American Oligarchy's Free Trade Deals Set to Destroy Europe

American Oligarchy's Free Trade Deal Set to Destroy Europe https://www.rt.com/op-edge/341801-ttip-eu-obama-us-elections/ NATO on trade, in Europe and Asia, is doomed Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia Times Online. Born in Brazil, he's been a foreign correspondent since 1985, and has lived in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Washington, Bangkok and Hong Kong. Even before 9/11 he specialized in covering the arc from the Middle East to Central and East Asia, with an emphasis on Big Power geopolitics and energy wars. He is the author of "Globalistan" (2007), "Red Zone Blues" (2007), "Obama does Globalistan" (2009) and "Empire of Chaos" (2014), all published by Nimble Books. His latest book is "2030", also by Nimble Books, out in December 2015. Published time: 4 May, 2016 14:03 The President of the United States (POTUS) is desperate. Exhibit A: His Op-Ed defending the Asian face - the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - of a wide-ranging, twin-headed NATO-on-trade “pivoting”. The European face is of course the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). POTUS frames TPP – as well as TTIP - in terms of a benign expansion of US exports, and private (US) firms having “a fair shot at competing against state-owned enterprises.” “Fair”? Not really. Let’s see how the mechanism works, focusing on TPP’s European twin. With impeccable timing, almost simultaneously to Obama’s Op-Ed, Greenpeace Netherlands leaked 248 pages of classified TTIP documents that were to be re-discussed last week by negotiators in New York. There have been no less than 13 rounds of TTIP negotiations so far, over nearly three years. The documents – negotiated in total secrecy since 2013 - represent roughly two-thirds of the latest negotiating text. An array of detailed studies, like this one, had been warning about the state of play. The veil of secrecy ended up being the ultimate giveaway to TTIP’s toxicity. Before the Greenpeace Netherlands leak, EU elected representatives could only examine these documents under a police watch, in a secure room, without access to experts, and on top of it they could not discuss the content with anyone else.   I will crush you with my GMOs Everything civil society across Europe – for at least three years – has been debating, and fearing, is confirmed; this is a sophisticated, toxic US-led corporate racket, a concerted assault across the spectrum, from the environment and animal welfare to labor rights and internet privacy. In a nutshell; it’s all about the US corporate galaxy pushing the EU to lower – or abase – a range of consumer protections. Hardball, predictably, is the name of the game. Washington no less than threatened to block EU car exports to force the EU to buy genetically engineered fruits and vegetables. In my travels in France, Italy and Spain over the past two years, I confirmed this to be the ultimate nightmare expressed by practitioners of top-end artisanal agriculture.  [traditional agricultural methods] Predictably, the lobbyist-infested European Commission (EC) fiercely defends TTIP, stressing it could benefit the EU’s economy by $150 billion a year, and raise car exports by 149 percent. Obviously don’t expect the EC to connect these “car exports” to a US-led GMO invasion of Europe. At least some nations have finally woken up from their (corporate lobbyist-induced) slumber. The French Minister for Foreign Trade, Matthias Fekl, said negotiations over a “bad deal” should stop. He went straight to the point, blaming Washington’s intransigence; “There cannot be an agreement without France and much less against France.” Perennially ineffectual President Francois Hollande, for his part, has threatened to block the deal altogether. Three years ago Paris had already secured an exemption for the French film industry not to be gobbled up by Hollywood. Now it’s also about the crucial agriculture front. Hollande said he would never accept “the undermining of the essential principles of our agriculture, our culture, of mutual access to public markets.” And what is the EC – leading the negotiations on behalf of the EU - doing? Pulling its predictable Trojan horse act; these are all “alarmist headlines” and “a storm in a teacup”. Puzzled EU citizens, en masse, may question if this is really the way for the EC – a bureaucratic Brussels behemoth - to supposedly defend the rights of EU consumers. Yet, infiltrated as it is by corporate lobbyism, the EC simply can’t protect the EU’s environmental and health standards, much more sophisticated than the US’s, from a corporate America bent on meddling with the content of EU laws all along the regulatory line.   I got an offer you can’t refuse POTUS was heavily campaigning for TTIP last month in Germany. POTUS still hopes he may have a deal in the bag before he leaves office in January 2017. White House spokesman Josh Earnest has tried to put on a brave face, saying the leaks will not have a "material impact" on the negotiations. Wrong; they will – as they are mobilizing public opinion all across the EU. David Cameron, in the UK, is also in a bind. He’s fiercely pro-TTIP. But Obama has already warned; this means Brexit is a no-no. Club Med nations, for their part, are leaning against. All 28 EU member nations – plus the European Parliament – would have to ratify TTIP if a deal is eventually reached. TPP, for its part, has been negotiated. But it has not been approved by the US Congress (nor by Pacific nations). The approval process has gone nowhere. In fact it will be up to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Trump arguably is oblivious to TPP’s details; but considering the deal is being heavily championed by Obama, Trump may go against it. A case can be made that both TPP and TTIP vow to distort markets, in Europe and Asia; prop up (US) monopolies; transfer jobs to slave labor markets (in the case of parts of Asia); trample on intellectual property rights (in the case of the EU); facilitate tax evasion; and ultimately transfer more wealth from the many to the 0.00001 percent. And this leads us to how Hillary Clinton – the Wall Street/US establishment candidate – views both TPP and TTIP. Well, she supported both NAFTA and CAFTA, approved under Bill Clinton in the 1990s. As Secretary of State, she lobbied for the Panama trade deal. And, crucially, she has always treated the TPP as the “gold standard”. No wonder; this is the trade arm of the “pivoting to Asia” she’s been so fond of - a Pacific trade deal that excludes China, which happens to be the top trade partner of most Asian nations. Moreover, those by now famous Goldman Sachs speeches are increasingly being seen as payments for services rendered (and promised) by Hillary Clinton to the 0,0001 percent, who are, of course, in favor of global corporate America expansion.     Things we've learned from the #TTIPLeaks:     1. 'We're being sold down the river by our reps in the EU' - @WarOnWanthttps://t.co/CWH0smP0kY     — RT UK (@RTUKnews) May 3, 2016 Yet it ain’t over till the November ballot sings. Hillary now faces serious scrutiny by working class voters in the US. So no wonder, in another flip-flopping masterpiece, she’s now leaning towards describing herself as opposing both TPP and TTIP. Still, TPP at least may be approved during the post-election ‘lame-duck’ session of the US Congress. As for TTIP, it’s now mired in Walking Dead zone. Talk about what it takes for the Obama administration to imprint its trade “legacy” in the history books; to keep blackmailing Europeans and Asians alike as if it was just a lowly Mob extortion racket.  The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/341801-ttip-eu-obama-us-elections/ COMMENT They are a lowly mob extortion racket. Refuse, Europe. It's not worth it. Tell the reps of American oligarchs to f*ck off and tell the greedy European oligarchs to fuck off, as well. Communism has got to be better than this rip off and destruction of Europe for the sake of a few European ruling rich, whose selfishness and greed is destroying Europe.

