Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
Sweden’s double standards on Julian Assange
posted by Peter Tatchell ... on Mon, 10/08/2015 - 11:40
Prosecutors have interviewed 44 people in UK since 2010. Why not Assange?
London, UK - 10 August 2015
"The Swedish prosecutors are guilty of double standards and victimisation. They’ve interviewed 44 people in the UK since 2010. Why not Assange? They are making an exception of him. He’s being singled out and treated differently. It is wrong to deny Assange the option to be interviewed in the UK, which has been extended to others and which he has been offering for five years”, said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
He was commenting on a Freedom of Information request revealing that Swedish prosecutors have interviewed 44 suspects in the UK since 2010, while for five years declining Julian Assange’s offer to be interviewed at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. They have long insisted that he must go to Sweden to be interviewed about the sex allegations against him.
Mr Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, has supported Julian Assange for the last five years, on civil liberties grounds and on the grounds that he is a legitimate whistleblower.
“The Swedish authorities are not applying the law about overseas interviews consistently and fairly. They are acting in an exceptional and discriminatory way towards Assange,” added Mr Tatchell.
“A few weeks ago, a prosecutor from Sweden confided to me that the Assange case has been handled badly by Marianne Ny. He said she should have come to London to interview him five years ago. It is not unusual for Swedish prosecutors to interview suspects overseas, he confirmed, so it doesn’t make sense for them to not interview Assange in London.
“In November last year, the Swedish Court of Appeal found Ny in breach of her duty to proceed the case at maximum speed and efficiency. It took another seven months, until June this year, for Ny to request an interview with Assange in London. She then cancelled the interview at the last minute. The Swedish prosecutor is the main roadblock in the case. She is not only denying Assange the right to swift justice, she is hindering the legal process and should be taken off the case.
“Julian Assange has been in various forms of detention for five years, without ever having been charged with any offence. This amounts to pre-trial punishment and is a gross abuse of his human rights and the legal system.
“The Swedish prosecutor has still not made a decision on whether Assange should be charged, which makes his treatment all the more shocking.
“Assange’s case is an important civil liberties and human rights issue,” said Mr Tatchell.
We should all be concerned that corrupt government can (and does) act with impunity (Britain, Sweden and US), while pontificating about 'American values,' 'Western values' or 'European values', democracy, and all the rest of the fanciful garbage they trot out, every time they seek to pull the wool over the public's eyes.
Sweden and the UK have got away with making an exception of Assange, dragging this out for 5 years, apparently determined to get Assange onto Swedish soil. And they're taking the worldwide public (and the British taxpayer) for fools: because they can.
The mainstream press that's supposed to play a key role as vital check to ensure just and democratic government, has allowed these corrupt forces to ride roughshod over journalism, justice, international law, and human rights.
Instead of fighting to put an end to the persecution of a fellow journalist, the corporate press just echoes the government narrative, without question.
The press should be screaming that this is taking place:
Twelve million pounds (ie US$18 million) spent to date by UK, trapping Assange in the Ecuador embassy;
exclusion of Assange from the 2014 change in law that was intended to prevent precisely this sort of 'pre-charge' detention situation from happening in future;
5-year-long insistence that Assange to go Sweden and Sweden's refusal to interview Assange in London - over a five year stretch;
Sweden having made an exception of Assange, by refusing to interview him in London (unlike the 44 others they've interviewed in London).
All of the above show just how determined these people are to deny Assange justice, in order to despatch him to the US - as was their intention all along. That speaks for itself: this is political persecution, without any doubt.
I wonder just how much of a hand these governments have had in the 2010 developments in Sweden that brought about this suspiciously convenient de facto imprisonment of Assange?
UK is shamelessly making a performance of lodging a formal objection to Ecuador for granting political asylum to Assange (which, as a sovereign nation, it is entitled to grant).
UK ought rightfully be censuring Sweden for failing to resolve this matter 5 years ago and failing to interview Assange in London in all the years it has had to do so.
The only one that's been denied justice is the journalist that's been detained for nearly five years on flimsy Swedish police allegations. The same police that did not follow procedures, did not properly record (audio / video) interviews (while taking care not to apply these same lax standards to defence witnesses), the police that tampered with the police database, and the same police that did not get a sworn statement. And that's just for starters.
