if the United States would just talk to the North Koreans,” he said, “and if the United States would just talk to the Cubans, and if the United States would just talk to the Maoists, and if the United States would just talk to the Syrians, and if the United States would just talk to the Palestinians, I believe in those ways we can have peace and the United States would be a lot better off in the long run.”

Posted in 4th Media, DPRK AND U.S., DPRK AND WAR WITH US, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, Imperial Hypocrisy and Intrigue, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, iNTERVIEWS ON CRITICAL ISSUES OF THE TIMES, Korean Issues, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Petitions on Korea, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, U.S. Terrorism | 1 Comment

EVIDENCE MOUNTING: TSARNAEV’S LINKS TO CIA OPERATIONS TO DESTABILIZE RUSSIA IN NORTH CAUCASUS REGION–WHY, FOR WHAT? (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

Evidence Mounting: Tsarnaev’s Links to CIA Operations To Destabilize Russia in North Caucasus Region: Why, for What?
Post Categories: Afghanistan

4thMedia
Wayne Madsen / The 4th Media News | Wednesday, May 1, 2013, 18:15 Beijing51 viewsComments(1)

Wayne%20Madsen-big

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponShare on favoritesMore Sharing Services0Print

Evidence is mounting that the accused dead Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev became a “radicalized” Muslim while participating in a covert CIA program, run through the Republic of Georgia, to destabilize Russia’s North Caucasus region.

The ultimate goal of the CIA’s campaign was for the Muslim inhabitants of the region to declare independence from Moscow and tilt toward the U.S. Wahhabi Muslim-run governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

tamerlan3

What does U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul know about Tamerlan Tsarneav’s activities in Russia’s North Caucasus?

Russia’s Izvestia is reporting that Tsarnaev attended seminars run by the Caucasus Fund of Georgia, a group affiliated with the neo-conservative think tank, the Jamestown Foundation, between January and July 2012.

The U.S. media has been reporting that during this six month time frame Tsarnaev was being radicalized by Dagestan radical imam “Abu Dudzhan,” killed in a fight with Russian security last year.

However, in documents leaked by the Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs’s Counterintelligence Department, Tsarnaev is pinpointed as being in Tbilisi taking part in “seminars” organized by the Caucasus Fund, founded during the Georgian-South Ossetian war of 2008, a war started when Georgian troops invaded the pro-Russian Republic of South Ossetia during the Beijing Olympics.

Georgia was supported by the United States and Israel, including U.S. Special Forces advisers. The Georgian intelligence documents indicate Tsarnaev attended the Jamestown seminars in Tbilisi.

Tsarnaev also visited Dagestan in 2011. On December 16, 2011, WMR reported on the CIA’s and George Soros’s operations in Georgia that funded the Caucasus Fund, the Jamestown Foundation, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) activities.

It should also be noted that Tsarnaev’s Maryland-based uncle, Ruslan Tsarni (name changed from Tsarnaev) was also contracted to USAID.

“The money from USAID for Russian dissidents is being funneled through the Georgian Ministry of Education. The Georgian Minister of Education Dmitry Shashkin also attended the Tbilisi ceremony (a World AIDS Day ceremony also attended by U.S. ambassador to Georgia John Bass and Georgia First Lady Sandra Roloefs, the Dutch wife of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili), which provided cover for the covert aid program to the Russian dissidents. USAID money was used to fund scholarships in Georgia for exiled Chechen “students” who were being trained as CIA agents to interface with Chechen guerrilla forces and the Caucasus Emirate terrorists of Doku Umarov.

Georgia has become the nexus for the U.S. aid to the Russian opposition trying to unseat Putin. In March [2010], Georgia sponsored, with CIA, Soros, and MI-6 funds, a conference titled ‘Hidden Nations, Enduring Crimes: The Circassians and the People of the North Caucasus Between Past and Future.’ Georgia and its CIA, Soros, and British intelligence allies are funneling cash and other support for secessionism by ethnic minorities in Russia, including Circassians, Chechens, Ingushetians, Balkars, Kabardins, Abaza, Tatars, Talysh, and Kumyks.”

Note: the Talysh and Kumyks live primarily in Dagestan.

The conference, held on March 21, 2010, was organized by the Jamestown Foundation and the International School of Caucasus Studies at Ilia State University in Georgia. If Georgian counter-intelligence documents had Tamerlan Tsarnaev attending Jamestown conferences in Tbilisi in 2011, could the Russian FSB have tracked him to the Jamestown Hidden Nations seminar in March 2010?

