Opium Wars

Opium Wars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6p9ox_T8LE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1j4Gb9ege4  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk6gfAtwZ7Q Watching this.   Making another batch of yoghurt, & trying to gear up toward marinading chicken wings (not real keen). Love the old footage of Hong Kong.

American Oligarchy's Insatiable Greed Courts War

American Oligarchy's Insatiable Greed Courts War Paul Craig Robert via Russia Insider World War III Has Already Begun But how long before the phoney war stage turns hot? Paul Craig Roberts Subscribe to Paul Craig Roberts (Off Guardian) Subscribe to Off Guardian Fri, Apr 29, 2016 Originally appeared at Off Guardian Washington is currently conducting economic and propaganda warfare against four members of the five bloc group of countries known as BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Brazil and South Africa are being destabilized with fabricated political scandals. Both countries are rife with Washington-financed politicians and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Washington concocts a scandal, sends its political agents into action demanding action against the government and its NGOs into the streets in protests.  [Comment:  That must be the South American Maidan agitating.   So this is how it's done.  Wonder if that was Soros shills out there on the streets of California, rioting and harassing Trump, in pursuit of Killary victory?] Washington tried this against China with the orchestrated Hong Kong “student protest.” Washington hoped that the protest would spread into China, but the scheme failed. Washington tried this against Russia with the orchestrated protests against Putin’s reelection and failed again. To destablilze Russia, Washington needs a firmer hold inside Russia. In order to gain a firmer hold, Washington worked with the New York mega-banks and the Saudis to drive down the oil price from over $100 per barrel to $30. This has put pressure on Russian finances and the ruble. In response to Russia’s budgetary needs, Washington’s allies inside Russia are pushing President Putin to privatize important Russian economic sectors in order to raise foreign capital to cover the budget deficit and support the ruble. If Putin gives in, important Russian assets will move from Russian control to Washington’s control. In my opinion, those who are pushing privatization are either traitors or completely stupid. Whichever it is, they are a danger to Russia’s independence. Eric Draitser provides some details of Washington’s assault on Russia here. And of Washington’s attack on South Africa here. And of Washington’s attack on Brazil here. For my column on Washington’s attack on Latin American independence, see here. As I have often pointed out, the neoconservatives have been driven insane by their arrogance and hubris. In their pursuit of American hegemony over the world, they have cast aside all caution in their determination to destabilize Russia and China. By implementing neoliberal economic policies urged on them by their economists trained in the Western neoliberal tradition, the Russian and Chinese governments are setting themselves up for Washington. By swallowing the “globalism” line, using the US dollar, participating in the Western payments system, opening themselves to destabilization by foreign capital inflows and outflows, hosting American banks, and permitting foreign ownership, the Russian and Chinese governments have made themselves ripe for destabilization. If Russia and China do not disengage from the Western system and exile their neoliberal economists, they will have to go to war in order to defend their sovereignty. http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/world-war-iii-had-already-begun/ri14145 -------/\/\/ COMMENT What Washington / Wall Street & their Saudi Arab allies are doing to Russia is criminal.  This is war on the Russian people, just like their decade-long sanctions war on the Iranian people. It's this same crew that's: destroyed a succession of African and Middle Eastern countries; responsible for the ongoing destruction of Europe by mass immigration invasion (and, quite likely also, the creditors that are pulling the strings of sovereign debt enslavement of multiple European countries); punishing the entire population of Russia, which is a poor country (judging by exchange rates for rubles). And all of this is happening so that Washington, Wall Street & Arabs can engineer more global exploitation, economic rape, population enslavement, political upheaval,  and general destruction ... when not otherwise creating conditions for outright war. Arm the Ayatolla, now!   Please nuke them, Russia.