Although I've been following this for a while now, it has taken until now to reallysee this for what it is.
I say that on the basis of seeing the pantomime they're putting on now, as well as how they have conducted themselves to this point.
This is clearly politically motivated persecution.
Dead dictators would be proud of these conniving fascists.
This is disgusting. And it's unbelievable that this isn't a press and public uproar, particularly in Australia.
Journalist, Assange has been targeted because he and his organisation exposed war US crimes.
The same people that brought you constitutional violation, general contempt for the law, mass surveillance, surveillance of entire countries, rendition, torture, invasions on false pretexts etc, are the same lying, hypocritical, corrupt, coalition that has denied Assange liberty without charge.
What they're doing - and what the press permits them to do - is absolutely disgusting.
Please help support Australian journalist, Julian Assange, in any way you can:
Mass surveillance must be a given in a country like Singapore, with no constitutional or other legislative checks on monitoring of citizens (and no ratification of the human rights covenant, either).
The degree of surveillance and the lack of civil rights goes back to colonial rule.
---------------------
Modern Singapore
founded in 1819 as British colony (by Sir Stamford Raffles) wikipedia
November 08, 2012 Who Will Watch the Watchmen?
Amnesty International and the Human Rights Industry
by DANIEL KOVALICK
When I studied law at Columbia in the early 1990s, I had the fortune of studying underLouis Henkin, probably the world’s most famous human rights theoretician. Upon his passing in 2010, Elisa Massimino at Human Rights First stated in Professor Henkin’s New York Times obituary that he “literally and figuratively wrote the book on human rights” and that “[i]t is no exaggeration to say that no American was more instrumental in the development of human rights law than Lou.”
Professor Henkin, rest his soul, while a human rights legend, was not always good on the question of war and peace. I know this from my own experience when I had a vigorous debate with him during and continuing after class about the jailing of anti-war protestors, including Eugene V. Debs, during World War I. In short, Professor Henkin, agreeing with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, believed that these protestors were properly jailed because their activities, though peaceful, constituted a “clear and present danger” to the security of the nation during war time. I strongly disagreed.
That Professor Henkin would side with the state against these war protestors is indicative of the entire problem with the field of human rights which is at best neutral or indifferent to war, if not supportive of it as an instrument of defending human rights. This, of course, is a huge blind spot. In the case of World War I, for example, had the protestors been successful in stopping the war, untold millions would have been saved from the murderous cruelty of a conflict for which, to this day, few can adequately even explain the reasons. And yet, this does not seem to present a moral dilemma for today’s human rights advocates. (I will note, on the plus side, that Professor Henkin did become increasingly uneasy with the Vietnam War as that conflict unfolded, and specifically with the President’s increasing usurpation of Congress’s war authority).
In the end, it was not from Professor Henkin, but from other, dissident intellectuals who I learned the most about human rights and international law. The list of these intellectuals, none of whom actually practice human rights in their day job, includes Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Jean Bricmont and Diana Johnstone. And of course, I have read a lot of what they have to say on this subject on these very pages of CounterPunch.
And, what all of these individuals have emphasized time and time again is that international law, as first codified in the aftermath of World War II in such instruments as the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter, was created for the primary purpose of preserving and maintaining peace by outlawing aggressive war. And, why is this so? Because the nations which had just gone through the most destructive war in human history, with its attendant crimes of genocide and the holocaust, realized full well that those crimes were made possible by the paramount crime of war itself. As Jean Bricmont, then, in his wonderful book Humanitarian Imperialism, explains, the first crime for which the Nazis “were condemned at Nuremberg was initiating a war of aggression, which, according to the 1945 Nuremberg Charter, ‘is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes is that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’”
In other words, the logic of the very founders of international law,including international human rights law, was that, to preserve human rights, the primary task of nations is to ensure peace and to prevent war which inevitably leads to the massive violation of human rights. As Noam Chomsky has noted for years, quite notably in his 1971 Yale Law Review article entitled, “The Rule of Force in International Affairs,” 80 Yale L.J. 1456, one of the very first substantive norms established by the UN Charter is prohibition against aggressive war. Such a norm is contained, as Chomsky relates, in Article 2(4) which provides that all UN members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force . . . .” And, contrary to the position of the new humanitarian interventionists, Article 2(7) of the Charter specifically states that “[nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state . . . .”