In any event, a year later the FSB decided to contact the FBI about Tsarnaev’s ties to terrorists.

The first Russian request to the FBI came via the FBI’s Legal Attache’s office at the U.S. embassy in Moscow in March 2011. It took the FBI until June of 2011 to conclude that Tamerlan posed no terrorist threat but it did add his name to the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, or TECS, which monitors financial information such as bank accounts held abroad and wire transfers.

In September 2011, Russian authorities, once again, alerted the U.S. of their suspicions about Tamerlan. The second alert went to the CIA. The Russians were well aware that the Hidden Nations seminar held a year earlier was a CIA-sponsored event that was supported by the Saakashvili government in Georgia.

In their second communication with Washington, the Russians were likely making the CIA aware that it was on to one of Langley’s assets.

At some point in time after the first Russian alert and either before or after the second, the CIA entered Tamerlan’s name into the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment list (TIDE), a database with more than 750,000 entries that is maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Virginia.

On March 31, 2010, shortly after the Hidden Nations conference in Tbilisi, deadly mass casualty suicide bomb blasts in the Moscow Metro system and in Dagestan, and Georgia’s launching of a Russian-language TV channel targeting the north Caucasus and designed to whip up anti-Russian feelings in the volatile region, WMR reported:

“The Jamestown Foundation is a long-standing front operation for the CIA, it being founded, in part, by CIA director William Casey in 1984. The organization was used as an employer for high-ranking Soviet bloc defectors, including the Soviet Undersecretary General of the UN Arkady Shevchenko and Romanian intelligence official Ion Pacepa.

The Russian FSB and the SVR foreign intelligence agencies have long suspected Jamestown of helping to foment rebellions in Chechnya, Ingushetia, and other north Caucasus republics. The March 21 Tbilisi conference on the north Caucasus a few days before the Moscow train bombings has obviously added to the suspicions of the FSB and SVR.

Tamerlan-Tsarnaev1

Jamestown’s board includes such Cold War era individuals as Marcia Carlucci; wife of Frank Carlucci, the former CIA officer, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of The Carlyle Group [Frank Carlucci was also one of those who requested the U.S. government to allow former Chechen Republic ‘Foreign Minister’ Ilyas Akhmadov, accused by the Russians of terrorist ties, to be granted political asylum in the U.S. after a veto from the Homeland Security and Justice Departments], anti-Communist book and magazine publisher Alfred Regnery; and Caspar Weinberger’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Kathleen Troia “KT” McFarland.

Also on the board is former Oklahoma GOP Governor Frank Keating, the governor at the time of the 1995 Murrah Federal Building bombing.

The Georgian International School for Caucasus Studies in a perfect partner for Jamestown. Its current major project is designed to stir up anti-Russian sentiments in the north Caucasus by creating such new research programs as “Tsarist Russian policy and state-sponsored Soviet ethnic policies conducted in the North Caucasus during the 19th and 20th century.”

Cooperating with Jamestown in not only its north and south Caucasus information operations, but also in Moldovan, Belarusian, Uighur, and Uzbekistan affairs, is George Soros’s ubiquitous Open Society Institute, another cipher for U.S. intelligence and global banking interests.

Soros’s Central Eurasia Project has sponsored a number of panels and seminars with Jamestown. Soros and his NGO contrivances and constructs provided the impetus for Saakashvili’s themed ‘Rose Revolution.’ Jamestown’s Monitor and the Soros-influenced Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty often quote from each others’ sources and reports.

On March 9, 2005, the Jamestown Foundation, Soros’s Open Society Institute, and the Moldova Foundation sponsored a seminar in Washington on the Moldovan elections.

Among the advisory board members of the Moldova Foundation are Bari-Bar Zion, CEO of A4E and Amin in Israel and a former business adviser to the head of the Israel State Lottery, and Sam Amadi, special adviser to the President of the Senate of Nigeria. The Moldova Foundation receives support from Soros’s Open Society Institute.”

Georgia was a major launching pad for anti-Russia operations by the CIA, Mossad, and Britain’s MI-6. Not only did Georgian Imedi TV presented a fake news report about a Russian invasion of Georgia — which also suggested that Russian troops had killed Saakashvili — but Caucasus Emirate terrorists were conducting a number of terrorist attacks inside Russia, including a suicide bombings in Moscow and Dagestan, at the same time NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was hosting Saakashvili in Brussels.