Russia's Nuke Capabilities, Western PsyOps & EU-NATO 'Refugee Crisis' PsyOp Invasion of Europe

ꕤ Article SOURCE Счастливого Рождества России Schastlivogo Rozhdestva Rossii http://www.therussophile.org/pepe-escobar-russia-and-its-lethal-arsenal-is-ready-for-war.html/ Originally Published:  scott.net Pepe Escobar: Russia and its lethal arsenal is ready for war Ashley Bailey ⋅ 16.12.2015 Nobody needs to read Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski’s 1997 opus to know US foreign policy revolves around one single overarching theme: prevent – by all means necessary – the emergence of a power, or powers, capable of constraining Washington’s unilateral swagger, not only in Eurasia but across the world. The Pentagon carries the same message embedded in newspeak: the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine. Syria is leading all these assumptions to collapse like a house of cards. So no wonder in a Beltway under no visible chain of command – the Obama administration barely qualifies as lame duck – angst is the norm. The Pentagon is now engaged in a Vietnam-style escalation of boots on the ground across “Syraq”. 50 commandos are already in northern Syria “advising” the YPG Syrian Kurds as well as a few “moderate” Sunnis. Translation: telling them what Washington wants them to do. The official White House spin is that these commandos “support local forces” (Obama’s words) in cutting off supply lines leading to the fake “Caliphate” capital, Raqqa. Another 200 Special Forces sent to Iraq will soon follow, allegedly to “engage in direct combat” against the leadership of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, which is now ensconced in Mosul. These developments, billed as “efforts” to “partially re-engage in Iraq and Syria” are leading US Think Tankland to pen hilarious reports in search of “the perfect balance between wide-scale invasion and complete disengagement” – when everyone knows Washington will never disengage from the Middle East’s strategic oil wealth. All these American boots on the ground in theory should be coordinating, soon, with a new, spectacularly surrealist 34-country “Islamic” coalition (Iran was not invited), set up to fight ISIS/ISIL/Daesh by no less than the ideological matrix of all strands of Salafi-jihadism: Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. Syria is now Coalition Central. There are at least four; the “4+1” (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq plus Hezbollah), which is actually fighting Daesh; the US-led coalition, a sort of mini NATO-GCC combo, but with the GCC doing nothing; the Russia-France direct military collaboration; and the new Saudi-led “Islamic” charade. They are pitted against an astonishing number of Salafi-jhadi coalitions and alliances of convenience that last from a few months to a few hours. And then there’s Turkey, which under Sultan Erdogan plays a vicious double game. Sarajevo All Over Again? “Tense” does not even begin to describe the current Russia-Turkey geopolitical tension, which shows no sign of abating. The Empire of Chaos lavishly profits from it as a privileged spectator; as long as the tension lasts, prospects of Eurasia integration are hampered. Russian intel has certainly played all possible scenarios involving a NATO Turkish army on the Turkish-Syrian border as well as the possibility of Ankara closing the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles for the Russian “Syria Express”. Erdogan may not be foolish enough to offer Russia yet another casus belli. But Moscow is taking no chances. Russia has placed ships and submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles in case Turkey under the cover of NATO decides to strike out against the Russian position. President Putin has been clear; Russia will use nuclear weapons if necessary if conventional forces are threatened. If Ankara opts for a suicide mission of knocking out yet another Su-24, or Su-34, Russia will simply clear the airspace all across the border via the S-400s. If Ankara under the cover of NATO responds by launching the Turkish Army on Russian positions, Russia will use nuclear missiles, drawing NATO into war not only in Syria but potentially also in Europe. And this would include using nuclear missiles to keep Russian strategic use of the Bosphorus open. That’s how we can draw a parallel of Syria today as the equivalent of Sarajevo 1914. Since mid-2014 the Pentagon has run all manner of war games – as many as 16 times, under different scenarios – pitting NATO against Russia. All scenarios were favorable to NATO. All simulations yielded the same victor: Russia. And that’s why Erdogan’s erratic behavior actually terrifies quite a few real players from Washington to Brussels. Let Me Take You on a Missile Cruise The Pentagon is very much aware of the tremendous heavy metal Russia may unleash if provoked to the limit by someone like Erdogan. Let’s roll out an abridged list. Russia can use the mighty SS-18 – which NATO codenames “Satan”; each “Satan” carries 10 warheads, with a yield of 750 to 1000 kilotons each, enough to destroy an area the size of New York state. The Topol M ICBM is the world’s fastest missile at 21 Mach (16,000 miles an hour); against it, there’s no defense. Launched from Moscow, it hits New York City in 18 minutes, and L.A. in 22.8 minutes. Russian submarines – as well as Chinese submarines – are able to launch offshore the US, striking coastal targets within a minute. Chinese submarines have surfaced next to US aircraft carriers undetected, and Russian submarines can do the same. The S-500 anti-missile system is capable of sealing Russia off from ICBMs and cruise missiles. (Moscow will only admit on the record that the S-500s will be rolled out in 2016; but the fact the S-400s will soon be delivered to China implies the S-500s may be already operational.) The S-500 makes the Patriot missile look like a V-2 from WWII. Here, a former adviser to the US Chief of Naval Operations essentially goes on the record saying the whole US missile defense apparatus is worthless.  [comment:  I wouldn't be relying on that.  