Sadly, as Chomsky noted even back in 1971, these norms, the paramount ones of the entire UN system, have sadly been read out of international law. And, they have been read out by, among others, such chief human rights groups as Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW). As Jean Bricmont, citing international law scholar Michael Mandel, explains in Humanitarian Imperialism, while AI and HRW urged all “’beligerents’” (without distinguishing between the attackers and the attacked) at the outset of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq to respect the rules of war, neither group said a word about the illegality of the war itself. As Bricmont quite correctly stated, “[t]hese organizations are in the position of those who recommend that rapists use condoms,” ignoring the fact that once the intervention they failed to oppose “takes place on a large scale, human rights and the Geneva Conventions are massively violated.”
This brings us to the present time. Just last week, Amnesty International issued a long statement in opposition to an article I penned for Counterpunch on “Libya and the West’s Human Rights Hypocricy.” AI, in its counter-blog, entitled, “A Critic Gets it Wrong on Amnesty International and Libya” (see, owl.li/eYmTb), AI claims that I was wrong in stating that it had supported the NATO intervention in Libya. AI, affirming the critiques of Bricmont and Mandel, claims in this blog, that “Amnesty International generally takes no position on the use of armed force or on military interventions in armed conflict, other than to demand that all parties respect international human rights and humanitarian law.” AI then goes on to try to clarify that, in advance of the NATO intervention in Libya, AI, in a February 23, 2011, release, merely called on the Security Council to take immediate measures against Libya and Gaddafi, including [but not limited to] freezing the assets of Gaddafi and his senior military advisers, and investigating the possibility of a referral to the International Criminal Court.
In its blog contra my article, AI claims that it called for such action based upon Gaddafi’s verbal “threat to ‘cleanse Libya house by house’” to end the resistance. While this is true, this is not the whole truth. Thus, in AI’s Feburary 23, 2011 release, it also based this call upon “persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him.” And, as we learned from our own Patrick Cockburn in an Independent article from June 24, 2011, entitled, “Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as a weapon of war,” Amnesty ended up debunking the reports (though well after NATO’s attack against Libya had begun) that Gaddafi was bringing in foreign mercenaries to fight.
As Cockburn, citing Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty International, explains:
“Rebels have repeatedly charged that mercenary troops from Central and West Africa have been used against them. The Amnesty investigation found there was no evidence for this. “Those shown to journalists as foreign mercenaries were later quietly released,” says Ms Rovera. “Most were sub-Saharan migrants working in Libya without documents.”
In other words, AI, on Feburary 23, 2011, was calling for Security Council action against Libya based upon reports about foreign mercenaries which it would later conclude were false, and upon verbal threats Gaddafi had made — very weak bases indeed for Security Council action.
And what about the calls for such action themselves? As we all know, the Security Council did act, authorizing a NATO attack upon Libya which began on March 19, 2011. The ordering of such an attack was a possible and indeed likely action which the Security Council would take, especially given that countries like the U.S. and France were aggressively pushing for such action at the time. And, AI full well knew this, and its calls for Security Council action worked in tandem with the efforts of the U.S. and France to obtain authorization for such an intervention.
In other words, AI, based at least in part on false reports, was pushing for Security Council action which it knew could, and most likely would, result in the authorization of force against Libya. And indeed, AI’s other call for possible referral of sitting Libyan officials to the International Criminal Court was tantamount to a call for armed intervention, including regime change, because only such intervention could bring about the hauling of sitting government officials to The Hague. AI’s current professions of neutrality on the issue of intervention notwithstanding, it can truly be stated that AI supported the intervention that took place in March of 2011 as an objective matter.
And sadly, this objective support was based in part on false reports of foreign, black mercenaries being brought into Libya. These false reports of mercenaries, in addition to feeding the calls for intervention, had another terrible effect – they helped lead to the massive reprisals against black Libyans and foreign guest workers during the conflict in Libya and continuing after the time that Gaddafi was toppled. The most notable of such reprisals was theutter destruction of the town of Tawarga, a town largely populated by black Libyans, by anti-Gaddafi rebels. To its great discredit, AI, in its rush to push for Security Council intervention, spread the very false reports which fueled such acts of vengeance.
