De
daklozen in Californië en zoals ik het begrijp in de hele VS, mogen
niet langer beboet worden dan wel worden opgepakt omdat ze op straat
moeten slapen…… De VS, ‘het land van de ongekende mogelijkheden’,
in negatieve zin wel te verstaan en dat geld ook voor het overheidsbeleid in het buitenland….. Hoe is het mogelijk dat de zwaksten in de
maatschappij zo gepakt worden door hun eigen overheid, ‘The American Dream’ is dan ook al meer dan 200 jaar zo dood als een pier……
Wat een
voorbeeld ook voor de wereld, al weet je zo wel wat je kan verwachten van de VS wanneer je als natie niet gewillig aan de leiband van de VS loopt, zeker als je ziet hoe barbaars de VS al in eigen land bezig is tegen de
zwaksten van haar volk >> je kan dan als land buiten de VS niets anders verwachten dan dood en
verderf…. (zoals de geschiedenis laat zien en niet alleen vanaf 1945…)
De
daklozen mogen van 9 uur ‘s avonds tot 6 uur ‘s morgens op straat
slapen en gelukkig zijn er sommige burgemeesters die stellen dat er
rap ruimte moet worden gevonden of bijgebouwd om deze mensen
permanent humanitair op te vangen….
Lees het
volgende ongelofelijke relaas dat werd gepubliceerd op Money and Markets en geeft het door, het is te zot voor woorden dat
zoveel mensen niet zien hoe kwaadaardig de vereniging van VS terreurstaten in werkelijkheid zijn:
Supreme
Court: Sorry, California, Homeless Can Sleep on Sidewalks
The Supreme Court on
Monday said it will allow a lower court’s ruling stand that
protects the rights of the homeless to sleep on sidewalks or in
public parks if they don’t have anywhere else to go, which is a
significant setback for cities in California.
The justices refused
to take the case from Boise, Idaho, on without comment or dissent.
From the L.A. Times:
The outcome
was a significant victory for homeless activists and a setback for
city officials in California and other Western states who argued
the ruling
from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals undercut their
authority to regulate encampments on the sidewalks. The 9th Circuit
had agreed with lawyers for the homeless who argued that prosecuting
people for sleeping on the sidewalks violated the 8th Amendment’s
ban on cruel and unusual punishment if a city failed to provide
adequate shelter.
The 9th Circuit —
which has jurisdiction over California and eight other states out
west — ruling said a city ordinance “violates the 8th Amendment
insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals
for sleeping outdoors on public property, when no alternative shelter
is available to them.”
According to the L.A.
Times, officials in Los Angeles expressed disappointment because
the ruling leaves the law unclear about what they can do to curtail
masses of people sleeping on sidewalks and in parks. Officials joined
with Boise in asking the Supreme Court to hear the case and said it
was “never an attempt to criminalize the homeless; rather, it was a
pursuit of a legal framework that is clear — in comparison to a
status quo that is ambiguous and confusing.”
“Letting the current
law stand handicaps cities and counties from acting nimbly to aid
those perishing on the streets, exacerbating unsafe and unhealthy
conditions that negatively affect our most vulnerable residents,”
he said.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric
Garcetti said via statement that “homelessness won’t be solved by
moving people from one street to another. Our focus will remain on
providing services to save lives, keeping our neighborhoods clean and
healthy, opening shelters to help get people indoors more quickly,
and building permanent units to keep them under a roof for good.”
Lawyers for the
homeless in Boise pointed out that in 2014 the city told its police
not to enforce misdemeanor ordinances that banned sleeping or camping
in public as long as there weren’t any other shelter spaces
available, which the city thought would end the lawsuit. However, the
9th Circuit issued a more broad ruling in 2018.
The Supreme Court
justices then had to decide whether or not there is a constitutional
right to sleep on a sidewalk in a case in which the city wasn’t
enforcing the ordinances that were being challenged.
The case began more
than 10 years ago when a number of homeless people were given
citations of $25 to $75 for camping on sidewalks. They then joined a
lawsuit challenging the fines as unconstitutional. According to the
L.A. Times, a large number of West Coast cities urged the Supreme
Court to hear the appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling.
The “creation of a
de facto constitutional right to live on sidewalks and in parks will
cripple the ability of more than 1,600 municipalities in the 9th
Circuit to maintain the health and safety of their communities,”
lawyers for Boise wrote.
“Nothing in the
Constitution … requires cities to surrender their streets,
sidewalks, parks, riverbeds and other public areas to vast
encampments,” the lawyers wrote.
People sleeping,
urinating and defecating
on sidewalks has of course long been a plague in cities like Los
Angeles and in 2006, the 9th Circuit ruled that the city can’t
enforce laws against people sleeping in public. So rather than appeal
the ruling, the city reached a settlement with lawyers for the
homeless, agreeing not to enforce the ordinance from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m
Het
is meer dan duidelijk dat de coup in Bolivia alles te maken heeft met
grondstoffen, daar president Evo Morales de delving van o.a. indium
en lithium heeft genationaliseerd, de eerste, dus indium is van groot belang voor de
LCD schermen van smartphones enz. en lithium voor accu’s van deze
telefoons en andere toepassingen zoals accu’s voor elektrische fietsen
en auto’s………
(mijnwerker met hamer en beitel……)
Ook
de olie en gaswinning werd door Morales genationaliseerd, waar
eerdere protesten in bloed werden gesmoord, protesten om meer
inkomsten uit de grondstoffen ten goede te laten komen van het hele
volk, dus ook voorde meerderheid van de oorspronkelijke
bevolking….. Bij protesten in 2003 kwamen tenminste 70
Bolivianen van de oorspronkelijke bevolking om het leven, ofwel die
werden vermoord door politie en leger…….
Nationaliseringen
werken als een rode lap op een stier als het om de VS gaat en om die
reden heeft de VS al vele keren ingegrepen in Latijjns-Amerika, niet
alleen door militaire campagnes, ofwel illegale oorlogen, maar ook
door het organiseren van opstanden die dan moeten uitmonden in een
staatsgreep….. Mocht dat niet lukken zet de CIA het leger en
politie van een dergelijk land onder druk een staatsgreep te
forceren, uiteraard met de hulp van de VS, die e.e.a. organiseert en
regisseert….. Als ook dat niet lukt zoekt de VS op basis van leugens (false flag operaties) een oorzaak om een (illegale) oorlog tegen zo’n land te beginnen….
In Bolivia heeft de VS een combinatie van voornoemde zaken gebruikt, ofwel een coup door leger en politie, die vooraf werd gegaan door protesten….. Deze zogenaamde opstand tegen de
democratisch gekozen president Morales zou door het hele volk
gesteund zijn. Althans zo berichtten de westerse reguliere media,
gelul van een dronken aardbei daar het grootste deel van het volk tot
de oorspronkelijke bevolking behoort en deze bevolking heeft Morales,
die zelf tot deze oorspronkelijke bevolking behoort (‘indianen’), voor
meer dan 95% gesteund…….
De
regering Morales heeft het als eerste regering (en voor het eerst
sinds de witte kolonisator haar genocide begon in Latijns-Amerika), opgenomen voor het grootste deel van het volk, zoals gezegd de oorspronkelijke
bevolking. Door het beleid van Morales en zijn regering is de armoede
onder die bevolkingsgroep aanmerkelijk afgenomen en hij voerde daarnaast een prima economisch beleid…. Natuurlijk hebben de bedrijven,
die genationaliseerd werden (en toch nog dikke winsten mochten maken), een
grote verantwoording voor de coup die Morales aan de kant zette……
In
Washington (DC) is een arbitrage rechtbank gesitueerd,
de International Center for the Settlement
of Investment Disputes (ICSID), NB een onderdeel van de
Wereldbank….. Deze organisatie en de Wereldbank werken bepaald niet
in het belang van arme bevolkingsgroepen en veroordelen
dergelijke nationaliseringen…… ICSID heeft Bolivia gelast meer
rekening te houden met de internationale bedrijven als de
mijnbedrijven en die van de olie- en gassector….. Bolivia, Cuba,
Nicaragua en Venezuela hebben zich intussen teruggetrokken uit het ICSID en een zelfde soort arbitrage
opgezet, echter met één groot verschil, deze organisatie houdt wel
rekening met het volk en niet met de grote bedrijven die landen als
Bolivia voor een deel hebben leeggezogen……
Salon
bracht op 22 november jl. een artikel van Globetrotter (Naked Kapitalism) waarin e.e.a. aangaande de
grondstoffen wordt verduidelijkt, jammer dat men niet lithium noemde,
daar Bolivia ook de grootste voorraad lithium zou hebben….
