The Astounding PROPAGANDA from the State-Corporate Complex

Below is a copy of an email I sent out tonight.  The title was "A Perfect Example".

The brilliant Glenn Greenwald explains EXACTLY how the State-Corporate complex dupes people via shameless Propaganda.  This instance is in regard to terrorism, Snowden, Gov't officials, the recent Paris attacks, etc.  Too bad more people will not see this.  It shows how many, especially those on the so-called Right (but also those on the so-called Left), are being subjected to misleading info & outright lies, led down the path to more war, led into Islamophobia, and being flim-flammed into accepting the destruction of the Fourth Amendment...as well as other parts of the Constitution.  All of these efforts by the Powers-That-Be are not only un-American, but also anti-American.  The whole thing is disgusting.

The segment after this one also is illuminating relative to the submissive Corporate Media in the USA.

If we continue to accept the rubbish put out by the Gov't & Corporatist Media outlets, our grandkids will be living in Orwell's Animal Farm.  Guaranteed.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/11/19/glenn_greenwald_shameless_cia_exploits_paris?autostart=true

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

The Politicizing and Militarization of the CIA

Melvin A. Goodman, a former CIA analyst and current Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, points out how the CIA has declined and fallen due to both being beholden to political interests and becoming militarized.  Goodman was a senior analyst and division chief at the CIA (total CIA service: 1966-1986), a Professor of International Security at the National War College (1986-2004), and currently is an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University.  He is regarded as an expert in the fields of Intelligence and National Security.  His latest book is National Insecurity:  the Cost of American Militarism.  Google the man; his views are informed, somewhat prickly, and I think, right on the mark.  Here are a few of those views, as follows.

1.  Failure to anticipate the fall of Soviet Russia, failure regarding the terrorist attacks of 9-11, and failure to anticipate the disastrous consequences of the 2003 Iraq invasion all demonstrate the CIA's decline.

2.  The Pentagon and the CIA essentially are merging into one entity.  Military Intelligence and the Intelligence of our civilian Agency should remain separate; they should counterbalance each other.

3.  Having former military Generals as Heads of the CIA is a really bad idea.  The CIA has become too much of a para-military force.  [In my opinion, that aspect of the CIA (especially regarding the Drone Wars) even could be considered Death Squads.]

4.  The CIA has become a political tool.

5.  Military domination of the Intelligence field now interferes with the CIA's function of providing a check on the Military's influence on foreign policy and the use of force.

6.  Militarism in the USA truly has contributed greatly to national insecurity.
...............................................................................

Militarism is a part of Fascism, which makes use of Crony Capitalism, which dominates the Fed Gov't today...no matter whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

The Whole Political Spectrum is Wrong RE the Constitution - WHY?

From Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution...(in the war- making clause)--- [The following is one of the duties of CONGRESS. Article I enumerates the responsibilities of both Houses of  Congress]--- "...make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water". Last I heard, the CIA, Military Intelligence, the President, or any part of the Pentagon are not members of Congress.  That means Guantanamo, CIA Black Sites,  "enhanced interrogation", etc. were/are all unconstitutional. [Most "Liberals", Democrats,  and Republicans appear to support all of what's below. What's remarkable is that  most so-called "Conservatives"  and "Libertarians" seem to be  the biggest supporters of  those items below.  One would  think they would be the greatest supporters of the Constitution,  the bedrock document of the Republic. Nope, no luck there.] Add the unconstitutionality described above to the fact that, thanks to the PATRIOT Act, FBI Agents now can write their own Search Warrants (no judge required), a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, and U.S. citizens (here, on our soil) now, thanks to the NDAA, can be held indefinitely without trial or  any kind of due process, a clear violation of the 5th Amendment, and several other  blatant violations of the Supreme Law of the Land, and it's plain that the  Republic of the USA exists in  name only. "Conservatives" and "Libertarians" are the most vociferous defenders of these VIOLATIONS of the Constitution. That's quite remarkable, and a testament  to how powerful the Oligarchical Propaganda has been in the last 15 yrs or so. [The two segments of the political spectrum at the beginning of this paragraph are in quotes because: 1. there are no more Conservatives in the USA to my knowledge... only NeoConservatives, a horse of an entirely different color; and 2. Libertarians here are not the original, traditional Libertarians of the past... again, a horse of an entirely different color.]  Not just my opinion.  Be Well p.s.  In talking about any and all members of the groups mentioned above, I'm referring  primarily to those individuals at the highest levels,  not those at street level.

Globalization: Part I, Beginning Seeds

Some people think not, but history is important when attempting to understand current events. Globalization arguably and presently is the most significant event relative to the future of our Republic and our individual sovereignty. Here, in Part I, I'll present the beginning seeds of the phenomenon known as Globalization or Globalism.