And, what about AI’s response to crimes committed by NATO’s intervention in and bombing of Libya? AI, in its response to my article, cites to its criticism of NATO as evidence of its even-handedness in responding to the conduct of all sides of the Libyan conflict. Specifically, AI cites to the following criticism it made as such evidence:
Although NATO appears to have made significant efforts to minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties, scores of Libyan civilians were killed and many more injured. Amnesty International is concerned that no information has been made available to the families of civilians killed and those injured in NATO strikes about any investigations which may have been carried out into the incidents which resulted in death and injury.
Of course, this mere criticism demonstrates AI’s utter lack of even-handedness. First of all, in order to please its NATO patron, AI obviously felt compelled to lead its criticism with a compliment – patting NATO on the back for allegedly trying to “minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties,” as if aerial bombardment of major cities can ever constitute the minimization of such risks.
Then, AI complains that “no information has been made available” to the families of civilians killed or injured “about any investigations which may have been carried out into the incidents which resulted in death and injury.” What “investigations” is AI referring to here? Clearly, AI is complaining that NATO, left to police itself, has not shared the results of its own investigations into its own crimes.
The truth is that AI, which called for Security Council and possible ICC action against Libya as NATO was sharpening its knives to invade, has not called for a body outside NATO (e.g., the ICC) to investigate and possibly prosecute NATO officials for their crimes.What is good for the goose then, is not good for the gander in AI’s view. Of course, the ICC does not exist to prosecute those from the paler, Western countries. No, the ICC (which the U.S. is not even a signatory to and is therefore exempt from) is, in practice, for the darker races of the poorer countries; for those from Africa, Asia, and from time to time, the lesser Slavic nations. And, therein lies the problem inherent in the entire international human rights system of which AI is an integral part.
As we learn from Diana Johnstone in a CounterPunch article entitled, “How Amnesty International Became the Servant of U.S. Warmongering Foreign Policy,” AI’s journey to becoming an appendage of the U.S. and NATO recently became complete with its appointment of Suzanne Nossel as the new Director of Amnesty International USA. Diana Johnstone explains that Suzanne Nossel openly advocated, and indeed coined the term, “soft power” projection by the U.S. when she served in her last job as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at none other than the U.S. State Department. And, as Jean Bricmont notes in Humanitarian Intervention, and as Ms. Nossel herself and AI fully understand, “soft power” only works because it has the very real threat of “hard power” (including economic sanctions and military intervention) behind it. AI has sadly forgotten that the wielding of such power by the rich countries to bully the weak is forbidden by the UN Charter which prohibits both the actual use and threat of force. It is those prohibitions which must be enforced first and foremost to truly protect human rights.
What’s more, as Diana Johnstone further explained in her CounterPunch article, Suzanne Nossel, just before being hired by AI, played a direct role while at the U.S. State Department in ginning up the pretexts for the NATO intervention in Libya. Ms. Johnstone explains that, “As Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, Ms. Nossel played a role in drafting the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution on Libya. That resolution, based on exaggeratedly alarmist reports, served to justify the UN resolution which led to the NATO bombing campaign that overthrew the Gaddafi regime. “ In other words, Ms. Nossel’s role in pushing the NATO intervention was similar to that of AI’s at the time, with both pushing exaggerated, and indeed false, claims to justify stepped up action against Libya.
AI’s current attempts to distance itself from the very NATO intervention which AI and Ms. Nossel worked together to help bring about simply do not ring true. I would submit that it is time for AI to do some real soul-searching on the issue of whether it wants to serve the interests of human rights or to serve the interests of NATO and Western military intervention, for it truly cannot serve both masters.
Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh. He currently teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
HILLARY CLINTON WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED .... HAHAHHAHHAAAA
*****
International law and humanitarian organisations are a bad joke.
How many acts of aggression has the US committed since the post WWII UN charter?
The US 'defender' of the world's humanity, freedom, democracy, and all that manipulative pretext baloney, isn't even a signatory to the ICC and is exempt from being tried for war crimes, while the human rights brigade work in tandem with Western warmongers (serving corporate interests) to push the US-NATO imperialist war agenda.
Note also, backing intervention based on false reports & massive reprisals against black Libyans as a result.
Given that UN charter prohibits intervention, why are these people even backing intervention in the first place, and why aren't they all being tried somewhere?