When
you look at your computer screen, or the screen on your smartphone or
the screen of your television set, it is a liquid crystal display
(LCD). An important component of the LCD screen is indium, a rare
metallic element that is processed out of zinc concentrate.
The two
largest sources of indium can
be found in eastern Canada (Mount Pleasant) and in Bolivia (Malku
Khota). Canada’s deposits have the potential to produce 38.5 tons
of indium per year, while Bolivia’s considerable mines would be
able to produce 80 tons per year.
Canada’s
South American Silver Corporation—now TriMetals Mining—had signed
a concession to explore and eventually mine Malku Khota. Work began
in 2003, two years before Evo Morales and the Movement for Socialism
(MAS) won their first presidential election in Bolivia. South
American Silver conducted several studies of the region, all of which
found substantial deposits that were poised to make this Canadian
firm one of the major players in the mining industry.
A
study done by Allan Armitage and others for South American Silver,
and delivered to the company in 2011, showed that the Malku Khota
mine would produce substantial amounts of silver, indium, lead, zinc,
copper, and gallium. “The indium and gallium,” the study
noted,
“are regarded as strategic metals that give the project future
upside potential.” Gallium is used for thermometers and barometers,
as well as in the testing side of the pharmaceutical industry. There
is Fort Knox level treasure to be made from these minerals.
Resource
Nationalism
Evo
Morales rode to victory in 2006 with the promise of a new day for
Bolivia. Key to his agenda was to take control of the country’s
resources and use them to improve the quality of life of Bolivia’s
deprived populations. One of the great tragedies of Bolivia has been
that since the mid-16th century, the indigenous populations have had
to work to remove precious wealth from underneath their lands and
send that wealth to enrich the people of Europe and later North
America. They did not benefit from those riches.
Millions
died in the mines of Potosí to bring the silver, and later tin, out
of the ground. For the indigenous people who live near and on the
hill, everything is upside down—one of the most lucrative hills is
known as Cerro Rico (Rich Hill), while in Spanish there is a phrase
that toys with the idea that wealth is equivalent to Potosí (vale
un Potosí).
Morales’ message during his campaign was framed around the concept
of resource nationalism—use our resources to better the lives of
those who live in deprivation and indignity.
Morales
first went after the oil and gas industry. It is important to recall
that his opponent in this year’s election—Carlos Mesa—was the
president right before Morales won the election in December 2005.
Mesa had come to power when his predecessor Sánchez de Lozada
resigned in disgrace over the mass demonstrations in 2003 when
Bolivians demanded more control over their gas reserves (the state
repression was severe, with at least 70 people killed in the
demonstrations). In May 2006—just over three months after being
sworn in as president—Morales announced that the oil and gas
industry had been nationalized. It is important to recall that his
approval rating was well above 80 percent.
Nationalization
was not easy, since the Bolivian government could not expropriate
assets but only raise taxes and renegotiate contracts. Even here, the
government faced problems since it lacked enough technical skills to
understand the opaque energy sector. Furthermore, the problem with
the energy sector is that even nationalized oil and gas must be sold
to the transnational firms that then process them and market them;
they remain in control of the value chain. What Morales’ government
was able to do was to ensure that the State controlled 51 percent of
all private energy firms that operated in Bolivia, which allowed the
State’s coffers to fill rapidly. It was this money that was
invested to go after poverty, hunger, and illiteracy.
Revenge
of the Mining Companies
Canada’s
Fraser Institute—a libertarian think tank that is heavily funded by
the energy and mining sector—publishes an annual survey of mining
companies. This survey is conducted by asking mining executives their
opinions on a range of issues. The 2007–08
survey said
that Bolivia is the second-worst country for investment; the worst
was Ecuador. In 2010, the World
Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index rated
Bolivia at 161 of 183 countries. Heads of mining firms—from
Barrick’s Peter Munk to Repsol’s Antonio Brufau—made
disparaging comments about the nationalization program. “If Bolivia
keeps on this path,” a Wall Street banker told me at that time,
“these companies will make sure that Bolivian natural gas remains
underground.” Bolivia might be embargoed; Morales might be
assassinated.
Pressure
mounted daily on the MAS government, which began a process to write a
new Constitution that would both protect nature and insist on
resource wealth being used for the people. There was an immediate
contradiction here: if the MAS government was going to undo centuries
of deprivation, it would have to mine the earth to bring out the
wealth. A tragic choice befell the government—it could not both
conserve nature and transform the wretched conditions of everyday
life at the same level of caution. At the same time, to get its
minerals and energy to market, it had to continue to negotiate with
these transnational firms; no immediate alternative was present.
Nationalization
Despite
the constraints on it, the MAS government continued to nationalize
resources, and insist on State firms being partners in resource
extraction. Transnational firms immediately took Bolivia to the
International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes
(ICSID), a part of the World Bank system. The ICSID—formed in
1966—is based in Washington, D.C., and shares an outlook toward
business that mirrors that of the U.S. Treasury Department.
On
April 29, 2007, the leaders of Bolivia (Evo Morales), Cuba (Carlos
Lage), Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega), and Venezuela (Hugo Chávez) signed
a declaration to create an alternative to the investor-government
system institutionalized in the ICSID. Bolivia and Ecuador formally
withdrew from this U.S.-dominated system, while Venezuela’s Supreme
Court declared that it did not have the power to intervene in
Venezuelan sovereign affairs.
On
July 10, 2012, Morales’ government nationalized the Malku Khota
property of South American Silver. Company CEO Greg Johnson said he
was “really shocked” at the decision. South American Silver’s
shares dropped immediately; it had been trading at $1.02 on July 6,
and it fell to $0.37 on July 11.
The
immediate spur for the nationalization was the protest around the
mine by indigenous artisanal miners who did not want this
mega-project to undermine their livelihood. South American Silver had
spent a great deal of money to convince 43 of the 46 neighboring
communities to accept the mine; but they could not convince the
artisanal miners. “Nationalization is our
obligation,” said Morales.
All
that indium would not make its way in significant quantities to the
factories to produce LCDs for television sets, computer monitors, and
cell phones.
South
American Silver took the Bolivian government to the Permanent Court
of Arbitration at The Hague. In November last year, the Court ordered
Bolivia to pay South American Silver $27.7 million rather than the
$385.7 million that TriMetals (the new name for South American
Silver) had demanded.
Coup
In
July 2007, U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg sent a cable to Washington
in which he pointed out that U.S. mining firms had approached his
embassy to ask about the investment climate in Bolivia. Goldberg felt
that the situation for mining firms was not good. When asked if he
could organize a meeting with Vice President Álvaro García Linera,
he said,
“Sadly, without dynamite in the streets, it is uncertain whether
the Embassy or the international mining companies will be able to
attain even this minimal goal.”
“Without
dynamite in the streets” is a phrase worth dwelling upon. A year
later, Morales expelled Goldberg from Bolivia, accusing him of aiding
the protests in the town of Santa Cruz. Just over a decade later, it
was the “dynamite” that removed Morales from power.