Transcript - Audio - JULIAN ASSANGE Interview By Kostas Ephemera, The Press Project

ꕤ Transcript SOURCE http://www.thepressproject.gr/podcast/final_assange.mp3 TRANSCRIPT [for quotations, confirm audio] INTERVIEW JULIAN ASSANGE, WIKILEAKS INTERVIEWED BY: Kostas Ephemera The Press Project Podcast On:  Monday, 20th October 2015 AUDIO SOURCE http://www.thepressproject.gr/podcast/final_assange.mp3 Hi, I'm  Kostas Ephemera from the Press Project, and I'm speaking to you from the Embassy of Ecuador. I'm here with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, and he's agreed to give us some answers for the Greek audience. The first question is:  through the work of WikiLeaks & people like Edward Snowden, people now know that the system is corrupted.  Although we've had movements like the Indignados and Occupy Wall Street, they don't seem to last.  Why is that? Julian Assange, WikiLeaks The visible, apparent failure of Occupy Wall Street to produce a clear result has discouraged people, at least in the West, from engaging in large, mass gatherings. However, a great many lessons and networks did emerge from Occupy Wall Street and have continued on in other areas. More generally, the problem of mankind has always been its lack of understanding about how the world actually works, and the first task of human beings is to educate themselves and each other.  That is what has led to all the advances that mankind has achieved. Further advances in relation to how to restructure society or how to produce better institutions can only occur as a result of: (a) new information which further reveals how modern human institutions actually behave; and (b) the conveyance of that information into people's heads, in an accurate manner. The problem of (a) is the problem of secrecy.  The problem of (b) is the problem of media accuracy. Kostas Ephemera, The Press Project OK, you spoke of the media.  When you started WikiLeaks, you collaborated with some of the biggest international media, but after a while they backed off.  Why? Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Well, all institutions eventually become defined by their own quest for power, regardless of how they start. Large media organisations have been around for a long time and are powerful and, so, their management and ownership class, has learnt how to exploit that power by doing favours for other power groups that are around them, or defending their own social class or their shareholders directly. The only exception is when the organisation is small, or where it has an ideological leader that has firm control over the organisation's destiny, or, perhaps, where its business model is populist and directly relies on its readers. 2:56 As a result of our publications, we have contracts with more than a hundred and ten (110) different media organisations around the world, and in a number of different publishing projects, we've given all those hundred and ten (110) media organisations exactly the same material and, so, we're able to compare results. And we can see the geopolitical biases, cultural biases, the political interference from owners, the political interference from the management class, and redaction and censorship, for political purposes or because of fears of legal costs, or because of cultural sensitivities. For example, The Guardian newspaper, El Pais, Le Monde & The New York Times, extensively redacted material in the diplomatic cables publication, for reasons other than protecting people from retribution, whereas The Hindu newspaper (which is the highest quality English newspaper in India), only redacted two cables. 4:07 Kostas Ephemera, The Press Project *** [???]  the dictum "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" works, after all, for the system. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks First of all, the national security state is very powerful. In the United States, the  Defence Department alone feeds ten percent (10%) of the US population in terms of its salaries and direct contracts. That ten percent (10%) of the population has a social group on its periphery.  It's people they are related to.  For example, they have good friends, business partners.  It maybe extends to thirty (30%) or forty (40%) percent of the entire US population. Media proprietors tend to have many business interests and, so, those business interests intersect with the national security state. So there has been suppression of the story, first of all. Secondly, it is a complex story about spy agencies and it involves the interception of nearly the entire world. It's not easy for people to imagine such a thing and still believe in it. This interception is a lot like the concept of god:  it is invisible; intangible; knows what you're doing; knows what everyone is doing; it seems that one has to take it on faith. The fact is, strangely, mass surveillance is the first god in that respect, that has been proven to exist, that even atheists can believe in. 5:53 But-- atheists can say they believe in, but, really, most people don't believe in things they haven't directly seen themselves, because most people don't see direct -- they don't see the National Security Agency or GCHQ spies under their bed -- they don't understand the danger. 6:17 But I'm pleased that they don't understand the danger, because if everyone understood the danger, the response wouldn't be to stop mass surveillance:  the response, by most people, would be become extremely conformist. Now, this old result of 'nothing wrong'.  So what is it? 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.' That encodes within it exactly the problem. People try and guess what it is that these powerful agencies might consider wrong, and they are not sure where the boundaries are, and so they adjust their own behaviour and start to self-censor.  But it's intellectually bankrupt. 7:00 In the end, even if you are a baker, not involved in any politics at all, its not simply a matter of arbitrary injustice might trip you up anyway, because of confusion and incompetence in the national security state.  But it is necessary to protect forces in society that keep society honest. For example, human rights activists, journalists, and opposition politicians. These are all involved in preventing society collapsing due to corruption or incompetence. And if those elements can't operate, then society will decay. 7:46 And it will even affect 'the baker' when society does decay. So it's not just about you. It is about this professional class of people who are involved in trying to holding government to account. If they can't hold government to account, government will go bad. Kostas Ephemera, The Press Project Oh, yeah. Lately, governments are becoming more aggressive, while their people find it harder to control them. Are conspiracy theorists not wild enough anymore? 8:11 Julian Assange, WikiLeaks The US government is prosecuting me for conspiracy to commit espionage and general conspiracy. And the government has conspiracy theories about the people, and even laws called 'conspiracy'. It is interesting if you look at some conspiracy.  You know, some unfounded paranoid conspiracy theories, spread around by people about the capacities of the National Security Agency and some other national spying services, they were not paranoid about. 