Gaddafi - Zenga Zenga Song (Noy Alooshe Extended Version)
Financing and Manufacturing "Dissent" in America: The Ford Foundation and the CIA
by James Petras
Rebelión, 5 December / decembre 2001.
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation (CRM), globalresearch.ca , 18 September/ septembre 2002
Introduction
The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source. From the early 1950s to the present the CIA's intrusion into the foundation field was and is huge. A U.S. Congressional investigation in 1976 revealed that nearly 50% of the 700 grants in the field of international activitiesby the principal foundations were funded by the CIA (Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders, Granta Books, 1999, pp. 134-135). The CIA considers foundations such as Ford "The best and most plausible kind of funding cover" (Ibid, p. 135). The collaboration of respectable and prestigious foundations, according to one former CIA operative, allowed the Agency to fund "a seemingly limitless range of covert action programs affecting youth groups, labor unions, universities, publishing houses and other private institutions" (p. 135). The latter included "human rights" groups beginning in the 1950s to the present. One of the most important "private foundations" collaborating with the CIA over a significant span of time in major projects in the cultural Cold War is the Ford Foundation.
This essay will demonstrate that the Ford Foundation-CIA connection was a deliberate, conscious joint effort to strengthen U.S. imperial cultural hegemony and to undermine left-wing political and cultural influence. We will proceed by examining the historical links between the Ford Foundation and the CIA during the Cold War, by examining the Presidents of the Foundation, their joint projects and goals as well as their common efforts in various cultural areas.
Background: Ford Foundation and the CIA
By the late 1950s the Ford Foundation possessed over $3 billion in assets. The leaders of the Foundation were in total agreement with Washington's post-WWII projection of world power. A noted scholar of the period writes: "At times it seemed as if the Ford Foundation was simply an extension of government in the area of international cultural propaganda. The foundation had a record of close involvement in covert actions in Europe, working closely with Marshall Plan and CIA officials on specific projects" (Ibid, p.139). This is graphically illustrated by the naming of Richard Bissell as President of the Foundation in 1952. In his two years in office Bissell met often with the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, and other CIA officials in a "mutual search" for new ideas. In 1954 Bissell left Ford to become a special assistant to Allen Dulles in January 1954 (Ibid, p. 139). Under Bissell, the Ford Foundation (FF) was the "vanguard of Cold War thinking".
One of the FF first Cold War projects was the establishment of a publishing house, Inter-cultural Publications, and the publication of a magazine Perspectives in Europe in four languages. The FF purpose according to Bissell was not "so much to defeat the leftist intellectuals in dialectical combat (sic) as to lure them away from their positions" (Ibid, p. 140). The board of directors of the publishing house was completely dominated by cultural Cold Warriors. Given the strong leftist culture in Europe in the post-war period, Perspectives failed to attract readers and went bankrupt.
Another journal Der Monat funded by the Confidential Fund of the U.S. military and run by Melvin Lasky was taken over by the FF, to provide it with the appearance of independence (Ibid, p. 140).
In 1954 the new president of the FF was John McCloy. He epitomized imperial power. Prior to becoming president of the FF he had been Assistant Secretary of War, president of the World Bank, High Commissioner of occupied Germany, chairman of Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank, Wall Street attorney for the big seven oil companies and director of numerous corporations. As High Commissioner in Germany, McCloy had provided cover for scores of CIA agents (Ibid, p. 141).
McCloy integrated the FF with CIA operations. He created an administrative unit within the FF specifically to deal with the CIA. McCloy headed a three person consultation committee with the CIA to facilitate the use of the FF for a cover and conduit of funds. With these structural linkages the FF was one of those organizations the CIA was able to mobilize for political warfare against the anti-imperialist and pro-communist left. Numerous CIA "fronts" received major FF grants. Numerous supposedly "independent" CIA sponsored cultural organizations, human rights groups, artists and intellectualsreceived CIA/FF grants. One of the biggest donations of the FF was to the CIA organized Congress for Cultural Freedom which received $7 million by the early 1960s. Numerous CIA operatives secured employment in the FF and continued close collaboration with the Agency (Ibid, p. 143).