US military just wants more funding.] Russia has a supersonic bomber fleet of Tupolev Tu-160s; they can take off from airbases deep in the heart of Russia, fly over the North Pole, launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from safe distances over the Atlantic, and return home to watch the whole thing on TV. Russia can cripple virtually every forward NATO base with tactical – or battlefield – small-yield nuclear weapons. It’s not by accident that Russia over the past few months tested NATO response times in multiple occasions. The Iskander missile travels at seven times the speed of sound with a range of 400 km. It’s deadly to airfields, logistics points and other stationary infrastructure along a broad war theatre, for instance in southern Turkey. NATO would need to knock out all these Iskanders. But then they would need to face the S-400s – or, worse, S-500s — which Russia can layer in defense zones in nearly every conceivable theater of war.  Positioning the S-400s in Kaliningrad, for instance, would cripple all NATO air operations deep inside Europe. And presiding over military decisions, Russia privileges the use of Reflexive Control (RC). This is a tactic that aims to convey selected information to the enemy that forces him into making self-defeating decisions; a sort of virus influencing and controlling his decision-making process. Russia uses RC tactically, strategically and geopolitically. A young Vladimir Putin learned all there is to know about RC at the 401st KGB School and further on in his career as a KGB/FSB officer. All right, Erdogan and NATO; do you still wanna go to war? http://www.therussophile.org/pepe-escobar-russia-and-its-lethal-arsenal-is-ready-for-war.html/ Full-spectrum dominance aka full-spectrum superiority strategic doctrine control over all dimensions of battlespace / warfare: terrestrial aerial maritime subterranean extraterrestrial psychological biotechnological cyber-technological Professor Philip M Taylor University of Leeds an expert consultant to the US and UK govts re psychological ops, propaganda & diplomacy -- 2005,  global information environment control dismissed by Prof Philip Taylor: full-spectrum dominance in global information environment impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance Missed Perceptions By Jason Vest  | December 1, 2005 No one is sure how well psychological operations have worked in Afghanistan or Iraq, but that's not stopping efforts to step them up, using contractors to do it. From the State Department to the Pentagon, winning hearts and minds is an increasingly important element of U.S. national security strategy. But while Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes has been the highest-profile example of U.S. public relations in action, the Defense Department quietly has been tinkering with its own systems of overseas influence. Among these are psychological operations, or PSYOPS. But after-action reports on the invasion of Iraq are skeptical about PSYOPS' success, and a psychological operations unit in Afghanistan recently tried to "demoralize" the enemy by desecrating Islamic corpses. Questions about these matters have led some policymakers to wonder how enhancing PSYOPS will complement other elements of military information operations, such as public diplomacy and public affairs. In addition, increasing reliance on contractors to conduct these operations is raising eyebrows, especially because the contract prices aren't small and some firms hired have murky pasts. Psychological operations, defined by the military as the "systematic process of conveying messages to selected foreign groups to promote particular themes that result in desired foreign attitudes and behaviors," traditionally have been the nearly exclusive purview of the 4th PSYOPS Group (Airborne) of the Army's Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the military services have shown renewed interest in mass persuasion. For example, two-and-a-half years ago at Fort Bragg, N.C., the Army unveiled its Special Operations Forces Media Operations Complex, a 51,756-square-foot facility replete with all the tools 4th PSYOPS requires-printing presses, studios and digital audiovisual production facilities-in the service of producing materials to win hearts and minds wherever the U.S. military finds itself in the world. Col. James A. Treadwell, the 4th's commander, said at the time that the facility's opening "marks PSYOPS as a growth field." But PSYOPS had entered a boom phase well before the new complex's ribbon was cut. From the post-9/11 involvement in Afghanistan to the end of what have been termed "major combat operations" in Iraq, Army PSYOPS units produced a deluge of media, including but not limited to 150 million flyers and leaflets and more than 20,000 radio broadcasts in Afghanistan and Iraq. And in the wake of Baghdad's collapse, there was a tremendous sense of satisfaction that a virtually uninterrupted flow of PSYOPS material had played a critical role in hastening the almost anticlimactic end of Iraq's military. But when the Army's mammoth Operation Iraqi Freedom lessons-learned report was published in 2004, it revealed that PSYOPS weren't all they were cracked up to be. Part of this had nothing to do with quality; some PSYOPS units had been incredibly useful, but failed in their duty as "force multipliers" simply because there weren't enough of them. This was hardly surprising, as PSYOPS accounts for only 4,800 soldiers, 76 percent of whom are reservists. But the report also concluded that, for reasons that had nothing to do with numbers, PSYOPS simply hadn't had as profound an effect as some had thought. Not long after the lessons-learned report, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board-echoing an earlier Defense Planning Guidance report and a somewhat neglected 2003 Pentagon "Information Operations Roadmap"-concluded that when it came to conception and coordination of strategic communications, including PSYOPS, the military's efforts had languished. The board strongly endorsed a number of nascent structural and philosophical efforts at Defense and elsewhere to win a global battle of ideas. So about two years ago, Treadwell was ordered from piney Fort Bragg to subtropical Tampa, Fla., where, from MacDill Air Force Base, he now commands one of the newest and perhaps least known elements of Special Operations Command: the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element (JPSE, or more colloquially, "gypsy"). Described in official literature as a unit comprising "more than 50 senior military and civilians with a deep knowledge of psychological operations," JPSE's raison d'être isn't to horn in on the Army's PSYOPS turf, but rather to spare commanders across services and commands the agony of going through multiple layers of bureaucracy for support. And, according to a press release earlier this year, JPSE is devoting itself not to the darker aspects of psychological warfare but to propagating truthful messages. In addition to facilitating