8:46 I knew that at that time, and we know even more now. But the bigger concern is where all of that is going. I like to joke that the only thing that has saved mankind is bureaucracy, corruption and incompetence, because massive spy agencies like the National Security Agency that are intercepting nearly all the world's electronic communication, of nearly every person, would completely dominate the Earth if they were not corrupt, if they were not bureaucratic, and if they were not incompetent. But, fortunately, secrecy breeds incompetence and corruption, and these are very large secret organisations, so they are also very corrupt ones -- corrupt and incompetent. The problem is that the commercial sector like Google and Facebook are not corrupt or incompetent, as traditionally defined. They are in a highly competitive commercial market and so they have become extremely efficient at collecting information, and the security agencies then simply stick their fangs into the big corporate players and suck the information out from there. Kostas Ephemera, The Press Project Let me ask you something different. Greece, now, has a left-wing government with very friendly relationships with Ecuador and with *** [???] How would you like to ask Greece for political asylum? 10:08 Julian Assange, WikiLeaks I would be very interested to hear of such an offer from Greece, as we know there's a lot of support from the Greek population, and it would be a legally and politically important gesture here in Europe. It's an interesting question [whether] the true nature of Greek power permits such an action or not. Kostas Ephemera, The Press Project Why do you think Greek government is powerless to offer you asylum? 10:33 Julian Assange, WikiLeaks If I had been Cyprus, what would I have done in this conflict with the troika? I can see that there's different arguments for going different ways, but what I would have found most interesting would be to use the conflict to create an intense unity within Greece and, provided you have control over the police, the army and the law, and you have a healthy population and no natural disasters, you can do a lot. But there is really that question. And you effectively create a war-time footing, which has effectively been a problem like war for Greece, and Greece has survived much harsher circumstances in war, so there's no reason to believe it couldn't survive a conflict of that type and, in fact, a number of good things might come out of that conflict -- but only if you have control of the police and the army.  And, I think, the reality is that Syriza did not have full control over those three services, so that was not an option. 11:42 Kostas Ephemera, The Press Project In Greece, we have suffered and continue to suffer the results of austerity. Does the TTIP mean such kind of austerity for the whole of Europe? Julian Assange, WikiLeaks TTIP is the US-EU portion of a much grander project. That grand project [is] the three t'd agreements:  TTIP, TISA, and TPP. It's a project to create a new grand enclosure, a modern form perhaps analogous to the partition of Africa or the construction of the European Union -- a new economic and legal regime that will incorporate fifty-two (52) nations -- 1.6 billion people -- and, most importantly, two-thirds of global GDP. It has been constructed politically by playing the China card. So whenever something that radical and that large occurs, it's because it has the backing of several powerful forces. In this case, it has the backing of the major US multinationals, who have been always trying to achieve agreements like this. But it has also managed to get the backing of the US national security class, who view it as a strategic way of isolating China, India and Russia. 13:07 By playing that China card, they've also scared much of the establishment in Western Europe to coming into the system, and a lot of the South-East Asian countries like Australia. It is the most radical construction of an international regime since the construction of Europe [ie the European Union], and it cements once and for all, international and neoliberalism [interests?] into those fifty-two (52) countries, in a binding international treaty which is exceedingly difficult to withdraw from -- much more difficult than Greece withdrawing from Europe [ie the European Union]. 13:45 It covers nearly every aspect of the economy:  transportation, all services -- and services make up about seventy-five percent (75%) of the European economy, so that means all internet services, banking services, consulting engineers and accountants.  In fact, it covers everything that you can't drop on your foot. [Laughter] 14:10 It arises -- let's go back to World War II. After World War II, the US had fifty percent (50%) of the global GDP and it started to construct some international institutions to deal with that and the  Bretton Woods system, the WTO [World Trade Organisation] and, eventually the WTO became an institution with its own goals to expand, and it included India, Brazil, Russia and China. And the WTO became too democratised for the United States and there was several rounds of negotiation in the WTO in the 2000s, called the Doha Rounds, to negotiate some mutual lowering -- lower of tariffs and other mechanisms -- and the the US didn't like where things were going.  So it effectively created a negotiation outside the WTO with its allies that it could push around, and the result is those T-3 agreements. So, as negotiations originally started in Doha show, [the US] set up this legal and trading system covering two-thirds of global GDP.  So its multinationals get what [they] want and, also, to isolate China. 15:35 To my mind, the single most significant issue is that it locks in, for at least decades, the US model of global multinational-led neoliberalism -- this radical new form of international neoliberalism -- which means that if Greece elects a different government, or Syriza wants to go a different way, it can't.  It's too late.  There's clauses in the treaty, such as if the government tries to introduce new legislation it will be penalised. 16:25 It may even be seriously anti-economic. It does introduce the establishment of a great many new monopolies for the US pharmaceutical and copyright industries, which is anti-economic. But just having such an invasive level of regulation for ninety-seven percent (97%) of industry in an international trade agreement suggests that it will calcify around economic activity. 17:01 It's very hard to change this international agreement, and as industry changes and new inventions come onto the scene, and there's new ways of working and new ways of trading, countries which have signed up to this treaty system will be bogged down in this international regulation. 17:22 Kostas Ephemera, The Press Project One last question. These days, the refugee crisis is the main issue for all Euro summits, but the people who participate in those meetings are the very same leaders of countries who sold their weapons, or, actually, their armies actively contributed to the bombing of the refugee countries. What are your thoughts on that? 17:40 Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Well, it's a moral disgrace, you know, that the US is not taking Syrian refugees, and that the UK has said it will take only four thousand (4,000) per year over five (5) years. It's no surprise to anyone.  But, I mean, the situation comes about as a result of US, UK and French policy in the Middle East, together with the behaviour of US regional allies in the Middle East -- Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia. But we published cables, including in my new book -- The WikiLeaks Files -- showing that the US has been trying to overthrow the Syrian government since at least 2006 and has very serious plans to do that; was trying to make the Syrian government 'paranoid,' trying to get it to 'over-react' by instilling that fear and paranoia, trying to make it worried about coups; trying to stir up sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shi'ites; trying to make its efforts to stop the originator of ISIS -- the ISI, the Islamic State of Iraq -- to make Syria look weak, and the fact that it was trying to crack down on terrorists at all, pushed that as an example of Syrian government not having full control over its territory, to encourage the government overthrow; trying to stop foreign investment in Syria and secretly funding a variety of NGOs in Syria and, also, *** [???], using Saudi and Egypt to help push that along. There's an interesting question:  what is even in it for the US, this result? 