The Russians indicated in their first communication with the FBI that Tamerlan had changed drastically since 2010. That change came after the Hidden Nations conference in Tbilisi. U.S. support for Chechen and North Caucasus secession came as a result of a public statement on August 2008 by GOP presidential candidate John McCain that “after Russia illegally recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Western countries ought to think about the independence of the North Caucasus and Chechnya.”

What does U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul know about Tamerlan Tsarneav’s activities in Russia’s North Caucasus?

Upon becoming President in 2009, Barack Obama adopted McCain’s proposal and authorized CIA support for North Caucasus secessionists and terrorists with money laundered through the USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, Soros’s Open Society Institute, Freedom House, and the Jamestown Foundation.

In January 2012, Obama appointed a Soros activist and neocon, Michael McFaul of the right-wing Hoover Institution at Stanford university, as U.S. ambassador to Moscow. McFaul immediately threw open the doors of the U.S. embassy to a variety of Russian dissidents, including secessionists from the North Caucasus, some of whom were suspected by the Russian FSB of ties to Islamist terrorists.

Mr. Wayne Madsen, wtfrly.com

http://www.infowars.com/tamerlan-tsarnaevs-links-to-cia-operations-in-caucasus/

Tamerlan Tsarnaev Attended CIA-sponsored Workshop

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was radicalized by the CIA

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 24, 2013

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was radicalized by the CIA.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended a workshop sponsored by the CIA-linked Jamestown Foundation, Izvestia reports today (see English translation here). The Russian newspaper cites documents produced by the Counterintelligence Department Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia confirming that the NGO “Fund of Caucasus” held workshops in the summer of 2012 and Tsarnaev attended.

In 2012, Tsarnaev spent six months in Dagestan, a region neighboring Chechnya. The FBI interviewed him the previous year but said it found no evidence that he was a threat. On Tuesday, Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano said her agency was aware of the trip and, on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry stated Tsarnaev returned from Russian trip “with a willingness to kill people.”

The Caucasus Fund was established in November, 2008, following the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. The main purpose of the organization, according to Izvestia, is “to recruit young people and intellectuals of the North Caucasus to enhance instability and extremism in the southern regions of Russia.”

Moscow has explicitly criticized the Jamestown Foundation for engaging in an anti-Russian propaganda campaign. “Organizers again and again resorted to deliberately spreading slander about the situation in Chechnya and other republics of the Russian North Caucasus using the services of supporters of terrorists and pseudo-experts. Speakers were given carte blanche to spread extremist propaganda, [and] incite ethnic and inter-religious discord,” said the Foreign Ministry of Russia in December, 2007.

The Jamestown Foundation is a known CIA front. It “is only an element in a huge machine, which is controlled by Freedom House and linked to the CIA,” writes the Voltaire Network. “In practice, it has become a specialized news agency in subjects such as the communist and post-communist states and terrorism.” It “publishes specialized bulletins on both the post-communist world and terrorism, which serve as reference for Washington’s think tanks. University scholars and journalists are dedicated to depict a ghost-filled world whose very same hostility justifies the U.S. empire.”

CIA director William Casey and Russian dissident Arkady Shevchenko were instrumental in creating the organization. Jamestown’s board of directors includes Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter. Brzezinski, a high-level globalist operative, initiated the CIA’s recruitment of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan that ultimately produced al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

The notorious russophobe Brzezinski heads up the foundation’s American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, an NGO based at the Freedom House, the latter funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, the CIA front designed to foment color revolutions and overthrow governments. It also receives funding from Soros Foundations, the CIA’s Ford Foundation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the outfit used by the U.S. government to run “humanitarian” NGOs instrumental in running color revolutions in former Russian states.

The revelation about Tsarnaev’s whereabouts in 2012 and his connection to an anti-Russian NGO sponsored by the CIA should be considered the missing link in the story concerning his purported radicalization at the hands of Salafist militants. However, since the establishment is providing the script and narrative for the official story, we expect the corporate media to give it zero credence.

This article was posted: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 12:30 pm

Tags: domestic news, foreign affairs, terrorism

——————————————————————————–

Posted in CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Faces of Fascism, FALSE FLAGS, Fascism in America, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, Imperial Hypocrisy and Intrigue, iNTERVIEWS ON CRITICAL ISSUES OF THE TIMES, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, NED and other Fronts of Imperialism, Neoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism as Neo-Imperialism, Neoliberalism as Neoimperialism, New World Order, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism, Uncategorized | Leave a comment