In 1944-45, as a result of the Bretton Woods Agreement, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and what finally came to be known as the World Bank were created to help rebuild Europe after WW II. The Agreement, drawn up by the UK and the USA, established the rules/regulations for an international monetary system. Some years later, the IMF and the World Bank began making loans to poor countries, the Third World...and those loans had strings attached. More on that in Part II.

In 1965, General Suharto launched a successful coup against Sukarno in Indonesia, a country rich in resources, potential markets, and potential labor. The coup was known about beforehand by both the UK and the USA, but not revealed to Sukarno. [Sukarno, a strong nationalist, had kicked the IMF/World Bank out of his country...refused their "aid".] After the coup and over time, between 500,000 and one million Indonesians were murdered by the Suharto regime. Our CIA supplied a list, which facilitated the beginning of the massacre, of about 5,000 Indonesian communists to the Suharto regime. During that time, loans were made to Indonesia by the IMF and World Bank...with strings attached.

In 1967, Time-Life Corporation sponsored a meeting in Switzerland, the purpose of which was to plan the corporate takeover of Indonesia...that is to say, the economic (not political) takeover. David Rockefeller, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, representing Chase Manhattan Bank attended, along with dozens of other business luminaries--- representatives of Lehman Brothers, various oil companies, food companies, ALCOA, U.S. Steel, Siemens, various other banks, etc. General Suharto had his representatives there as well. [This is a classic example of Fascism in action--- mega corporations colluding with government cronies in order to control both the People and the economy.]

The large group in Switzerland divided up according to various sectors: banking and finance, food, consumer goods, oil and energy, etc. Each smaller group then hammered out the rules for doing corporate business in Indonesia. As part of the deal, the government of that country obtained another series of loans from the IMF/World Bank.

In 1973, the USA's CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende...because he was a Socialist, and probably had plans to nationalize U.S. businesses in Chile. A brutal dictator, General Pinochet, was installed; some time later, Pinochet's government obtained loans from the IMF/World Bank. Pinochet ruled for seventeen years. Henry Kissinger, a CFR member, chaired the meetings in the Nixon Adminstration that dealt with covert operations in Chile prior to the coup. Also prior to the coup, a Pepsi Cola franchise owner in Chile who also owned a newspaper (which was thought to be a CIA front) was called to DC to update Dr. Kissinger on the political situation.

In the 1980s, Thatcher of the UK built up her country's arms business and made a lot of armament sales to General Suharto of Indonesia. Also during that time, Thatcher and the USA's President Reagan laid the groundwork for what became known in 1989 as the "Washington Consensus"---a series of policies that supposedly would lead to global prosperity and unfettered economic growth by means of deregulation, privatization and trade liberalization (so-called "Free Trade") around the world. In the Third World, such a lofty goal would be attained through use of the IMF and the World Bank. The "Structural Adjustment Programs" of those two institutions supposedly would be the key to success. Details in Part II of this essay.

The Corporatocracy, Hit Men, & the American Empire

This is old news, but it's applicable to today and well worth reviewing and remembering. It is all detailed in the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004), by John Perkins, who was formerly an economic hit man for the Corporatocracy.

Perkins explains how, when a third world country has resources coveted by mega corporations and/or the Government in the US, those resources are obtained via the following process. If the country with the resources is not cooperative, a series of huge loans to that country is arranged through the World Bank. The money eventually goes to multi-national mega corporations such as Bechtel and Halliburton; they are hired by the country to build ports, industrial plants, roads, etc. When the country is so far in debt that it has little or no possibility of getting out of debt, economic hit men are sent in to strike a deal---for natural resources (such as oil), or favorable votes in the U.N., or agreements for certain other actions. If the economic hit men fail, then the "jackals" (assassins) are sent in, usually from the CIA; if they fail, then the military (as part of a "coalition") is sent in to bring about the desired regime change.

About 1959-1960 a very young, CIA-backed jackal by the name of Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate the President of Iraq, Abdel Qassim. Qassim's major sin was that he was going to nationalize Iraqi oil. At the time, the Iraqi Petroleum Company (IPC) was 95% controlled by the US, Britain, and France. The assassination attempt failed, but Qassim was eliminated anyway not long after that; economic hit men had failed to dissuade him from his plan to nationalize all oil in Iraq, so the CIA orchestrated his demise.