19:37 Well, it's not about the US population as a whole, of course.  It's about the particular factions that pushed for it -- whether they have a benefit -- and, of course, the CIA perceives they have a benefit.  They create a problem and then they're given a greater budget to clean 'the problem' up. Similarly, with the contractors, arms dealers and arms manufacturers:  if there's no 'problem', then their budgets are cut.  So they create problems. It's also part of a grand area strategy to, you know, weaken Hezbollah, to allow Israel greater control over Golan Heights and maybe a buffer zone as well; to knock out a regional ally of Iran; to knock out the last Russian base, that's left outside the former Soviet Union, in Tartus; to create a path for a gas pipeline [with] a proposed path from Qatar to Saudi, up through Syria to Europe, which will compete with Russian gas. 20:39 So there's like, as I said before:  like most significant changes that happen in the world, they happen because significant forces come together, and with multiple motivations. It's what we see here. But an easily predictable disaster.  But from the US perspective there's nothing for them to dislike about having Europe flooded with Syrian refugees. In fact, we have an interesting speculation about the refugee movements.  We looked through our cables. So the speculation was this: occasionally, opponents of a country will engage in strategic depopulation -- which is, to decrease the fighting capacity of a government, you try and get people to flee the country. 21:28 In the case of Syria, it is predominantly the middle class that is fleeing, because it is the most able to flee -- it has the language skills, money, some connections, and that's the engineering class, the management class, the bureaucratic class, precisely the class that is needed to keep the government functioning, and encouraging it to flee Syria -- for example, Germany saying that they will accept any refugees and by Turkey taking nearly two (2) million refugees, it does significantly weaken the Syrian government. 22:09 So we looked for other recent precedents of that. In 2007, the Iraqi government made a formal demand of Germany to stop encouraging migration from Iraq to Germany. Now, in that case clearly Germany wasn't trying to collapse the Iraqi government, but nonetheless the Iraqi government was feeling the same effect, that it was weakening its governing capacity. Sweden, in the Iraq war, is documented in the cables as making its contribution to the Iraq war, as it said to the United States, the acceptance of the Iraqi refugees was part of its contribution. So, regardless of whether there is design behind it, the forces engaged in trying to overthrow the Syrian government must be happy with the results. Kostas Ephemera, The Press Project We have the same effect of brain-drain from Greece due to the economic crisis now.  Or the brains go. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Exactly. So, the result is to weaken. As a political asylee myself, I'm not suggesting at all that Syrians shouldn't be treated kindly as refugees. But we should understand that engaging in the situation that causes depopulation of a country does encourage its collapse. Kostas Ephemera, The Press Project Thank you very much. --- end audio --- More Article by Kostas Ephemera  (Greek)  http://www.thepressproject.gr/article/83422/Ligi-ora-me-ton-Julian-Assange  (English translation)   here 2014 US population estimated at 322,583,006 -- ref:  http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/ USA DOD Beneficiaries Therefore, 10% of that estimate total population is equal to 32,258,300.6 Americans -- ie over 32-million US citizens benefit directly from US Dept of Defence. Adding estimates of periphery associations, perhaps up to over one-third of the total US population would benefit, either directly or indirectly, from the US Dept of Defence. Troika = European Troika  /  tripartite committee led by European Commission (Eurogroup) with European Central Bank (ECB) & the International Monetary Fund (IMF) - representing the European Union (EU) in its foreign relations, particularly re common foreign policy & security policy -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_troika Syriza - a left-wing political party in Greece, originally founded in 2004 as a coalition of left-wing and radical left parties. It is the largest party in the Hellenic Parliament, with party chairman Alexis Tsipras serving as Prime Minister of Greece -- ref:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriza Bretton Woods system -- landmark system for monetary and exchange rate management established in 1944  - ref:  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brettonwoodsagreement.asp ꕤ

Stand by for European Caliphate and the Destruction of the World Economy

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://archive.is/aUSD8#selection-4373.0-4589.360 Read Putin’s U.N. General Assembly speech Washington Post September 28 at 2:51 PM EXTRACT ONLY FULL ARTICLE - LINKED https://archive.is/aUSD8#selection-4373.0-4589.360 In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay solid foundations for the postwar world order. But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders.  The Yalta system was actually born in travail. It was won at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars. This swept through the planet in the 20th century. Let us be fair. It helped humanity through turbulent, at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.  The United Nations is unique in its legitimacy, representation and universality. It is true that lately the U.N. has been widely criticized for supposedly not being efficient enough, and for the fact that the decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, first of all, among the members of the Security Council. However, I'd like to point out there have always been differences in the U.N. throughout all these 70 years of existence. The veto right has always been exercised by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, the Soviet Union and Russia later, alike. It is absolutely natural for so diverse and representative an organization. When the U.N. was established, its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. Decisions debated within the U.N. are either taken as resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or do not pass. [...] Whatever actions any state might take bypassing this procedure are illegitimate. They run counter to the charter and defy international law. We all know that after the end of the Cold War — everyone is aware of that — a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the U.N., which, instead of [acting to] automatically authorize and legitimize the necessary decisions, often creates obstacles or, in other words, stands in the way. It has now become commonplace to see that in its original form, it has become obsolete and completed its historical mission. Of course, the world is changing and the U.N. must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force. We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories. What is the state sovereignty, after all, that has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one's own future for every person, nation and state. By the way, dear colleagues, the same holds true of the question of the so-called legitimacy of state authority. One should not play with or manipulate words. Every term in international law and international affairs should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us. It seemed, however, that far from learning from others' mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them, and so the export of revolutions, this time of so-called democratic ones, continues. It would suffice to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. Certainly political and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time, and people there wish for changes naturally. But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster.  Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life. I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you've done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned. It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa through the emergence of anarchy areas,  which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists. Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. And now, the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries. First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes. Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun actively expanding to other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there, and its plans go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them. To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they're in no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. And the recent data on arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it. We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but fire hazardous (ph). This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries. Unfortunately, dear colleagues, I have to put it frankly: Russia is not an exception. We cannot allow these criminals who already tasted blood to return back home and continue their evil doings. No one wants this to happen, does he? Russia has always been consistently fighting against terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria and many other countries of the region who are fighting terrorist groups. We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces and Kurds (ph) militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria. We know about all the problems and contradictions in the region, but which were (ph) based on the reality. Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach of Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions, as if those who say it have no ambitions at all. However, it's not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests, rather than ambitions. On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes. The ideologists (ph) of militants make a mockery of Islam and pervert its true humanistic (ph) values. I would like to address Muslim spiritual leaders, as well. Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now. It is essential to prevent people recruited by militants from making hasty decisions and those who have already been deceived, and who, due to various circumstances found themselves among terrorists, need help in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms, and putting an end to fratricide. Russia will shortly convene, as the (ph) current president of the Security Council, a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose discussing whether it is possible to agree on a resolution aimed at coordinating the actions of all the forces that confront the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Once again, this coordination should be based on the principles of the U.N. Charter. We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery, of the Middle East. Then, dear friends, there would be no need for new refugee camps. Today, the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed first neighboring countries and then Europe itself. There were hundreds of thousands of them now, and there might be millions before long. In fact, it is a new great and tragic migration of peoples, and it is a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe. I would like to stress refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the — on the way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore their statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen the government institutions where they still exist or are being reestablished, to provide comprehensive assistance of military, economic and material nature to countries in a difficult situation. And certainly, to those people who, despite all the ordeals, will not abandon their homes. Literally, any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed exclusively and solely in accordance with the U.N. Charter. In other words, everything in this field that has been done or will be done pursuant to the norms of international law must be supported by our organization. Everything that contravenes the U.N. Charter must be rejected. Above all, I believe it is of the utmost importance to help restore government's institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria. Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and regional and global stability remains the key objective of the international community with the U.N. at its helm. We believe this means creating a space of equal and indivisible security, which is not for the select few but for everyone. Yet, it is a challenge and complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no other alternative. However, the bloc thinking of the times of the Cold War and the desire to explore new geopolitical areas is still present among some of our colleagues. First, they continue their policy of expanding NATO. What for? If the Warsaw Bloc stopped its existence, the Soviet Union have collapsed (ph) and, nevertheless, the NATO continues expanding as well as its military infrastructure. Then they offered the poor Soviet countries a false choice: either to be with the West or with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a grave geopolitical crisis. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the discontent of population with the current authorities was used and the military coup was orchestrated from outside — that triggered a civil war as a result. We're confident that only through full and faithful implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015, can we put an end to the bloodshed and find a way out of the deadlock. Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be ensured by threat of force and force of arms. What is needed is a genuine consideration for the interests and rights of the people in the Donbas region and respect for their choice. There is a need to coordinate with them as provided for by the Minsk agreements, the key elements of the country's political structure. These steps will guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized society, as an essential link and building a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia. Ladies and gentlemen, I have mentioned these common space of economic cooperation on purpose. Not long ago, it seemed that in the economic sphere, with its objective market loss, we would launch a leaf (ph) without dividing lines. We would build on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, stipulating the freedom of trade, and investment and open competition. Nevertheless, today, unilateral sanctions circumventing the U.N. Charter have become commonplace, in addition to pursuing political objectives. The sanctions serve as a means of eliminating competitors. I would like to point out another sign of a growing economic selfishness. Some countries [have] chosen to create closed economic associations, with the establishment being negotiated behind the scenes, in secret from those countries' own citizens, the general public, business community and from other countries. Other states whose interests may be affected are not informed of anything, either. It seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favor of a narrow group of the privileged, with the WTO having no say. This could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economic space. These issues affect the interest of all states and influence the future of the world economy as a whole. That is why we propose discussing them within the U.N. WTO NGO (ph) '20. Contrary to the policy of exclusiveness, Russia proposes harmonizing original economic projects. I refer to the so-called integration of integrations based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian economic union, and China's initiative of the Silk Road economic belt. EXTRACT ONLY FULL ARTICLE - LINKED https://archive.is/aUSD8#selection-4373.0-4589.360 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT The West is morally corrupt.   Europe is being destroyed by a flood of Middle Eastern and African immigration, created by Western interventions and destruction of functioning states. The terrorists that the West has been arming in the Middle East, will soon have cells set up in Europe, where they're now collecting welfare, and will soon be setting up head-hunter caliphate camps in Europe. And still, the West persists in undermining efforts to defeat the Islamic terrorist chaos in the Middle East, in the hope that the chaos they create will serve the West's regional interests, before eliminating them once they've served their purpose. But that's not all, as well as destruction of Europe, the West is secretly negotiating the collapse of the world economy. I reckon this entire planet should be nuked.  Seriously.  Why wait? ꕤ

Undemocratic: EU Commission Breaks Promise for Greater Transparency - Secret TTIP US Trade Agreement

GOOGLE TRANSLATE / GERMAN ORIGINAL TTIP EU tightens secret Pose for TTIP documents German Economic News | Published: 19:08:15 18:14 clock The European Commission breaks its promise for greater transparency when TTIP. Because time and again documents were made public, the access to the documents of the national parliaments will be more difficult in the future. Cecilia Malmstrom now limited access to TTIP documents even more. (Photo: AP) "The European Commission is organizing the negotiations on the transatlantic FTA TTIP as transparent and as responsibly as possible," it says on the part of the EU Commission. Although some NGOs this greatly doubt. However, the Commission believes that it is probably handled too freely with the documents and information about TTIP. "After a few releases of confidential documents, the Commission had to make the decision to design the confidential report on the tenth round of negotiations in a secure reading room," said the Commission. Access to this confidential report will therefore now be even more difficult to see, even for the members of national parliaments. The reason: "This report also includes tactical considerations and our internal assessment of US positions," said Richard Kühnel, representatives of the European Commission in Germany on Friday in Berlin. "Such leaks weaken our negotiating position and make it harder to achieve the best result in the interest of Europe and its citizens. Despite all efforts to maximize transparency, we must try to prevent that. " According to the EU Commission "hitherto most transparent bilateral trade negotiations at all" are the TTIP negotiations. Periodically, the Commission consult with the governments of the 28 Member States and representatives of the European Parliament on the progress of negotiations. "The governments of the EU Member States have access to EU negotiating documents." However, informing the national parliaments was then a matter for the Member States - since, however, apparently confidential documents are made public, governments, the documents no longer simply to their parliamentarians hand off. The Commission generally so if Member States continue to be no problem even confidential documents to their respective parliaments in a secure way. "We support the easiest possible access to documents, provided that confidentiality is maintained," said Kühnel. Just not more in the document to the 10th round of negotiations, such as the decision of the EU Trade Commissioner Malmström shows. t the beginning of the week WikiLeaks had launched a fundraising campaign. Up to 100,000 euros are to be collected in order to move potential whistleblowers to publish from TTIP documents. "The secrecy of TTIP casts a shadow on the future of European democracy," said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. SOURCE | German http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/08/20/eu-verschaerft-geheim-haltung-fuer-ttip-unterlagen/ Compare the EU Commission's representations in the above article to the reality effective denial of access to EU member governments [ CLICK on image to enlarge ] COMMENT "governments of the EU Member States have access to EU negotiating documents" European Commission representative, Richard Kuhnel Yeah, they have 'access' - with excessive and unreasonable restrictions placed on that access. The reality is that this is yet another secret US trade deal, drawn in favour of corporations, at the expense of the public. This one's been kept from European governments and the public (to prevent the public mounting opposition), while generous access and influence has been granted to:  corporations. The European Commission promises of greater transparency amount to nothing because that's just what they were:  empty, nothing, PR / propaganda promises to pacify critics. Instead of addressing the fact that maintenance of secrecy concerning such an important agreement, amounts to undemocratic denial of information and opportunity for debate to the public, the EU Commission mouthpiece shifts the attention to the earlier leak of TTIP information and implies that this is the justification for the secrecy. But it is this very secrecy - this denial of transparency and denial of democracy - that would have originally led to what is therefore justifiable leak of information.  Facepalm. The reason these US trade agreements are being kept under wraps is that they're bad news. Information which should rightfully be in the public domain, is denied the public.  This denial of information is a denial of informed public consent to terms which are irreversible: Matt Kennard Centre for Investigative Journalism What is so scary about this is that corporations want to lock in their power. So they not only want increased power, they want to make impossible for sovereign governments to reverse the changes which are going to give them power. So, for example, with TTIP, if it passes with ISDS in it, the privatisation of the National Health Service (NHS) which is happening in the UK can never be reversed. More on US trade agreements:   VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&t=1m34s ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- TRANSCRIPT ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Please Support journalist-publisher Julian Assange Under Siege Ecuador embassy London (3 Years) Detained 5 Years No Charge POLITICAL PERSECUTION FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ ꕤ

TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy

TRANSCRIPT [Text emphasis added] Professor Noam Chomsky:  You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy. I started by saying that one of the relations between capitalism and democracy is contradiction. You can't have capitalist democracy, and the people who really sort of believe in markets (or at least pretend to understand them) - so if you read Milton Friedman and other philosophers of so-called libertarianism - they don't call for democracy they call for what they call 'freedom.' There is a very constrictive concept of freedom. It's not the freedom of a working person to control their work, their lives, and so on; it's their freedom to submit themselves to control by a higher authority. That's called 'freedom', but not 'democracy'. They don't like democracy and they're right; capitalism and democracy really are inconsistent. Actually, what's called libertarianism in the United States, is about as an extreme example of anti-libertarianism that you can imagine. They're in favour of private tyranny – the worst kind of tyranny. Tyranny by private, unaccountable, concentrations of wealth. When they say, “Well, we don't want government interference in the market”, they mean that. They mean - maybe they don't understand it, but if you think it through, it's pretty obvious – the kind of interference in the market they want blocked is the kind that would permit unconstrained tyranny on the part of totally unaccountable private tyrannies, which is what corporations are. It's worth bearing in mind how radically opposed this is to classical liberalism. They like to invoke, say, Adam Smith. But if you read Adam Smith, he said the opposite. He's famous for not, you know, the claim is that he was opposed to regulation – government regulation – interference in markets. That's not true. He was in favour of regulation, as he put it, when it benefits the working man. He was against interference when it benefited the masters. That's traditional classical liberalism. This, what's called 'libertarian' in the United States, which likes to invoke the history that you’ve concocted, is radically opposed to basic classical libertarian principles and it's kind of astonishing to me that a lot of young people - say, college students - are attracted by this kind of thing. I mean, you can, after all, read the classical text. So take, say, Adam Smith. Adam Smith, at the time – he's the icon, you know. He was considered to be a dangerous radical at the time, because he was pretty anti-capitalist in this pre-capitalist era that he was opposed to, and he condemned what he called the 'vile maxim of the masters of mankind': all for ourselves and nothing for anyone else. That's an abomination. Take the phrase 'invisible hand' – everybody's learnt that in high school or college – Adam Smith actually did use the term, rarely. But take a look how he used it. In Wealth of Nations, his major work, it's used once. And if you look at the context, it's an argument against what is now call neo-liberal globalisation and what he argued is this (in terms of England, of course): he said, suppose in England that the merchants and manufacturers invested abroad & imported from abroad; he said, well that would be profitable for them, but it would be harmful to the people of England. However, they will have enough of a commitment to their own country, to England (it's called a 'home bias', in the literature); they'll have enough of a 'home bias' so that, as if by an invisible hand, they'll keep to the less profitable actions and England will be saved from the ravages of what we call neo-liberal globalisation. That's the one use of the term in Wealth of Nations. In his other major work, Moral Sentiments, the term is also used once, and the context is this - remember, England is basically an agricultural country then - he says: suppose a landlord accumulates an enormous amount of land everyone else has to work for.  He says:  well, it won't turn out too badly, and the reason is that the landlord will be motivated by his natural sympathy for other people.  So he will make sure that the necessities of life and the goods available will be distributed equitably to the people on his land, and it will end up with a relatively equal and just distribution of wealth, “as if by an invisible hand”. That's his other use of the term. Just compare that with what you're taught in school, or what you read in the newspapers. And it goes across the board. Like, everybody probably has read the first paragraphs of Wealth of Nations, which talks about how wonderful it is that the butcher pursues his interests, and the baker pursues his interests, and we're all happy, so we should be in favour of a division of labour. Everybody's read that. How many people have read a couple of hundred pages into Wealth of Nations, where he has a bitter attack on division of labour for interesting reasons, and reasons that were standard in the Enlightenment in which he lived (very different from ours)? He says if you pursue division of labour, people will be directed to actions in which they'll complete the same mechanical actions over and over. They'll be de-skilled and that's the goal of management for over over 100 years: de-skill the workforce. He says that's what will happen if you pursue division of labour. He goes on to say, this will turn people into creatures as stupid and as ignorant as a human being can possibly be and, therefore, in any civilised society, the government will have to intervene to prevent any development like this. That's Adam Smith's view of division of labour. Next step – now, here's a research project.  Take the standard edition (scholarly edition) of Wealth of Nations produced by the University of Chicago Press – naturally, on the bicentennial – with a scholarly apparatus (you know, footnotes and everything else) – and take a look at the Index.  There's a scholarly index. Look up 'division of labour'. This part of the book is not referenced. You can't find it, unless you decided to read 700 pages; then you can find it. But that's his concept of the division of labour, and it continues like this – and I'm not extolling, you know, a lot of things that you can harshly criticise, like his advice to the colonies – but, nevertheless, it's a very different picture from what's called 'libertarianism' or 'capitalism' today. Capitalist democracy would self destruct - capitalism would self destruct – and that's why it hasn't been instituted. The masters understand that they cannot survive a capitalist economy – a laissez fair economy. Take a look at the history; it's pretty interesting. So the United States, when it was independent – so it could reject the rules of sound economics and develop. There were other countries that were poised for an industrial revolution and were given the same advice. Like Egypt and India. In fact, India already was the commercial and industrial centre of the world, moreso than England . Egypt was poised for an industrial revolution and it's not impossible that it might have developed as a rich, agrarian society. It had cotton – produced cotton. As I said, that's the main product (like oil today), and it didn't need slaves. It had peasants. It had a developmental government aimed that the industrial development. It could have taken off – just as India could have taken off. But they were not free to reject sound economics because they were ruled by British force. So they were forced to accept sound economics, and Egypt became Egypt, and the United States became the United States. India went through a century of de-development before it finally got independent. That's