more agile PSYOPS support, JPSE also is beginning to do something psychological operations traditionally hasn't: consider the big picture, according to Professor Philip M. Taylor of England's University of Leeds. "PSYOPS has really only worked in tactical/operations contexts, but in today's global infosphere, there's no longer any such thing as tactical information-everything has a strategic capability. This is where PSYOPS has traditionally been weak," says Taylor, one of the world's leading experts on psychological operations, public diplomacy and propaganda, and a consultant to the American and British governments. "JPSE is a recognition that 4th PSYOPS has been quite effective at the tactical/operational levels but less so at the strategic, and is part of the roadmap by which all components of information operations are to become more closely coordinated than they have thus far." Policymakers have realized, he adds, that mechanisms of delivery and the messages themselves have to be integrated. Nancy Snow, senior research fellow at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy and adjunct assistant professor with USC's Annenberg School for Communication, adds that when it comes to trying to create a unified front in the practice of strategic communications, it's not uncommon for each tactical element to see itself as holding the magic strategic bullet. Thus, it's devilishly difficult to bring order to communications chaos, leading Taylor to wonder whether such integration, including that of PSYOPS, can be accomplished. A Mixed Bag PSYOPS have been a part of American military and intelligence endeavors since World War II. They range from above-board and even earnest to devious and mendacious. One of the problems with persuasion and perception manipulation is that success is not always easy to gauge and can become the subject of fierce debates. Policymakers and practitioners alike are grappling with this reality as they seek to figure out the PSYOPS part of a larger strategic communications equation. Pre-invasion airdropped leaflets, for example, historically have been intended to affect a population by countering disinformation, promoting ideology and image, and appealing to the survival instincts of soldiers and civilians. Studying the leafleting efforts of the Army's 4th Psychological Warfare Group in 2002-2003, two University of Texas professors found that the majority of leaflets dropped on Iraq were of the survival motif, exhorting Iraqi soldiers to quickly surrender and imploring Iraqi civilians to shelter in place during the invasion, as well as to preserve their oil facilities. Given the quick collapse of the Iraqi military and the lack of refugee crisis that certain Pentagon planners were convinced was inevitable, some observers, including the Texas professors, posited that the 4th's leafleting efforts played a key role in the successful invasion. Yet as some in the military noted then and later, there was no metric for objectively determining this. "In retrospect, [the leaflets] did seem to have the effect intended," wrote Lt. Col. Steven Collins in "Mind Games," a paper published in the summer 2003 issue of NATO Review. But, he added, just as PSYOPS is geared to slant perceptions, so too, can perceptions slant the analysis of psychological operations. The problem with the leaflets was "the problem with all PSYOPS actions: the difficulty in determining the cause of behavior during a war. Did the Iraqi military melt away primarily as a result of PSYOPS, or of bombing by coalition aircraft, or of lack of logistical support, or a combination of all three?" At best, Collins concluded, PSYOPS' role "remains an important variable to determine." In early 2004, the Army Command General and Staff College's Combined Arms Research Library published a detailed study of major combat operations in Iraq. Its conclusion: PSYOPS were at best a mixed bag. "PSYOPS units can point with satisfaction to success in minimizing damage to the oil fields and keeping civilians off roads," it said. "However, they do so with risk since there is very little evidence available yet to support that contention. . . . Moreover, the PSYOPS effort enjoyed far less success in encouraging Iraqi units to surrender. . . . PSYOPS produced much less than expected and perhaps less than claimed." Such considerations have led some to wonder whether military efforts such as JPSE are neglecting ways to improve PSYOPS in its strongest areas, tactical and operational, by beginning to dabble in the strategic. In a 2004 briefing, Marine Col. G.I. Wilson and two retired military officers observed that the problem with PSYOPS has less to do with the operations themselves and more to do with how they are, or are not, integrated into existing combat forces. Holding that psychological and information operations should be incorporated into every basic military consideration, Wilson and his colleagues suggested that in places such as Iraq, "regional fusion centers" should be established where the tactical and strategic mission specialists could work together to help frame and guide ongoing operations. Similarly, a recent National Defense University study held that the priority for PSYOPS should be doctrinal and structural reforms focused on the tactical level, because it's impossible for military PSYOPS to adequately compensate for a weak national strategic communications program. And, says Taylor, even the most ambitious and effective PSYOPS reform can be easily undermined by soldiers' actions, for example, desecrating Afghan bodies or the Koran. "Democracies are their own worst enemies in this field," he says. "It's true, though rarely recognized in the control-freakery world of the military, that full spectrum dominance is impossible in the global information environment," even over U.S. soldiers. 'Sorry, It Wasn't Us' Further, Taylor adds, groups contracted by the government to do PSYOPS or related work and analysis also can do damage. "There are plenty who have messed up and been fired; there are risks," he says. "But if the attitude is 'Something has to be done,' who is going to do it? There are so many PR firms willing to take bucks from the U.S. government. "Outsourcing is either a sign of recognition that the military is not terribly good at certain types of persuasion, or a way of distancing the U.S. government from the messages. If that company then does something which is controversial, the government can say, 'Sorry, it wasn't us, but we'll fire the company that did this supposedly in our name.' " Those concerned about the state of both PSYOPS and contracting paid close attention to JPSE's June announcement that it was giving indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity contracts to three contractors for media approach planning, prototype product development, commercial quality product development, product distribution and dissemination, and media effects analysis. While JPSE commander Treadwell said the initial contracts were likely to be in the $250,000 range, the potential maximum value of each tender, $100 million, stirred great interest as did the choice of contractors. It wasn't necessarily surprising that Arlington, Va.