Resource
nationalism is no longer on the agenda in Bolivia. The fate of Malku
Khota is unknown. The fate of your screen is guaranteed—it will be
replaced with indium from the Potosí deposits. And the benefits of
that sale will not go to improving the well-being of Bolivia’s
indigenous population; they will enrich the transnational firms and
the old oligarchy of Bolivia.
This
article was produced by Globetrotter,
a project of the Independent Media Institute.
‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘ Tot het jaar 2000, waar deze eeuw intussen al meer dan 2,5 miljoen moorden aan toe zijn te voegen, moorden begaan door de VS en de NAVO (deze terreurorganisatie stond en staat onder militair opperbevel van de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde…)….
In een
artikel van Caitlin Johnstone maakt zij melding van Bellingcat en dat
deze zogenaamde journalistenclub wordt betaald door de VS….. De
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), die volgens een medeoprichter
is bedoeld om te doen wat de CIA eerder (en nog) doet, propaganda
maken voor de VS tegen landen die zich niet laten commanderen door
de VS, of schijt hebben aan de belangen van de VS……. NED wordt
direct betaald door de VS overheid, dus van enige onafhankelijkheid
is totaal geen sprake…… Bellingcat wordt weer direct betaald door
NED en daarmee is het kringetje rond: de VS betaalt Bellingcat……
Verbaasd me niets gezien de meer dan belachelijke, gekleurde berichtgeving van dit collectief van leken, je zou het nu zelfs als een trollenfabriek van de VS kunnen zien, immers ze doen niet anders dan het terroristische buitenlandbeleid van de VS van steun voorzien en brengen bijvoorbeeld door de VS opgestelde anti-Assad-propaganda….
NED is
als gezegd een organisatie die (ook in het geheim) propaganda tegen
landen opstelt en verspreidt, als deze zich niet naar de wensen van
de VS schikken en organiseren dan bijvoorbeeld (gewelddadige) demonstraties tegen een bepaalde regering, in de hoop dat dit tot een staatsgreep leidt, ofwel die aansturen op een regime verandering in dergelijke landen (voorbeelden te over uit het verleden…)
Terug naar Bellinqat uh Bellincat: Bellingcat
wordt voorts betaald door de Open Society Foundations(SOF)*,
als NED een neoliberaal orgaan dat ten dienste staat van de VS en
haar collega NAVO-lidstaten……
Bellingcat
heeft zich ook met MH17 bemoeit en zoals te verwachten: Bellingcat
steunt de leugen dat Rusland verantwoordelijk is voor het neerhalen
van dit vliegtuig, terwijl er meters dossiers liggen die toch echt
een andere kant op wijzen, niet voor niets ook dat de premier van Maleisië de JIT-rapportages totaal onbetrouwbaar acht…….
Ach het
is als met alle leugens die de VS zelf brengt, men slikt ze als zoete
koek in het westen, ook al blijkt die informatie keer op keer niet te
kloppen, toch steunen de meeste NAVO-lidstaten de grootschalige VS terreur als dit ‘land’ weer een nieuwe illegale oorlog begint….. Ook
Nederland steunt deze terreur en dat met ons belastinggeld, men hield nog even
af wat betreft de Straat van Hormuz (bij de Golf van Oman), waar de VS de marine van Iran treitert, maar nu gaat Nederland
daar ook oorlogje spelen met een fregat (marine oorlogsschip), of omdat de VS dat van ons eist, dan wel een volgende hielenlikkende actie van het walgelijke kabinet Rutte 3…
Hier de
tekst van Caitlin Johnstone:
Bellingcat is
fundedby
the National Endowment for Democracy, which according
to its own cofounderwas
set up to do overtly what the CIA had previously been doing covertly,
namely orchestrating narrative management geared toward the
elimination of governments which refuse to comply with US interests.
NED is funded
directly by the US government,
which means that Bellingcat is funded by the US government via an
organization set up to promote imperialist regime change agendas.
Bellingcat is also funded by Open Society Foundations,
another imperialist
narrative management operation.
* De
Open Society Foundations (een echte SOF) is een privaat opererende en
fondsenverstrekkende stichting met als doel om overheidsbeleid te
hervormen en om democratisch bestuur, mensenrechten en economische,
juridische en sociale hervormingen te promoten…… ha! ha! ha! ha!
Het voorgaande is wat Wikipedia zegt over de Open Society
Foundations (behalve de tekst die tussen haakjes staat, zoals je begrijpt)….. In werkelijkheid heeft men in de VS schijt aan democratie, niet voor niets worden veel bloedige dictators gesteund door de VS, neem alleen al de banden met de reli-fascistische dictatuur Saoedi-Arabië, die NB met hulp van o.a. de VS een genocide uitvoert in Jemen….. (trouwens wat er in de VS zelf gebeurt heeft intussen ook al niets meer te maken met wat democratie zou moeten zijn…..) Wikipedia, steeds meer gevuld met leugens…..
Voor nog meer berichten over MH17, klik op het desbetreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.
In mijn bericht schreef ik over een Nederlands fregat richting Golf van Oman, dat moet echter zijn de Straat van Hormuz, dat weliswaar een uitloper is van de Golf van Oman, mijn excuus. Noot van 28 november 2019.
Hersteller op 4 december 2019: in de kop stond Bellingcat zonder ‘g’, mijn excuus.
Afgelopen
donderdag was het 56 jaar geleden dat VS president John F. Kennedy werd vermoord
in Dallas, Texas. Information Clearing House (ICH) bracht gisteren
een toespraak die John F. Kennedy (JFK) op 10 juni 1963 hield op de American
University in Washington (D.C.) en waarin hij stelde
dat vrede het belangrijkste onderwerp is op aarde vrede. Niets tegen
in te brengen zou je zeggen, totdat je de hele toespraak op je laat
inwerken en dan kan je maar tot één conclusie komen: ook JFK was een
enorme hypocriet (ook al was hij m.i. een beter president dan alle na
hem aangetreden presidenten.
Hypocrisie
als stellen dat vrede het belangrijkste onderwerp is op aarde,
terwijl de VS de ene oorlog na de andere begon, hoe vaak Kennedy ook
stelde dat elk land op zijn/haar manier het volk kan dienen, de
praktijk zag er ook destijds geheel anders uit….. Kennedy stelde
dat hij geen voorstander was van een Pax-Americana, terwijl
de VS volkeren knechtte en knecht als zij tegen de (economische)
belangen van de VS handelden en handelen….. (ofwel weinig verschil met de Pax Romana, waar de VS tegenwoordig inderdaad een imperium is….) De VS die democratisch gekozen
leiders afzet en dictators parachuteerde en parachuteert en dat niet
zelden ten koste van veel mensenlevens……
Het
woord vrijheid valt meermaals in de lezing van Kennedy, echter wat is
vrijheid in de VS als je geen werk hebt en je afhankelijk bent van
voedselbonnen, waar je dure medicatie kan vergeten als je kanker hebt
daar je niet of niet voldoende verzekerd bent? Wat is vrijheid als je
2 banen nodig hebt om rond te kunnen komen ? (veel voorkomend in de
VS, al moet ik zeggen dat het er tijdens JFK wel wat beter uitzag
voor de grote onderlaag van de VS maatschappij) Wat is vrijheid als
je alleen al door je kleur op afstand staat en je vanwege je kleur
wordt gediscrimineerd? (vergeet niet dat er onder Kennedy nog steeds
apartheid bestond in de VS….)
JFK
stelt dat hij niet van een alomvattende vrede en in de goede wil van de mens
gelooft dat is voor fantasieën en fanatiekelingen…… Ja, als
je een alomvattende vrede nastreeft ben je een fanatiekeling, niet
als je als land: -overal en nergens met veel geweld ingrijpt,
-geheime dodelijke militaire missies uitvoert, -verkiezingen
manipuleert, -opstanden organiseert en ga nog maar even door…..)