what happens when you apply laissez fair principles. In fact, that's essentially how the Third World and the First World divided. Take a look at the countries that developed. They are the countries who violated the principles. England, the United States, Germany, France, Netherlands. One country of the south. One country developed: Japan. The one country that wasn't colonised and was able to pursue the same course that the rich countries developed. I mentioned that in mid Nineteenth Century – 1846 - Britain was so far ahead of the rest of the world in industrial development that they did decide that laissez faire would be possible, so that moved to what's called a 'free trade era'. First of all, they imposed sharp constraints on it. They've cut off the Empire. India. India was not allowed. Others could not invest in India, their main possession; and India was not allowed to develop. And there were other restrictions. Pretty soon, British capitalists called the game off because they couldn't compete. By the 1920s, they couldn't compete with Japanese production so they literally closed off the Empire to Japanese exports. It's part of the background for the Pacific War of the 1940s. The United States did the same with a smaller empire in the Philippines. The Dutch did the same with Indonesia. All the imperial systems decided: no more free trade, we can't compete. So they closed off the empire and Japan had no markets, no resources, and they went to war. That's a large part of the background. The United States, in 1945, did move towards laissez fair. In fact it was an important conference (the united states was basically running the world at that point, for obvious reasons) – there was a hemispheric conference called by Washington in February 1945 in Mexico, where the western hemisphere was compelled to adopt an economic charter for the Americas, which banned any interference with market principles. The goal was, in the State Department reports, to oppose the new nationalism in Latin America, which is based on the idea that the people of a country should benefit from the country's resources. That's 'evil', we can't allow that; it's Western and US investors who have to benefit from the resources. So that was the economic charter of the Americas imposed on the countries of the southern hemisphere, with one exception – here. The United States did not follow those policies. Quite the contrary. As I mentioned, there was a massive development of a state based economy with an industrial policy – the kind that created the modern high-tech economy. You can see it right across the river. Take look at MIT, one of the main centres of this **** If you had a look at MIT in the 1950s (when I got there) it was surrounded by electronics-based high-tech firms, like Raytheon and iTech, and huge IT firms. Take a look at MIT today, take a look at the buildings, it's Novartis, Pfizer and so on. The reason's completely obvious: during the 50s and 60s, the cutting edge of the economy was electronics based, so the way to get the public to pay for it was to scream 'Russians!' and to get them to pay higher taxes for the Pentagon, and then the Pentagon would fund the research and development – like my own salary, for example (I shouldn't complain too much) – and, of course, private industry was around there like vultures to pick up the products and the research and to market. Well, since the 70s, the cutting edge of the economy has been moving towards be biology based, so funding – government funding – has shifted. Pentagon funding is declining. Funding from the NIH and other so-called health related government institutions is increasing, and the private corporations understand that. So, now, Novartis, genetic engineering firms and so on, are hanging around trying to pick up the research that you're paying for, so that they can market it and make profits. It's just transparent. It's in front of our eyes, and it takes a very effective educational system to prevent people from seeing it. It's virtually transparent. That's the way this really exists in capitalist democracy, folks. A final word about democracy then, before I have to leave. There's a major attack on democracy all the way through. But by now it's reached the point which is pretty remarkable. Take a look at one of the main topics in the mainstream political science (and we're not talking about radicals). Mainstream political science is comparing public attitudes with public policy. It's a fairly straight-forward – it's hard work but a straight-forward effort. We have the public policy so you can see it. There's extensive polling. Quite reliable generally and consistent in its results. It gives you a good sense of what public attitudes are, and the results of this are published in the major books and articles - with references, if you like. The results are very straight-forward. About 70% of the population – the lowest 70% on the income scale – are literally disenfranchised. Their opinions have no affect on policy. Their elected representatives don't pay any attention to them. That's one of the reasons why many of them don't bother voting: they're not going to pay attention to them anyway. You know, I've read the technical literature to understand it in other ways. As you move up the income scale, you get a little more influence on policy. When you get to the top (and contrary to the Occupy Movement, it's not 1% - it's more like one-tenth of 1%) - when you get to the top where the massive concentration of wealth is, they basically set policies. That's not democracy; that's plutocracy. And that's what we have accepted. The good thing about it is that it's changeable. It's not controlled by force. We are very free in that respect, thanks to victories over the centuries. It's not possible now for a corporation to do what Andrew Carnegie, the great pacifist, did in 1890. That gives a lot of options and you have to make use of them. I'm afraid I've got to leave. [17:35] APPLAUSE VIDEO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98PSkGSk9kw&feature=youtu.be MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded 1861. --------------------- end --------------------- COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. --------------------- video credits --------------------- TITLE: A PROGRESSIVE VOICE VIDEO: Leigha Cohen AUDIO: Leigha Cohen & Cynthia Smith VIDO & SOUND EDITING: Leigha Cohen COPYRIGHT: LEIGHA COHEN PRODUCTION 2014 WEBSITE: www. leighacohen.com ---------------------  COMMENT Good talk.   Also relevant to the US free trade agreements that are going down now. Thought I'd transcribe what was said. Nearing the end, I realised someone else may have transcribed this somewhere already. Never mind.  It's a good learning tool, focusing on every word.  Or it can be.  I hope.  LOL Missing word(s) where marked.  It's something of a drama playing audio at any volume level in this place right now, so filling the gaps will have to wait.  Think it was only the one word.  This took ages, but it's heaps easier now that I've figured how to minimise, position & hold my Writer window on top of the running video window, so I don't have to flip screens. *Part re interference in market they want blocked & tyranny reads kind of funny to me.  It's the interference they want blocked so they can get away with tyranny is what he's getting at, I think.  But the sentence seems confusing (to me). *I disagree with the last part, about there not being rule by force.  We are ruled by force & there's nothing we can do.  Look what happens to protesters.  When they're not beaten, imprisoned etc, martial law is imposed and they're beaten and imprisoned if they dare break curfew, I guess.