From its very origins there was a close structural relation and interchange of personnel at the highest levels between the CIA and the FF. This structural tie was based on the common imperial interests which they shared. The result of their collaboration was the proliferation of a number of journals and access to the mass media which pro-U.S. intellectuals used to launch vituperative polemics against Marxists and other anti-imperialists. The FF funding of these anti-Marxists organizations and intellectuals provided a legal cover for their claims of being "independent" of government funding (CIA).
The FF funding of CIA cultural fronts was important in recruiting non-communist intellectuals who were encouraged to attack the Marxist and communist left. Many of these non-communist leftists later claimed that they were "duped", that had they known that the FF was fronting for the CIA, they would not have lent their name and prestige. This disillusionment of the anti-communist left however took place after revelations of the FF-CIA collaboration were published in the press. Were these anti-communist social democrats really so naiveas to believe that all the Congresses at luxury villas and five star hotels in Lake Como, Paris and Rome, all the expensive art exhibits and glossy magazines were simple acts of voluntary philanthropy? Perhaps. But even the most naive must have been aware that in all the Congresses and journals the target of criticism was "Soviet imperialism" and "Communist tyranny" and "leftist apologists of dictatorship" -- despite the fact that it was an open secret that the U.S. intervened to overthrow the democratic Arbenz government in Guatemala and the Mossadegh regime in Iran and human rights were massively violated by U.S. backed dictators in Cuba, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
The "indignation" and claims of "innocence" by many anti-communist left intellectuals after their membership in CIA cultural fronts was revealed must be taken with a large amount of cynical skepticism. One prominent journalist, Andrew Kopkind, wrote of a deep sense of moral disillusionment with the private foundation-funded CIA cultural fronts. Kopkind wrote
"The distance between the rhetoric of the open society and the reality of control was greater than anyone thought. Everyone who went abroad for an American organization was, in one way or another, a witness to the theory that the world was torn between communism and democracy and anything in between was treason. The illusion of dissent was maintained: the CIA supported socialist cold warriors, fascist cold warriors, black and white cold warriors. The catholicity and flexibility of the CIA operations were major advantages. But it was a sham pluralism and it was utterly corrupting" (Ibid, pp. 408-409)."
When a U.S. journalist Dwight Macdonald who was an editor of Encounter (a FF-CIA funded influential cultural journal) sent an article critical of U.S. culture and politics it was rejected by the editors, working closely with the CIA (Ibid, pp. 314-321). In the field of painting and theater the CIA worked with the FF to promote abstract expressionism against any artistic expression with a social content, providing funds and contacts for highly publicized exhibits in Europe and favorable reviews by "sponsored" journalists. The interlocking directorate between the CIA, the Ford Foundation and the New York Museum of Modern Artlead to a lavish promotion of "individualistic" art remote from the people -- and a vicious attack on European painters, writers and playwrights writing from a critical realist perspective. "Abstract Expressionism" whatever its artist's intention became a weapon in the Cold War (Ibid, p. 263).
The Ford Foundation's history of collaboration and interlock with the CIA in pursuit of U.S. world hegemony is now a well-documented fact. The remaining issue is whether that relationship continues into the new Millenium after the exposures of the 1960s? The FF made some superficial changes. They are more flexible in providing small grants to human rights groups and academic researchers who occasionally dissent from U.S. policy. They are not as likely to recruit CIA operatives to head the organization. More significantly they are likely to collaborate more openly with the U.S. government in its cultural and educational projects, particularly with the Agency of International Development.
The FF has in some ways refined their style of collaboration with Washington's attempt to produce world cultural domination, but retained the substance of that policy. For example the FF is very selective in the funding of educational institutions. Like the IMF, the FF imposes conditions such as the "professionalization" of academic personnel and "raising standards." In effect this translates into the promotion of social scientific work based on the assumptions, values and orientations of the U.S. empire; to have professionals de-linked from the class struggle and connected with pro-imperial U.S. academics and foundation functionaries supporting the neo-liberal model.
As in the 1950s and 60s the Ford Foundation today selectively funds anti-leftist human rights groups which focus on attacking human rights violations of U.S. adversaries, and distancing themselves from anti-imperialist human rights organizations and leaders. The FF has developed a sophisticated strategy of funding human rights groups (HRGs) that appeal to Washington to change its policy while denouncing U.S. adversaries their "systematic" violations. The FF supports HRGs which equate massive state terror by the U.S. with individual excesses of anti-imperialist adversaries. The FF finances HRGs which do not participate in anti-globalization and anti-neoliberal mass actions and which defend the Ford Foundation as a legitimate and generous "non-governmental organization".