In the early '70s, just after the OPEC oil embargo of the US, economic hit men were sent to the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia to strike the "deal of the century" for the Corporatocracy. President Nixon had taken the US completely off the Gold Standard (because the country was bankrupt) and there was great concern in the Corporatocracy that the world would not accept the US dollar as the globe's reserve currency. In the "deal of the century", the House of Saud agreed to sell its oil for dollars only and to purchase US Treasury Securities; in return the Saudis were guaranteed two very important things--- the Corporatocracy would see to it that they remained in power, and would invest in industry and infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. The economic hit men were successful in swinging the deal.

Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq in 1979. During the '80s, the Corporatocracy decided that they would propose the same deal to Saddam. After all, he was more or less "our man" against the Iranians at that time and was a great purchaser of US arms and munitions. The economic hit men went to Baghdad, but failed to convince Saddam to accept a deal. Jackals were sent in, but failed to assassinate him. The rest is, as they say, history. [He wasn't eliminated during/immediately after the original Gulf War for many reasons, and the explanation of those is too lengthy for this posting.]

The Corporatocracy's interest in Afghanistan began long before the tragedy of 9-11-01. Long story short: Western oil interests needed a pipeline across the country of Afghanistan. Finally, several months prior to our invasion of that country (and prior to 9-11), economic hit men negotiated with the Taliban concerning the proposed oil pipeline. Taliban representatives actually came to the US to negotiate. A deal seemed close, but the whole thing fell through. At that time, according to a French Intelligence analyst by the name of Brisard, CIA representatives told the Taliban representatives, "Either you will accept our carpet of gold [for the pipeline], or we'll give you a carpet of bombs." Then came 9-11; after that came our first invasion of Afghanistan, accompanied by a carpet of bombs. The entire story is detailed in the book, Bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth (2002) by Brisard and DasQuie (both intelligence analysts in France).

If even only a smidgin of all of the above is completely accurate and true, then the implications relative to our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious and telling.

[Another interesting book (in addition to the two mentioned above) is Robert Baer's See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism (2002).]

Extraordinary Rendition (ER)

This makes one wonder: how does ER compare to ordinary rendition? Not that it matters much.

I just finished watching the DVD movie, "Rendition"---well acted, well directed, thought-provoking, and a nice little twist to it. Of course, it was Hollywood fiction; however, there was a very interesting documentary in the "Special Features" section. The documentary detailed the cases of two Muslims, one a British citizen and one a German citizen. Devastating stories---both were kidnapped, flown to several overseas prisons (one after the other), and tortured---both physically and mentally. The German was finally released (after many months) in the middle of nowhere, in the dark of night, on foot. After about eighteen months, the Brit was sent to Gitmo where he still has not had a trial.

The longer fictional movie and the short documentary caused me to wonder what has happened to the ethics of ordinary citizens in all countries and the rule of law in general in this country... that we ordinary people allow our governments to kidnap and torture people (whether guilty or not) with barely a peep of protest.

ER is the forceful kidnapping and torture of SUSPECTS, without any regard to the rule of law. One can claim, and many do, that it is necessary for various reasons...and that it saves lives. In other words, a good end justifies the most foul means. That should never be the case, because if we make it so, then the rule of law is meaningless AND there is no end to the use of foul means. A truly civilized society would no longer exist.

Apparently we citizens of the U.S. allow the CIA to conduct ER for one (or more) of the following reasons:
1. we think it is necessary [thus implicitly agreeing that a good end justifies foul means, and that the rule of law sometimes needs to be set aside];
2. we think the victims of ER are guilty...of something...and so kidnapping and torture are justified [never mind that the victims have not been proven guilty in a court of law];
3. it isn't us being kidnapped, so we let it slide [and we cling to the belief that it could never happen to us...unless, of course, a genuine terrorist MISDIALS our phone number...or we know someone who knows someone else who knows still someone else who is a suspect];
4. we believe that there is little or nothing we can do to stop the practice [apparently disregarding the cases where massive protests and boycotts have in fact changed government policy].
5. [there is some other reason of which I am unaware].

Have we lost our minds? This country once stood foursquare against things that we (or more accurately, members of our govt) now do with little or no regret. If we do not have the rule of law, due process, and the guarantee of our day in court, then we truly have very little.

ER is an outrageous affront to a free society. We should be protesting en masse in the streets in every major city in the country. We should be on general strike...we should be shutting down the Fed Govt through boycotts. We should be standing up for the rule of law.

Instead, we let it pass. After all, we have jobs, families, lives to live. Sure, some of us send protest emails, or write letters to the editor, etc. That'll get 'em to stop. Or, we just don't care---it's not important to US as individuals.

[I think I know how McCain & Clinton feel about ER. I wonder how Obama feels about it?]

I find all this incredible. "God" help our children and grandchildren.

Just my opinion.