Als je ziet wat de VS vanaf haar oprichting heeft gedaan en doet op het gebied van buitenlandbeleid, staat dat in schril contrast tot vrede en de goede wil van de
mens…..
Echte
vrede moet volgens JFK door vele naties worden nagestreefd en vrede
is niet statisch maar dynamisch, vrede is een proces, een manier
om geschillen op te lossen….. Lullig dan toch weer dat de VS
precies doet wat JFK niet wenselijk acht: geschillen worden door de
VS ‘opgelost’ met: -sancties waarbij grote aantallen mensen omkomen
(vooral kinderen, zwakkeren en ouderen), -staatsgrepen en -illegale
oorlogen……
Vrede is
niet onuitvoerbaar en oorlog is niet onvermijdelijk, zo stelde JFK in
zijn lezing, volgens hem moet de VS volkeren leiden om dat in te
zien….. Ik zal niet lachen, maar nogmaals: de VS is vooral goed in
het volkeren bijbrengen wat de VS verstaat onder vrede, door geweld
te gebruiken, ofwel oorlog voeren om zogenaamde democratische vrede
te brengen en zoals gezegd regelmatig door democratisch gekozen
regeringsleiders ten val te brengen en daar een trouwe lakei van de
VS in de vorm van een dictator te parachuteren…..*
Over
kernwapens stelt Kennedy dat het geld daarvoor beter uitgegeven kan
worden aan sociale programma’s, voor ziektebestrijding en de
bestrijding van armoede….. Lullig dan dat vooral de VS groots heeft
ingezet op kernbewapening en dat Rusland en China in feite niet
anders konden doen dan te volgen, zeker gezien de agressie van de VS,
vanaf haar illegale oprichting (op gestolen grond van de
oorspronkelijke bevolking die middels een genocide werd gedecimeerd)
Kennedy wees op de bemoeienissen van de VS met Afrika en Azië, dit om communistische invloed tegen te gaan, waar de VS in werkelijkheid een neokoloniaal bewind voerde (en voert) en ondanks al het geblaat in de VS over corruptie, deze elders juist in stand hield (en nog houdt)… Corrupte was en is tenslotte goed voor het grote bedrijfsleven….. Neokolonialisme, waar Kennedy stelde dat de Sovjet-Unie juist haar (‘verderfelijke’, Ap) invloed uitbreidde…..
Te zot
voor woorden zijn de zinnen die JFK gebruikte voor een tekst van de Sovjet-Unie voor militaire strategie, een tekst volgens JFK zonder enige grond en op basis
van ongeloofwaardige claims en dat op de ene na de andere bladzijde waar werd gesteld stelt
dat de VS bezig is haar invloed te vergroten door
oorlogsvoering….. Ben het niet eens met de Sovjet leiders of hoe zij met het volk omgingen, maar in deze hadden
ze het volledig bij het rechte eind….. Het voorgaande geldt ook
voor wat de top van de Sovjet-Unie zei over de wil van de VS om Europa onderhorig te maken
aan haar economische en strategische belangen, ja lullig maar wel degelijk waar…..
De meest
belachelijke zin die Kennedy gebruikte is wel de volgende: “The
United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not
want a war”. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Wat een oplichter!
Ja, vrede is het belangrijkste onderwerp op aarde, handelde de VS maar eens dusdanig……(plus uiteraard de klimaatverandering, daar bij geen actie een enorm deel van de mensheid en van de dieren het dodelijke slachtoffer zullen zijn en zoals je weet: ook op dat gebied laat de VS het afweten)
In het
ICH artikel hieronder zie je de video van de bewuste toespraak en
daaronder de uitgeschreven lezing van JFK, die allen aangeven hoe hypocriet ook
JFK was (ik ben verantwoordelijk voor de vet gearceerde teksten vanaf het begin van de uitgeschreven lezing):
Lest
we forget
The
Most Important Topic On Earth
By
President John F. Kennedy
“A
topic on which, too often ignorance abounds and the truth too rarely
perceived and that is the most important topic on earth, world
peace.”
“What
kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world
by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the
security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of
peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables
men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for
their children, not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men
and women, not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”John
F. Kennedy – Address at American University Washington,
D.C., June 10,1963
Address
at American University Washington, D.C., June 10,1963
Posted
November 22, 2019
Transcript
President
Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished
guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree
through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning
mine in the next 30 minutes, ladies and gentlemen:
It
is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the
American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by
Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow
Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has
already fulfilled Bishop Hurst’s enlightened hope for the study of
history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history
and to the conduct of the public’s business. By sponsoring this
institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever
their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the
Nation deserve the Nation’s thanks, and I commend all those who are
today graduating.
Professor
Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university
should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am
confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating
from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from
their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.
“There
are few earthly things more beautiful than a university,” wrote
John Masefield, in his tribute to English universities, and his words
are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to
campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the
university, he said, because it was “a place where those who
hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may
strive to make others see.”
I
have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic
on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely
perceived, yet it is the most important topic on earth: world
peace.
What
kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax
Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the
peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about
genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth
living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and
to build a better life for their children, not merely peace for
Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our
time but peace for all time.
I
speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no
sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively
invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to
those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear
weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all
of the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense
in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange
would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far
corners of the glove and to generations yet unborn.
Today
the expenditure of billions of dollars every year of weapons acquired
for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential
to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle
stockpiles — which can only destroy and never create — is not the
only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace. I speak
of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I
realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit
of war and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But
we have no more urgent task.
Some
say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world
disarmament and that it will be useless until the leaders of the
Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I
believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must
reexamine our own attitude — as individuals and as a Nation — for
our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this
school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to
bring peace, should begin by looking inward — by examining his own
attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union,
toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here
at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of
us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a
dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is
inevitable — that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces
we cannot control.
We
need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade, therefore,
they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No
problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and
spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable and we believe they
can do it again.
I
am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace
and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not
deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite
discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate
goal.
Let
us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace — based
not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution
in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective
agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no
single, simple key to this peace, no grand or magic formula to be
adopted by one or two powers.
Genuine peace must be the product of
many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static,
changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a
process — a way of solving problems.
With
such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests,
as there are within families and nations. World peace, like
community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor; it
requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting
their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history
teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do
not last forever. However our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide
of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the
relations between nations and neighbors.
So
let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not
be inevitable.By defining our goal more clearly, by making it
seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see
it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second:
Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is
discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what
their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent
authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page
after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims such as the
allegation that “American imperialist circles are preparing to
unleash different types of wars … that there is a very real threat
of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against
the Soviet Union … [and that] the political aims of the American
imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European
and other capitalist countries … [and] to achieve world domination
… by means of aggressive wars.”
Truly,
as it was written long ago: “The wicked flee when no man
pursueth.” Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements — to
realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning
— a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap
as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the
other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as
impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of
threats.
No
government or social system is so evil that its people must be
considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism
profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity.
But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements
— in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in
culture and in acts of courage.
Among
the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none
is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among
the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other.
And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the
Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least
20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms
were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including
nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland
— a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of
Chicago.
Today,
should total war ever break out again no matter how our two countries
would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact
that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of
devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be
destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which
brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this
Nation’s closest allies our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that
could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease.
We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which
suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons
beget counterweapons.
In
short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union
and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine
peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in
the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours, and even the most
hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty
obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their
own interest. So, let us not be blind to our differences, but let us
also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by
which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our
differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.
For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all
inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all
cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.
Third:
Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that
we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of
judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it
might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.
We
must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that
constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within
reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs
in such a way that it becomes in the Communist’s interest to agree on
a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital
interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which
bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a
nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be
evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy — or of a collective
death — wish for the world. To secure these ends, America’s
weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter,
and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to
peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our diplomats are
instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical
hostility.
For
we can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And,
for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are
resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our
faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any
unwilling people, but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful
competition with any people on earth.