History and contemporary experience tells us a different story. At a time when government over-funding of cultural activities by Washington is suspect, the FF fulfills a very important role in projecting U.S. cultural policies as an apparently "private" non-political philanthropic organization. The ties between the top officials of the FF and the U.S. government are explicit and continuing. A review of recently funded projects reveals that the FF has never funded any major project that contravenes U.S. policy.
In the current period of a major U.S. military-political offensive, Washington has posed the issue as "terrorism or democracy," just as during the Cold War it posed the question as "Communism or Democracy." In both instances the Empire recruited and funded "front organizations, intellectuals and journalists to attack its anti-imperialist adversaries and neutralize its democratic critics. The Ford Foundation is well situated to replay its role as collaborator to cover for the New Cultural Cold War.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghampton University, New York, and author of: Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century with Henry Veltmeyer (Zed Books, 2001) James Petras is a frequent CRG contributor. His web site in English is at: http://www.rebelion.org/petrasenglish.htm A superset list of his articles in Spanish is at: http://www.rebelion.org/petras.htm
Copyright James Petras 2001, For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .
No time to check out his other articles right now, but I'm sure to come back to him.
The Stephen Lendman review of the Petras book is contained in Part II of the article link (3) above. Trouble finding it. Good luck to those with more patience than I have.
Checked internet to find out more about that flogged woman photo:
Saudi Arabia: Moroccan Woman Flagellated Over Prostitution Charges
Rabat -A Moroccan woman has been sentenced to flogging and imprisonment after she has allegedly been caught by Saudi Arabian police while offering sex services for money.
From the Moroccan newspaper article, that photo on Twitter isn't what it purports to be, which is very annoying (and which probably explains why the tweet/post may have been blocked or deleted).
However, the flogging and imprisonment of individuals who offer sexual services isn't exactly a humane act and religious (or moral) police isn't really a democratic ideal.
..............................
Here's an example of a Saudi Arabia flogging, from DailyMail:
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976
Blogger sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes set to be publicly flogged in Saudi Arabia for 'insulting 'Islam'
A Saudi blogger will be publicly flogged tomorrow as part of his 10-year jail term for 'ridiculing Islamic religious figures'.
Raif Badawi, who co-founded the Free Saudi Liberals website, was arrested in 2012 and sentenced to 1,000 lashes and a decade in prison for insulting Islam on his online forum.
His corporal punishment will be carried out after Friday prayers, outside the Al-Juffali mosque in Jiddah, which has earned the grisly nickname 'Chop Chop Square' as the site of executions.
There's also a photo of a recent public beheading of a woman in Saudi Arabia currently doing the rounds.
The leaked video was removed from YouTube, which I think is wrong.
Removing that type of content is taking part in whitewashing what is really taking place, and I think that's wrong & what becomes public should remain public and should be available to those that wish to witness it (however appalling the content).
Below is an article on the subject published in Daily Mail:
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976
Step-mother screams her innocence before being beheaded for murdering and sexually abusing six-year-old daughter in leaked footage that has outraged Saudi Arabia
To an outsider who has encountered some of these beheading photos online, it looks as if the authorities just take people out to car parks or beaches or other public places and lop their heads off with swords.
Find this really disturbing, so I haven't looked closely at the beheadings (which are quite a common occurrence).
..............................
More on beheadings in Saudi Arabia:
Saudi Arabia steps up beheadings; some see political message
Saudi Arabia beheaded 26 people in August, more than in the first seven months of the year combined. The total for the year now stands at 59, compared to 69 for all of last year, according to Human Rights Watch.
The figures referred to in the Reuters article (above) are figures for 2014, to publishing date: 20 October 2014. Think the grand total for 2014 is in the high 80s.
Yep. Saudi Arabia "executed 87 people in 2014" (Breitbart News-17 Jan 2015)
King Abdullah, a feminist? Don’t make me laugh
Christine Lagarde has praised the Saudi despot’s contribution to women’s rights. But his record was dismal and the more we shout about it, the better
Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the IMF, has paid tribute to the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He was a strong advocate of women, she said.