-based defense contractor SYColeman got one of the JPSE tenders, based on its formidable number of existing contracts with the Pentagon; media work, however, is not something the company lists among its core competencies. Similarly, while San Diego-based Science Applications International Corp. has dozens of offices worldwide devoted to administering its Pentagon contracts, most of SAIC's work has been in the areas of engineering, systems and quantitative analysis, not media. Indeed, the last time it won a contract for media work-specifically, setting up post-Saddam television operations in Iraq-it performed with such ineptitude that the company was excoriated not just by the Pentagon inspector general and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., but also by its former project manager. SAIC ultimately lost that contract. Also inviting curiosity has been Lincoln Group, which despite having virtually no public profile and no demonstrable history in strategic communications-and having gone through multiple changes in name and orientation in less than three years-has landed two major media contracts with the U.S. military in the past year. "A lot of these things go on if not in secret, [then] kind of out of view with very little tracking or public accountability, and as such, we don't really know when things go wrong," says USC's Snow. "But none of it really addresses whether any of this will have any impact if the people they're trying to reach just won't have any of it because we have unpopular policies." http://www.govexec.com/magazine/features/2005/12/missed-perceptions/20710/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT That was interesting. Can't make out the first article. What are the chances of the Syria thing blowing up into a WWIII? Would Russia really nuke Turkey? I've no idea. Think it's rather cool how Chinese and Russian subs can creep up on US ships undetected. Eighteen minutes to hit target seems like a long time to me.  That would be 18 minutes in which the target can either knock out your projectile and/or launch a barrage of projectiles back at you. I'll probably forget most of this, and  I certainly won't remember weapons numbers. What is cool is having confirmation for what I figured earlier:  warmongers know that they will create displaced persons. That means that those displaced in the Middle East and in Africa as result of military intervention COULD have been planned for, just as I suspected. As in, they could have set up in-situ facilities instead of letting Europe get invaded, like they have, the dirty, disgusting, and negligent dogs that these politicians are. The 'refugee crisis' spin and the whole 'Syrian refugees' Western media propaganda was a PsyOp to leverage forcing foreigners onto Europe's peoples (and manipulate public opinion), instead of the warmonger American empire paying for the support of non-European foreigners in-situ or transferring displaced (and other sundry invaders) to  USA soil. In fact, the US empire isn't paying for maintenance of the displaced (plus economically motivated invaders) that have been forced on Europeans:  it's European taxpayers that have forked out the money for the upkeep &  European taxpayers paying Turkey to ostensibly keep them out ... only Europe isn't shutting its borders, so that $3.2-billion to Turkey is probably going towards funding terrorists in the Middle East. Also, there's a correlation between the duration of war and the displaced, that's worth remembering. However, the vast majority of NATO-Merkel's 'Syrian refugees' are in fact economic immigrants from other Middle Eastern and African locations. So, what is with that? It looks like the assh*les of NATO-European Union sent out an invitation to Asia and Africa to deliberately relocate a regional population, to probably get a depopulation of Syria under-way (ie to encourage one), in an effort to weaken Syria, and the secondary gain might be some wage slaves among the tide of non-Europeans (and the reward for corporations is driving down European wages). I wish Europeans would take up arms and take down their pig governments that are destroying Europe. ꕤ

National Endowment for Democracy ('NED') A CIA Trojan Horse / NED & WaPO Propaganda

SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/30/why-russia-shut-down-ned-fronts/ Why Russia Shut Down NED Fronts July 30, 2015 Exclusive: The neocon-flagship Washington Post fired a propaganda broadside at President Putin for shutting down the Russian activities of the National Endowment for Democracy, but left out key facts like NED’s U.S. government funding, its quasi-CIA role, and its plans for regime change in Moscow, writes Robert Parry. By Robert Parry The Washington Post’s descent into the depths of neoconservative propaganda – willfully misleading its readers on matters of grave importance – apparently knows no bounds as was demonstrated with two deceptive articles regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin and why his government is cracking down on “foreign agents.” If you read the Post’s editorial on Wednesday and a companion op-ed by National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, you would have been led to believe that Putin is delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations represents a threat to Russian sovereignty. Russian President Vladimir Putin laying a wreath at Russia's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on May 8, 2014, as part of the observance of the World War II Victory over Germany. The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians have enacted laws requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” – and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED. The Post’s editors wrote that Putin’s “latest move, announced Tuesday, is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’ “The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED’s grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin’s ramparts. … “The new law on ‘undesirables’ comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ‘foreign agents’ if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage.” But there are several salient facts that the Post’s editors surely know but don’t want you to know. The first is that NED is a U.S. government-funded organization created in 1983 to do what the Central Intelligence Agency previously had done in financing organizations inside target countries to advance U.S. policy interests and, if needed, help in “regime change.” The secret hand behind NED’s creation was CIA Director William J. Casey who worked with senior CIA covert operation specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to establish NED in 1983. Casey – from the CIA – and Raymond – from his assignment inside President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council – focused on creating a funding mechanism to support groups inside foreign countries that would engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. To partially replace that CIA role, the idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money. But Casey recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III – as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.” NED Is Born The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured. But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation. This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill. The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented, not fully recognizing the significance of the demand. The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration’s choice of Carl Gershman to head the National Endowment for Democracy, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy. Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED’s first (and, to this day, only) president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC. For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that “Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.” Currently, Gershman’s NED dispenses more than $100 million a year in U.S. government funds to various NGOs, media outlets and activists around the world. The NED also has found itself in the middle of political destabilization campaigns against governments that have gotten on the wrong side of U.S. foreign policy. For instance, prior to the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, NED was funding scores of projects. A second point left out of the Post’s editorial was the fact that Gershman took a personal hand in the Ukraine crisis and recognized it as an interim step toward regime change in Moscow. On Sept. 26, 2013, Gershman published an op-ed in the Washington Post that called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and explained how pulling it into the Western camp could contribute to the ultimate defeat of Russian President Putin. “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” Gershman wrote. “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” In other words, NED is a U.S. government-financed entity that has set its sights on ousting Russia’s current government. A third point that the Post ignored is that the Russian law requiring outside-funded political organizations to register as “foreign agents” was modeled on a US law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. In other words, the U.S. government also requires individuals and entities working for foreign interests and seeking to influence U.S. policies to disclose those relationships with the U.S. Justice Department or face prison. If the Post’s editors had included any or all of these three relevant factors, you would have come away with a more balanced understanding of why Russia is acting as it is. You might still object but at least you would be aware of the full story. By concealing all three points, the Post’s editors were tricking you and other readers into accepting a propagandistic viewpoint – that the Russian actions were crazy and that Putin was, according to the Post’s headline, “power mad.” Gershman’s Op-Ed But you might think that Gershman would at least acknowledge some of these points in his Post op-ed, surely admitting that NED is financed by the U.S. government. But Gershman didn’t. He simply portrayed Russia’s actions as despicable and desperate. “Russia’s newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy on Tuesday was declared an “undesirable organization” prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy,” Gershman wrote, adding: “This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the ‘foreign agents’ law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia.” The reference to how a “foreign agents” registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn’t good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the op-ed. So would an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. How many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power? Not surprisingly, Gershman couldn’t find the space to include any balance in his op-ed – and the Post’s editors didn’t insist on any. Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here. SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/30/why-russia-shut-down-ned-fronts/ --------------------- COMMENT So there you go:  expect most of what you read in mainstream media to be US foreign policy serving propaganda. Likewise for Western banking/corporate-controlled, US foreign policy aligned, governments. Here's a bit more on NED: 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.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy excerpted from the book Rogue State A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/TrojanHorse_RS.html ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NED (National Endowment Democracy) >> funded Ukraine’s first think tank, Centre for Independent Political Research  ('independent' LOL) #USA 'democracy promoting' organisations  - eg National Endowment for Democracy (NED) & USAID - a front for political interference abroad.  National Endowment for Democracy helped to overthrow democratically elected govts in: >> Bulgaria 1990 >> Albania 1991/92 >> Ukraine 2014  National Endowment for Democracy (NED) successfully manipulated elections in: >> Nicaragua in 1990 >> Mongolia in 1996 #France, #Portugal & #Spain unions (& lefties) are being undermined by US / CIA National Endowment for Democracy   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And here's China on Washington Post: Chinese embassy rebukes WASHINGTON POST  re unfair accusations - cyberattacks / megaphone diplomacy counterproductive http://www.ecns.cn/2015/08-01/175371.shtml  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Don't know that I'll remember much of this.  Got a shocking memory. All I know is NED's bad news; US govt & mainstream media are hypocrites; and all you'll generally get in MSM is propaganda.  LOL