Meanwhile,
we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial
problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to
develop it into a genuine world security system — a system capable
of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security
of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which
arms can finally be abolished. At the same time we seek to keep
peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them
our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity,
which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into
war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle
East, and in the Indian sub continent, have been persistent and
patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to
set an example for others by seeking to adjust small but significant
differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.
Speaking
of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to
many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern
and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western
Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of
the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no
deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other
peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because
their interests and ours converge.
Our
interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of
freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope — and
the purpose of allied policies — to convince the Soviet Union that
she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as
that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The
Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on
others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be
no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the
self determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.
This
will require a new effort to achieve world law — a new context for
world discussions. It will require increased understanding between
the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require
increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is
the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and
Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays,
misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other’s actions which might
occur at a time of crisis.
We
have also been talking in Geneva about other first-step measures of
arms control, designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to
reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long-range interest
in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament designed to
take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to
build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of
arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this
Government since the 1920’s. It has been urgently sought by the past
three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we
intend to continue this effort to continue it in order that all
countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and
possibilities of disarmament are.
The
one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet
where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear
tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would
check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It
would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively
with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further
spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security — it would
decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently
important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the
temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up
our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards. I am taking this
opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this
regard.
First:
Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that
high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward
early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be
tempered with the caution of history but with our hopes go the hopes
of all mankind.
Second:
To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I
now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct
nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so.
We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no
substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us
achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament,
but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally,
my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and
freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society
must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in
the dedication of our own lives, as many of you who are graduating
today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in
the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here
at home.
But
wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the
age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of
our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is
incomplete.
It
is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of
government — local, State, and National — to provide and protect
that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their
authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all
levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it
adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all
sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to
respect the law of the land.
All
this is not unrelated to world peace. “When a man’s ways please
the Lord,” the Scriptures tell us, “he maketh even his
enemies to be at peace with him.” And is not peace, in the
last analysis, basically a matter of human rights — the right to
live out our lives without fear of devastation, the right to breathe
air as nature provided it, the right of future generations to a
healthy existence?
While
we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard
human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in
the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the
advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide
absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it
can, if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is
sufficiently in the interests of its signers, offer far more security
and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable
arms race.
The
United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not
want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of
Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and
hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall
be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a
world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We
are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.
Confident and unafraid, we labor on, not toward a strategy of
annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.
Note
To ICH Community
We
ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by
ICH to your social media accounts and post links to the article from
other websites.
Thank
you for your support.
Peace
and joy
===============================
*
Tegenwoordig pakt de VS het iets voorzichtiger aan, men plaatst een
interim president aan, die belooft dat er binnen een paar jaar
democratische verkiezingen worden gehouden (onder toezicht van de VS
en met manipulaties onder regie van de VS…)…. Tja je wilt niet dat
zo’n afgezette leider opnieuw aan het bewind komt, zeker niet als het
grootste deel van het volk achter deze leider staat, neem nu weer
Bolivia……
Zie voor VS geweld:
‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘ Tot het jaar 2000, deze eeuw zijn er intussen meer dan 2,5 miljoen moorden aan toe te voegen, moorden begaan door de VS en de NAVO (waar deze terreurorganisatie onder militair opperbevel stond en staat van de VS…)….
Kathleen
Wallace schreef op CounterPunch een artikel over Bolivia waarbij
ze o.a. de woorden gebruikt van VS marinier Smedley Butler, die
tijdens zijn leven onder meer vocht in WOI en de Mexicaanse
revolutie. Deze marinier stelde later over zijn werk dat hij in feite
als misdadiger het werk opknapte voor het kapitalisme. Hij prikte de
leugens door die de VS, het bedrijfsleven en de financiële wereld gebruikten om staatsgrepen te plegen en oorlogen te voeren, leugens
waarmee het volk van de VS werd belazerd om zo algehele goedkeuring
te krijgen voor het vuile, bloedige buitenlandbeleid van de VS……
Wallece
stelt terecht dat Bolivia het laatste slachtoffer is van het smerige
kapitalistische spel van de VS zoals Smedley dat zag, al is
tegenwoordig de term neoliberalisme meer gebruikt, daar dit in feite
nog een paar stappen verder gaat dan het vermaledijde
kapitalisme…….
Khadaffi
en Hoessein worden genoemd als slachtoffer van het buitenlandbeleid
van de VS, echter er zijn nog veel meer voorbeelden te bedenken en
telkens blijkt dat de heersers en regeringen tegen wie de VS het
opneemt, de belangen van de grote bedrijven en/of de
militair-strategische belangen van de VS schenden, dan wel op grote voorraden belangrijke grondstoffen zitten, zoals olie en gas….* Zo zou
Morales nog maar onlangs een contract met een Duitse firma hebben
opgezegd, een contract over delving en export van lithium, een
belangrijke grondstof voor accu’s in de breedste zin van het woord,
dus zowel voor auto’s als die voor de smartphone…… Bolivia zou in haar bodem rond de 70% van de totale wereldvoorraad aan lithium bezitten…… In feite nationaliseerde Morales de voorraden lithium
en nationalisatie is een woord waardoor in Washington alle seinen op knalrood gaan…….
Gegarandeerd
dat de VS als eerste de opstand in Bolivia heeft georganiseerd en
geregisseerd, dit met de opzet een staatsgreep te forceren, wat zoals we weten is gelukt…… (een manier van handelen die de VS al vaak heeft gebruikt…..) Zeker ook
dat de VS contact had met de oppositie (van de minderheid, dus de
nazaten van de kolonisten) en dat deze oppositie besprekingen voerde
met de CIA, onderwerp: het afzetten van Morales……**
“War
is a racket. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the
expense of the masses.”
This
sounds like a modern day comment from the US far left, but the source
is hardly that. It’s from a man who was the most decorated Marine
ever at the time of his death. He was an expert on the topic. He
served in WW I as well as the Mexican Revolution. Smedley Butler was
doomed to be a largely forgotten voice in the rush to gloss over the
true causes of war and regime change. He pointed out the techniques
used to win public approval and the subsequent serving of the
corporate needs by entering these ever-repeating violent conflicts.
He described his military career as that of “a high class muscleman
for Big Business, Wall Street, and the Bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”
This
man mapped it all out for us around a hundred years ago, yet the
jingoism prevails. The latest bipolar foreign policy evidenced in
Bolivia is just the latest chapter of the US pushing for and actively
installing those who would further the interests of Big Business.
Always at the cost of the poor. In this case, the cure for the
bipolar policy is probably going to be lithium.
The
moment that leaders begin to step out of a corporate-friendly lane,
shit gets real. Fast. A treasured ally becomes the perpetrator of
election fraud or the nexus of humanitarian affronts to their people.
True, pretty much anyone who ascends to a leadership position has
issues that can be dissected and critiqued, but even the most
horrible actions can be quietly dismissed as quickly as a bone saw
can dispatch a pudgy journalist to pieces—if you play the game.
Amazing and graphic affronts to decency are ignored when the leaders
keep the machinery oiled. Literally oiled.
Gaddafi
was a bit of a back and forth US darling until he flirted too much
with a gold-based dinar currency aimed at competing with the
petrodollar. But things are much better now that he was murdered in
the open-air and now Libya can be an open-air slave market. “We
came, we saw, he died.” Hilarious***. Now those that took over have
some very easily refinable oil, if not refined manners.
Saddam
Hussein was a similar friend to the US, even an ally– his behavior
during the war with Iran was considered nifty. I don’t recall the
US going in when he gassed the Kurds either. Maybe someone in DC
frowned? Those Kurds sure don’t ever get a fair deal, do they? I
can understand why they only trust mountains. And the moves that
seemed to be regime threatening in Iraq involved that pesky
petrodollar again.