Hillary Clinton Photo: Associated Press, Source: DailyMail
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976
Foreign leaders gave lavish gifts to a number of U.S. officials last year, including the Saudi Arabian king, who gave Hillary Clinton diamond-and-ruby-encrusted jewels worth half a million dollars.
Clinton's gifts from King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz - which included a necklace, bracelet, earrings and a ring - were by far the most expensive items among the hundreds of gifts given to U.S. officials in 2012.
The West has some disturbing social issues of its own:
Death Penalty - USA
According to a Sputnik article on the cruelty of lethal injections and US Supreme Court case on whether execution by lethal injection violates the US Constitution:
The death penalty is authorized in a total of 38 US States.
The death penalty is barbaric, whether carried out in America or in Saudi Arabia.
..............................
Ireland's lack of action on blasphemy law disappoints atheists and secularists
Irish atheists and secularists have accused their government of breaking a promise to call a referendum over the Republic’s controversial blasphemy laws in the lifetime of the current coalition.
For a civilised and presumably secular Western nation to retain a medieval blasphemy law is ridiculous beyond belief.
..............................
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish classrooms
Last year, the Scottish Secularist Society (SSS) petitioned MSPs to urge the Scottish Government to bar the "presentation" of young earth doctrines as viable alternatives to the established science of evolution in the classroom.
The SSS believes schools are being subjected to what they describe as an "attack" on established scientific theories from imported US doctrines known as creation science and intelligent design.
However, School Leaders' Scotland (SLS), which represents secondary headteachers, the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), the country's largest teaching union, and the Scottish Government all wrote to the committee outlining their objections.
These organisations backed the long-standing principle that protection from extremist views in Scottish education relies on the professionalism of teaching staff and the regulatory role of bodies such as local authorities, the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the schools inspectorate.
However, in a new submission to the public petitions committee the SSS said sufficient safeguards were not in place and creationism was "institutionalised".
School chaplaincy program funding revised following High Court decision
The Federal Government has announced changes to its school chaplaincy program to get around a recent adverse High Court decision.
In June, the court upheld a challenge to the National School Chaplaincy Program, saying providing funding directly to chaplaincy organisations was constitutionally invalid.
The main question examined in the case was whether the executive government had the power to fund such programs directly through local organisations.
As a result, the Government has now decided to ask state and territory governments to administer the program using Commonwealth funds.
If they agree, the $250 million program - to run over four years - will remain open to chaplains of any faith as long as they do not attempt to convert students.
And religion is to be promoted in secular Australian schools, why?
Being of the view that religion and the State (including services of the State, such as education etc) should be completely separated (and, in an ideal world, religiosity of any kind would be actively discouraged by government), the swing towards forcing religion in Western schools is disturbing.
..............................
Stop the Government paying for religion with your taxes! End the National Schools Chaplaincy Program now!
That the Liberal government in Australia has bypassed the High Court and the Australian Constitution to sneak in religious mumbo jumbo while cutting funding for secular services should be a real cause for concern.
This program should be opposed as direct government funding of religion bad public policy. Taxpayers' money spent in education should employ the best people available to help students, not just the religious.The preferencing of the religious, over the non-religious, for no reason other than their religiousness, is unacceptable in Government policy, particularly at a Commonwealth level. At the very least all schools should to given the choice employ non-religious counsellors or welfare workers under this program, not just those that cannot find a chaplain.
The NSCP breaches the spirit of the Australian Constitution. It undermines the separation of church and state.
Going through the above articles, one comes to the conclusion that Western ruling elites exhibit hypocrisy and a disregard for national symbols, which they cynically exploit without regard for public opinion or sentiment, to further corporate-imperialist and strategic aims in the Middle East, and it's a win-win for corporations and politicians in a corporate-political alliance that sees both players profiting handsomely.
Meanwhile, if left to the devices of politicians, what freedoms we have in the West will be eroded by unscrupulous politicians, passing legislation to further the agendas of whoever has propped them up in politics.
That the Liberal party in Australia has sidestepped a High Court ruling, and that it is willing to disregard the Australian Constitution by finding a by-pass that enables them to pursue the Liberal (and backer) agenda, should be of grave concern to the Australian public.
There's probably a whole lot more that could be said, but I'm not much of a thinker or a blogger. This is just my overall opinion on current events, given my particular focus.