Japan Hyping China Threat

SOURCE http://www.ecns.cn/2015/07-23/174137.shtml Chinese ambassdor to Japan warns against hyping China threat 2015-07-23 08:50   Global Times Editor: Li Yan Ambassador Cheng urges Japan to face history with right perspective The Chinese ambassador to Japan on Wednesday warned against Japan's attempt to hype up "China threat" while adjusting its security policy to a path away from its post-War pacifism. In an exclusive interview with the Global Times on Wednesday, Cheng Yonghua, Chinese ambassador to Japan, said China is alarmed by Japan's recent move to portray China as a "security threat" in its latest defense white paper while mustering support for a defense bill that seeks to expand Japan's military role overseas. "We resolutely oppose the Japanese government using China as an excuse for pushing its security policy. It is dangerous [for the Japanese government] to make up and exaggerate 'China threat,' as it would lead to escalation and confrontation, in particular because China and Japan are neighbors," Cheng told the Global Times. In the defense white paper released Tuesday, Japan's defense ministry said China has continued "attempts to alter the status quo by coercive measures" in the South China Sea. Cheng, however, pointed out that China has historically held sovereignty over the South China Sea. "We have to look back into history, as China since the Han and Tang dynasties become the first to discover, name and manage the islands and reefs," Cheng noted, "During World War II, Japan occupied the islands of Nansha and Xisha. But after the war, the Potsdam Declaration stipulated that these islands be returned to China." The neighboring countries in the region never declared sovereignty over these islands until the end of 1960s, Cheng said. Having worked in the Chinese Embassy in Japan for over 20 years, Cheng has observed a promising development in Sino-Japanese relations, from the four-point principled agreement reached between Japan and China in November 2014, to the increasing economic exchanges between the two countries. But he pointed out that the historical problems have for long cast shadow on the Sino-Japanese relations. This year, which marks the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII, offers Japan an opportunity to, based upon the reflection of the past, turn a new page in history and move forward. As the world commemorates the 70th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascism War this year, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe prepares to make a statement in August, Cheng urged the Japanese leader to face the history with a correct point of view. "Without a right view of history, the future path will be dangerous," said the ambassador. "Japan must demonstrate sincerity of a perpetrator to the victims, and guarantee through action that history won't repeat itself," he said. With a series of events planned in the country in September to mark the end of the war, China has invited the leaders of all the relevant countries to those events. Whether or not Abe will attend the events in Beijing has not been decided, according to the ambassador. SOURCE http://www.ecns.cn/2015/07-23/174137.shtml ---------------------  COMMENT Why isn't anyone concerned about the Japanese breaking the pacifist position? Is Japan proposing to attack China along with USA and its allies after provoking some kind of confrontation over the South China Sea dispute? --------------------- LOOK-UPS Potsdam Declaration Terms of Surrender of Japanese, WWII conflict - here. Japan didn't immediately act on surrender, so USA dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Bill Blunden - 'Mass surveillance is all about money and power'

SOURCE http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_10801/Mass-surveillance-is-all-about-money-and-power.html Mass surveillance is all about money and power By Bill Blunden | Wednesday, 07.22.2015, 01:37 PM “We are under pressure from the Treasury to justify our budget; and commercial espionage is one way of making a direct contribution to the nation’s balance of payments” -Sir Colin McColl, former MI6 Chief. For years, public figures have condemned cyber espionage committed against the United States by intruders launching their attacks out of China. These same officials then turn around and justify America’s far-reaching surveillance apparatus in terms of preventing terrorist attacks. Yet classified documents published by WikiLeaks reveal just how empty these talking points are. Specifically, top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the United States is pervasive, that not even allies are safe and that it’s wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests. At a recent campaign event in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton accused China of “trying to hack into everything that doesn’t move in America.” Clinton’s hyperbole is redolent of similar claims from the American Deep State. For example, who could forget the statement made by former NSA director Keith Alexander that Chinese cyber espionage represents the greatest transfer of wealth in history? Alexander has obviously never heard of quantitative easing (QE) or the self-perpetuating “global war on terror” which has likewise eaten through trillions of dollars. Losses due to cyber espionage are a rounding error compared to the tidal wave of money channeled through QE and the war on terror. When discussing the NSA’s surveillance programs Alexander boldly asserted that they played a vital role with regard to preventing dozens of terrorist attacks, an argument that fell apart rapidly under scrutiny. Likewise, in the days preceding the passage of the USA Freedom Act of 2015 President Obama advised that bulk phone metadata collection was essential “to keep the American people safe and secure.” Never mind that decision makers have failed to provide any evidence that bulk collection of telephone records has prevented terrorist attacks. If American political leaders insist on naming and shaming other countries with regard to cyber espionage perhaps it would help if they didn’t sponsor so much of it themselves. And make no