I
guess we’ve moved to a greener foreign policy when lithium regime
change is replacing petroleum regime change. Thank you green economy.
Didn’t
Morales recently step out of a joint deal with a German firm to
export lithium (which Bolivia claims to have over 70% of the world’s
reserves)? I think he did that like a second before he was
discarded. Nationalized resources are not okay and the global south
is supposed to be a poverty-stricken supplier. Teslas are for
well-heeled Northern Californians, not Bolivians wearing those bowler
hats! Ridiculous.
And
all through the meddling, as well as the overt actions that cause
increased misery in the world, the US public largely continues to
believe in it all. The examples are all around us.
Something
I noticed recently: This Veteran’s Day a spot on PBS spoke to
issues of Native American participation in the military. The slant
was broadly complimentary to military service (duh, of course it was
on V-Day), but it was perhaps one of the worst widespread examples of
Stockholm Syndrome I’ve seen. They were glorifying the sacrifices
made by Natives in serving the US government, taking these dignified
and proud individuals and supplanting the US Imperialism on the young
people who had signed up. Don’t get me wrong, the tribal members
were totally having it, deriving enormous self-worth from the
experience. Even at the expense of PTSD and lost family members. It
was a mind-fuck for sure. I worked on the White Mountain Apache
reservation long ago and saw the manipulation first-hand–the desire
many had to fit into the broader culture that had back-stabbed them
and their ancestors. The end of the piece did a bit on individuals
fighting against fracking and made mention that Standing Rock didn’t
stop the pipeline, that the government prevailed, but it was framed
like this was part of a personal journey for the veterans. I
would say this was an example of a warrior culture using that power
to try to protect something sacred, the environment—to battle for
something that matters, not being hijacked to go kill ________
(insert poor people of choice in latest military misadventure). It
was a confused piece, made to tug at the heartstrings. Clearly you
can be a minority in this country if you are a useful part of the
machine is what I got out of it. This is how consent is manufactured,
of course. You are revered if you do what you are supposed to do in
that it helps the business of business. They get control of resources
and you might get a body bag, but they will frame it as beautiful
sacrifice and those of us who aren’t buying it are the ogres who
hate rainbows,sunshine and motherhood. And this is just one small
arena of propaganda.
The
corporate agenda will continue to be pushed and despite all evidence,
the average American won’t wonder why one ally can perpetrate
horrific acts and another gets cast out for Trumped up reasons. Hell,
most people are so tired they can’t think straight, let alone think
critically.
Bolivia
had a record of success in lifting many out of poverty and
illiteracy. This will certainly go the other direction now that
Jeanine Añez is at the helm. She seems to be quite adversarial to
the indigenous, and they comprise 65% of Bolivia’s population. She
has the saccharine hucksterism of a 40’s bible salesman. Definitely
Trump ally material, maybe even Trump wife material?
Much
like the scientific process strives to look towards the truth of how
things really work, Smedley Butler gave us a framework that should be
taken seriously—he described correctly how it all works and how
these similar situations keep producing repeatable miserable results
that keep the world in line for business extraction. He was a
principled man who deserves to be remembered—his prescient warning
regarding additional regime meddling and outright war have not lost
the luster of truth. It’s going on as we speak.
‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘ Tot het jaar 2000, waar deze eeuw intussen al meer dan 2,5 miljoen moorden aan toe zijn te voegen, moorden begaan door de VS en de NAVO (deze terreurorganisatie stond en staat onder militair opperbevel stond de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde…)….
*** Dat zei hare kwaadaardigheid en oorlogsmisdadiger Hillary Clinton achteraf over de in feite door haar bij elkaar gehitste oorlog tegen Libië, waar dit land onder Khadaffi het rijkste land was van Afrika, waar man en vrouw gelijk waren en waar praktisch alles gratis was, zelfs studeren in het buitenland (inclusief een toelage om de huur te betalen en in het levensonderhoud te voorzien) en dat voor jongens en meisjes…. Na het ingrijpen van de VS en haar oorlogshond NAVO, is Libië één grote chaos en bijna het armste land van Afrika, waar het de bewoners aan alles ontbreekt en waar de vrouw terug is achter het aanrecht (meisjes mogen zelfs niet meer naar school…)…… ‘Leve de westerse terreur!!’
Vanmorgen was het weer zover, in het Radio1 nieuws van 8.00 u., verzorgd door de NOS werd bericht over Bolivia en dan m.n. de waarschuwing van de VN dat de situatie in Bolivia kan escaleren. Volgens mij is die al geëscaleerd, ‘maar goed…’. Vervolgens zei de nieuwslezer dat de situatie in Bolivia onrustig is sinds de verkiezingen vorige maand en nadat president Morales opstapte…….
GGGVD!!! Het leger en de politie van Bolivia hebben (onder regie van de CIA) een staatsgreep gepleegd in Bolivia, waarna Morales met een militair vliegtuig naar Costa Rica is gebracht, uitdrukkelijk tegen zijn zin….. Ofwel de NOS brengt voor de zoveelste keer fake news (nepnieuws) en dat daar onze waardeloze regering en die van de EU, zich achter de VS hebben geschaard en Morales al voor de coup als dictator hebben afgeschilderd….. De westerse reguliere media (waar de NOS deel van uitmaakt) hebben vanaf het begin van de onlusten in Bolivia anti-Morales propaganda gemaakt, terwijl Bolivia voor het grootste deel van de koloniale geschiedenis door een fascistisch-religieuze minderheid bloedig is onderdrukt…… Morales is de eerste president van de oorspronkelijke ‘Boliviaanse’ bevolking, een bevolkingsgroep die 65% van de totale bevolking uitmaakt…….
Kortom de kolonisten die al zoveel leed hebben berokkend aan de oorspronkelijke bevolking, is weer aan de macht…. Kolonisten die bijzonder lang wisten te voorkomen dat de oorspronkelijke bevolking deel kon uitmaken van de regering, laat staan dat de oorspronkelijke bevolking mocht stemmen in verkiezingen…… Mede met dank aan de rk kerk en haar leider, een wolf in schaapskleren: de Argentijnse paus Bergoglio alias Franciscus….. Dezelfde Franciscus die een grote vriend was van de ex-Argentijnse fascist en dictator Videla, de bloedige dictator die een groot deel van de Argentijnse linkse intelligentsia martelde, verkrachtte en vermoordde, dit o.a. geholpen door de vader van ‘onze’ pampakoningin Maxima, Jorge Zorreguieta….. De laatste is ook al een figuur waarmee Franciscus bevriend was, hij is overigens nog steeds bevriend met de familie Zorreguieta, vandaar ook dat Maxima al een paar keer geld heeft geschonken aan Franciscus en zijn rk kerk, geld van haar Nederlandse uitkering……
Intussen is de politie in Bolivia begonnen met de slachting van demonstranten die (nogmaals) tot de meerderheid van het Boliviaanse volk behoren: de oorspronkelijke bevolking…… Afgelopen vrijdag zijn al 9 mensen vermoord en zouden honderden gewond zijn geraakt door met scherp schietende politie, precies waar de VN voor waarschuwt…. De VN die weliswaar de coup in Bolivia veroordeelde, maar daar geen sancties aan verbond, mede doordat degenen die kritiek hadden op Morales vooral uit westerse landen en rechtse landen uit Latijns-Amerika bestaan….
Terug naar de NOS: deze ‘onafhankelijke’ zendgemachtigde heeft zelfs het gore lef te verdedigen dat de OAS de Boliviaanse verkiezingsuitslag van vorige maand ‘in een rapport’ als oneerlijk veroordeelde….. De OAS is vooral een uiterst rechtse organisatie die geleid wordt door fascistische regimes als die in Honduras en Brazilië…… Met haar berichtgeving stelt de NOS in feite dat de OAS gelijk heeft, terwijl het grootste deel van het Boliviaanse volk (die zoals gezegd voor 65% bestaat uit de oorspronkelijke bevolking van Bolivia), stemt op Morales en zo heb je al heel snel de meerderheid in verkiezingen…..
Nogmaals: er was geen reden om Morales af te zetten, zeker niet gezien het beleid dat Morales en zijn regering voerde en dat economische voorspoed bracht, waarbij de oorspronkelijke bevolking deels uit de armoede werd getild, armoede waarin zij al honderden jaren leven……
Weer heeft de NOS bewezen niet onafhankelijk te zijn en geen probleem heeft om in haar anti-Morales-propaganda fake news te brengen en daarmee het Nederlandse volk te desinformeren en te manipuleren……
‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘ Tot het jaar 2000, waar er deze eeuw intussen al meer dan 2,5 miljoen moorden aan toe zijn te voegen, moorden begaan door de VS en de NAVO (waar deze terreurorganisatie onder militair opperbevel stond en staat van de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde…)….
Het
volgende schreef ik op 18 mei dit jaar, n.a.v. een artikel over Iran
en Irak en de relatie van deze landen met de VS….. Het bericht is aan m’n aandacht ontsnapt maar kwam weer ‘bovendrijven’ door de opstand die gaande is in Irak. Opvallend deze grote opstand, waarbij al honderden mensen zijn
omgekomen (veelal vermoord door veiligheidstroepen van politie en leger), waar een sjiitische regering het land regeert, ‘toevallig’
staan de sjiieten er al decennia slecht op bij de VS, zie de genocide in Jemen…… Een genocide uitgevoerd op het sjiitische deel van het volk, waarbij de VS en GB hand- en spandiensten verlenen….. Verder is een opstand gaande in Libanon, waar
de CIA op zeker de hand in heeft, daar men van Hezbollah af wil, een
sjiitische politieke en hulporganisatie….. Gegarandeerd ook dat de
Mossad de CIA meehelpt de stabiliteit van dat land te ondermijnen……
Vergeet verder niet alle smerige acties van de VS tegen Iran, zoals de illegale sancties tegen dat land……
Hier het
stuk dat ik een aantal maanden geleden schreef:
Alex
MacDonald schreef een artikel op Middle East Eye (MEE) over de
verschillende signalen uit het Witte Huis t.a.v. Iran en Irak,
terwijl de laatste 2 landen voor een behoorlijk deel op elkaar zijn
aangewezen, zo komt een groot deel van het gas dat in Irak wordt
gebruikt, uit Iran.
Pompeo
heeft Irak opgedragen de Iraanse milities in de hand te houden daar
de VS anders zonder Bagdad acties zal ondernemen tegen deze
milities……
Het
hieronder opgenomen artikel voegt nog meer onzekerheid toe aan wat er
staat te gebeuren in het Midden-Oosten, mocht de VS besluiten een
volgende illegale oorlog te beginnen, die tegen Iran…..
De
aanvallen tegen tankers vorige week werden al gezien als de volgende
false flag operatie van de VS om Iran te demoniseren en daarmee een
reden te hebben Iran aan te vallen, iets dat nog steeds zou kunnen
gebeuren, als de VS een onderzoek doet, waarbij de uitkomst van te
voren is vastgesteld: Iran is de schuldige….. (het zou bepaald de eerste
keer niet zijn dat de VS met dit bijltje hakt…)
Voorts heeft de VS laten weten dat wanneer haar troepen in Irak worden aangevallen, het zelf actie zal ondernemen, zonder de Iraakse regering daar in te kennen….. Niet vreemd dus dat verzetsgroepen die o.a. tegen IS vochten, groepen die wel en niet door Iran worden gesteund, eisen dat de VS zich volledig terugtrekt uit Irak, echter daar lijkt het nog steeds niet op (zelfs niet een aantal maanden later, dus op 8 november 2019)
Eén
ding is zeker, de Trump administratie is verdeeld over wat te doen
inzake Iran, hoewel oorlogsmisdadiger en topterrorist Bolton, een
ploert die grote invloed heeft op het psychopathische beest Trump, er
geen twijfel over laat bestaan: de VS moet Iran aanvallen en moet alleen daarvoor al in Irak blijven…… (gelukkig is de psychopathische oorlogsmisdadiger Bolton intussen afgeserveerd)
Het volgende artikel werd eerder gepubliceerd op Middle East Eye (MEE) en werd zoals gezegd geschreven door Alex MacDonald:
‘Nobody
really knows what’s going on’: Iraq caught between US and Iran again
‘This
White House does not have a clear policy on how to deal with Iraq –
they see Iraq through a lens of anti-Iran rhetoric,’ Iraqi MP tells
MEE
PMU
fighters ride in a tank near the Iraqi-Syrian border in al-Qaim, Iraq
(Reuters)
With
tensions once again ratcheting up between the US and Iran, Iraq is,
as usual, stuck in the middle.
On
Wednesday, the US announced it was withdrawing all non-essential
staff from the capital Baghdad and the Kurdish capital Erbil
following an unspecified threat from Iran-linked forces.
Iraq
has long been a battlefield for a proxy clash between US and Iranian
interests. Thousands of US troops are still based in the country,
while Iran provides financial and ideological support to a number of
armed groups and political parties.
Just
as many Iraqis were hopeful their country was pulling itself out of a
long period of bloodshed and instability, it looks like the drums of
war could be beating again.
There
is chaos in the White House over how to handle Iraq
–
Sarkawt Shams, MP
Despite
the threats from armed groups, many in Iraq viewed with incredulity
claims by the US that the threat from Iran-backed groups was enough
to warrant pulling staff from the country.
Iraqi
Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi on Tuesday told reporters that
Iraq side had not observed “movements that constitute a threat
to any side. We clarified that to the Americans – the government is
doing its duty to protect all parties.”
The
US has had personnel in Iraq in a wide array of capacities since it
invaded the country in 2003. Threats against them have been frequent
and numerous since then, particularly at the height of the
anti-occupation insurgency in the middle of the first decade of the
century. And yet, there was no pullout of staff during that period of
time.
One
Iraqi government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity
because he is not authorised to speak with the media, said that the
excuses given by the US were “not at all” being taken
seriously by Iraq.
“There
is an increase in diplomacy, an increased number of visits by foreign
affairs ministers or phone calls with them, visits by ambassadors,”
he said.
However,
apart from somewhat greater attention being paid to the news,
there was little planning going on for a possible future conflict.
“Nobody
really knows what’s going on,” the official said
“That
lack of clarity is what is driving some concerns,” he explained.
Iran-Iraq
ties
Any
conflict between Iran and the US would inevitably have a huge impact
on Iraq.
According
to the Iran-Iraq Chamber of Commerce, of $44bn Iranian non-oil
exports, around $9bn worth of goods were exported to Iraq in the year
to March, a 36 percent year on year increase, while as much as 40
percent of Iraqi electricity is thought to come from Iranian gas
plants.
Despite
renewing sanctions on Iran in November, the US has been repeatedly
forced to issue waivers to Iraq, knowing full well how reliant
the country is on the Islamic Republic.
Sarkawt
Shams, an MP with the New Generation party, told MEE that the US
decision was “immature” and based on an “inaccurate”
assessment of the threats.
“There
is chaos in the White House over how to handle Iraq,” he said.
“This White House does not have a clear policy on how to deal
with Iraq – they see Iraq through a lens of anti-Iran rhetoric.”
Shams
said that he was concerned that the US move would end up harming
relations between the two countries, which he hoped would have been
strengthened in a post-Islamic State (IS) era.
“We
were hoping that after the defeat of IS that we could shift relations
between our two countries from military to economic and trade
cooperation – that we could have the US invest in Iraq’s economy, not
just military capability,” he explained.
A
handout picture provided by the Iranian presidency on 6 April shows
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, right, meeting with Iraqi Prime
Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi in Tehran (AFP)
All
this is likely to prove a headache for Abdul Mahdi, who concluded a
visit to Turkey on Thursday.