mistake, thanks to WikiLeaks the entire world knows that U.S. spies are up to their eyeballs in economic espionage. Against NATO partners like France and Germany, no less. And also against developing countries like Brazil and news outlets like Der Spiegel. These disclosures confirm what Ed Snowden said in an open letter to Brazil: terrorism is primarily a mechanism to bolster public acquiescence for runaway data collection. The actual focus of intelligence programs center around “economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation.” Who benefits from this sort of activity? The same large multinational corporate interests that have spent billions of dollars to achieve state capture. Why is the threat posed by China inflated so heavily? The following excerpt from an intelligence briefing might offer some insight. In a conversation with a colleague during the summer of 2011 the EU’s chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Hiddo Houben, described the treaty as an attempt by the United State to antagonize China: “Houben insisted that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a U.S. initiative, appears to be designed to force future negotiations with China. Washington, he pointed out, is negotiating with every nation that borders China, asking for commitments that exceed those countries’ administrative capacities, so as to ‘confront’ Beijing. If, however, the TPP agreement takes 10 years to negotiate, the world–and China–will have changed so much that that country likely will have become disinterested in the process, according to Houben. When that happens, the U.S. will have no alternative but to return to the WTO.” American business interests are eager to “open markets in Asia” and “provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment.” At least, that’s how Hillary Clinton phrased it back when she was the Secretary of State. China represents a potential competitor and so American political leaders need an enemy that they can demonize so that they can justify massive intelligence budgets and the myriad clandestine operations that they approve. The American Deep State wishes to maintain economic dominance and U.S. spies have been working diligently to this end. Bill Blunden is a journalist whose current areas of inquiry include information security, anti-forensics and institutional analysis. This story originally appeared on CounterPunch.org SOURCE http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_10801/Mass-surveillance-is-all-about-money-and-power.html ---------------------- COMMENT Really enjoyed this article. How hypocritical is Hillary Clinton and the US? Interesting to see that intel agencies need to earn their keep. So, Snowden's comment re surveillance being pretty much about: “economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation.”  sounds about right. And it's all for the sake of 'powerful corporate interests' that control the state.

Foreign Service Updates - China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

India China blocked India’s move in UN against Pakistan re release of Mumbai attack mastermind Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi http://www.freepressjournal.in/china-defends-zaki-ur-rehman-lakhvi-stand/ China-Pakistan Economic Corridor  Beijing’s greater strategic plan Airport, roads & railways construction at China control port signed Pakistan infrastructure & energy the focus China to build 6.5-billion nuclear power plant in Karachi oil pipelines planned Planned construction pipeline from Gwadar’s port to northwestern China China + Pakistan =  longtime strategic & diplo co-op China-Pakistan Economic Corridor OIL pipelines to China: *Kazakhstan *Turkmenistan *Pakistan - from Gwadar’s port to nthwest China {pending} src:  http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/china-pakistan-flesh-out-new-economic-corridor/ China–Pakistan Eco. Corridor devel megaproject Gwadar Port Pak to China Xinjiang highways, railways & pipelines - oil +  gas Blockade in war of Straits of Malacca path = 80% of China energy imports China-Pak Eco Corridor creates alternative routes China energy imports:  80% imported energy supplies from Middle East & West Africa. China creating x3 new routes. 3 new energy routes China *Guangzhou to Pak *Shanghai to Uzbekistan, Teheran/Iran & port in Persian Gulf *Beijing thru Russia Potential sea blockade imposed by US if East Asia conflict =  China ways to bypass sea lanes subject to US naval dominance  CPEC-related activities = worth $50.6 billion *China smart - option to chose alternative if Pak doesn't deliver on time CPEC Pakistan faces challenge of maintaining political stability& consensus & assuring security.  ARTICLE + diagram China-Pakistan Economic Corridor  http://tribune.com.pk/story/887949/china-pakistan-economic-corridor-lines-of-development-not-lines-of-divide/ Gwadar port - Pakistan = bankrolled for decade by China = China govt co 2013 manages port India fear of 'string of pearls' China  "string of pearls" = network of China naval bases encircling India from sea =  cramping India maritime aspirations Western Pacific = China is  rising naval challenger facing off vs seagoing hegemon, USA South Asia = China looks to Indian eyes like the seagoing hegemon of the future. CPEC India unease at  Pakistan-China corridor + port / affect on maritime balance of power in Indian Ocean India vulnerability + USA primacy (East Asia) = concern re network of Chinese bases Gwadar site - does have vulnerabilities Gwadar site Pakistan = exposure to missile attack = Gwadar wartime use to China not guaranteed *but very good economically CPEC China - String of Pearls source article:  http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/gwadar-and-the-string-of-pearls/ Pakistan “guns over butter” military over economic Pak has nuclear weapons but yet to achieve a reliable source of energy  [thediplomat] Pakistan economic policy dominated by: desire to maintain a military-industrial complex capable of competing against India but real boosts to Pak economy are:  agriculture, chemicals, textiles & manufactured goods (tradable on global market) [thediplomat] Pakistan = access to Indian Ocean = good access to markets, East & West = interl reach> diaspora = 3rd largest English-speaking pop in world Pak *failure w/in political sphere to respond to Taliban + reactionaries *rampant inflation *serious lack of currency reserves http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/the-pakistan-china-corridor --------------------- COMMENT Found this very interesting.  Very good articles.