Iraq
still does not have a defence or interior minister, more than a year
after parliamentary elections.
Reuters
quoted two Iraqi military sources as saying that US Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo had told Iraqi officials during a surprise trip
earlier this month that they would have to keep Iran-backed armed
groups in check.
“They
said if the US were attacked on Iraqi soil, it would take action to
defend itself without coordinating with Baghdad,” the source
said.
Iran-backed
groups such as Asaib Ahl al-Haq, the Badr Organisation and Kataib
Hezbollah have repeatedly called for
US troops to leave the country – as have other non-Iran-backed
groups.
During
a trip by Donald Trump to Iraq in December – a trip which stoked
further controversy as the president chose not to meet with Iraqi
officials – the former reality TV star broke with the official
US policy line that troop deployment was purely aimed at targeting IS
and said that it would also be monitoring Iran, comments which
enraged many Iraqis.
Husham
al-Hashimi, a security analyst based in Baghdad, said the controversy
had “embarrased” Abdul Mahdi, who he said was attempting to
tread “calmly and cautiously with the increased tension between
Washington and Tehran”.
“As
an Iraqi citizen from outside the government and the parties, I am
very anxious about the deterioration of the Iraqi economy,”
Hashimi told MEE. “Investors are worried because they are
scared about the collapse of the Iraqi dinar against the dollar.”
He
added that, unless US embassy officials were able to convince their
bosses in Washington otherwise, “there is a real fear no one can
stop this.”
A
‘real’ foreign policy
A
wide array of countries have
pushed for the US and Iran to tone down their rhetoric and prevent an
escalation following an attack on oil tankers in the Gulf on Monday.
Even
the normally hawkish prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu,
was quoted by Israeli Channel 13 as telling top officials to “take
steps to isolate Israel from any developments and ensure Israel is
not dragged into this escalation”.
Iraq
has suffered decades of violence and unrest, including separate wars
with both the US and Iran.
The
hope for many now is that their country can both stabilise and begin
to assert itself as an independent player in the region, and stop
being the Middle East’s battlefield.
“The
point I discuss with officials and my colleagues in parliament is
that we need to have a real Iraqi foreign policy, which we do not
have,” Shams explained.
“Iraq
needs to be careful about its relationship with two countries, the US
and Iran. Not to intervene in their conflict, but to convince both
countries that Iraq is neutral and not taking sides and to bring
business back to Iraq beyond the security industry and beyond
military companies – so far we have failed to do that, and failed to
normalise Iraq’s role in the international community.”
‘9/11 voorkennis verzwegen in officiële rapporten‘ (deze link daar de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Afghanistan, in feite de voorloper is van die tegen Irak; zie ook de andere links in dat bericht naar 9/11)
Ter zijde zie de berichten over de leugens van Hennis-Plasschaert aangaande het aantal burgerdoden bij de Nederlandse aanval op de Iraakse stad Hawija:
Trump
kondigde al voor zijn verkiezing aan dat hij de VS troepen zou
terugtrekken uit het buitenland, al snel na zijn aantreden bleek ook dat een leugen….. Echter Trump ging nog een stuk verder dan z’n oorlogszuchtige voorgangers
door het Pentagon een ‘carte blanche’ te geven voor de inzet van de
hoeveelheid militairen in het buitenland…….
Trump stelde wat betreft Syrië dat de VS troepen daar zouden worden teruggetrokken, waarop Turkije toestemming kreeg om het door de
Koerden en de VS gecontroleerde gebied binnen te trekken…… Door haastige
besprekingen onder leiding van Rusland werd de illegale oorlog van
Turkije tot staan gebracht….. Opvallend dat al vroeg in deze laatste
illegale campagne van Turkije VS militairen werden aangevallen door
Turkije en de terreurgroepen die Erdogan steunen, Erdogan de
psychopathische moordenaar en reli-fascistische president van Turkije……. Uit dat
voorval bleek al dat de VS zich niet had teruggetrokken uit het
bewuste gebied……
Nu
heeft Trump ronduit gezegd dat de VS zich niet zal terugtrekken uit Syrië daar de VS de oliewinning in het bewuste gebied wil
controleren……. Niet eerder gaf een president van de VS toe dat de VS oorlog voert om de belangen van de olie-industrie veilig te stellen, waarmee het voor de regering Assad moeilijk wordt om het land weer op te bouwen, immers de toegang tot haar olievelden worden voor een groot deel door de VS geblokkeerd
Kortom:
Trump heeft eerst de Koerden verraden door Turkije toestemming te
geven het bewuste gebied binnen te trekken (ja voor de vorm tekende
Trump nog wat protest aan bij Erdogan) en daar alweer een etnische
zuivering door te voeren….. Vervolgens stelt Trump dat de VS het gebied niet zal
verlaten vanwege de olievoorraden in het gebied…… Ofwel de
nieuwe situatie is als volgt: de Koerden, die al ver voor de VS voluit succesvol meededen aan de strijd tegen ISIS in Syrië (strijd die door de VS werd georganiseerd*), hebben een groot deel van het gebied
verlaten, Turkije heeft een deel van het gebied ingenomen en de VS
gaat de oliewinning controleren…..** Hiermee heeft Trump de Koerden zelfs 2 keer verraden!
In
het volgende artikel van Caitlin Johnstone, gaat zij in op ‘de
psychologie’ achter het handelen van de VS in deze, bijvoorbeeld de
leugen dat de VS er is om gebieden te stabiliseren en democratie te
brengen, waar deze terreurentiteit in werkelijkheid uit is op
economisch gewin, het consolideren van haar imperiale macht over de
wereld (waar regelmatig democratisch gekozen regeringen worden
afgezet met hulp van of zelfs door ingrijpen van de VS) en misschien
wel de belangrijkste reden: economisch gewin….. Voor al deze zaken zet de VS
grootschalige terreur in……
“Well
you may throw your rock and hide your hand,workin’
in the dark against your fellow man.But
as sure as God made black and whitewhat’s
down in the dark will be brought to the light.”~
Johnny Cash/traditional, ‘God’s Gonna Cut You Down’
“We’ve
secured the oil, and therefore a small number of US troops will
remain in the area where they have the oil,” Trump said
in a recent press conference.
“And we’re going to be protecting it. And we’ll be deciding
what we’re going to do with it in the future.”
“We
want to keep the oil,” Trump said
in a cabinet meeting a
few days earlier. “Maybe we’ll have one of our big oil companies
to go in and do it properly.”
“A
purpose of those [US] forces, working with the SDF, is to deny access
to those oil fields by ISIS and others who may benefit from
revenues that could be earned,” said Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
As Grayzone‘s
Ben Norton accurately explains, “and others” necessarily
means the Syrian government; preventing Assad from accessing Syrian
oil is standing US military policy.
And
that of course is the real reason US armed forces constantly remain
in Syria despite all the empty babble about ending wars and bringing
home the troops: it’s about control over a nation in a key
geostrategic location which refuses to be absorbed into the blob of
the US-centralized empire. Controlling its material wealth is an
ideal way to do this.
Whenever
I write about oil as a primary motive for US imperialism, I always
get a bunch of right-wingers objecting that that makes no sense
because the US has plenty of oil, and that it’s really about freedom
and democracy or communism or Zionism or pedovore cults or Illuminati
or whatever. What they miss, in their squirming attempts to avoid
cognitive dissonance, is that it’s not about having and consuming oil,
it’s about controlling oil.
Control what governments can and cannot access crucial resources, and
you can control which governments thrive and which ones don’t.
As
Trump said, “We’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with
it in the future.” In no other international power dynamic would
this be considered a rational thing for anyone to say. The idea of
another nation invading Texas and seizing control of its oil fields
and then Xi Jinping or whomever saying “We’re controlling their
oil and we’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with it in the
future” is unthinkable, but a US president can just come right
out and say this about a weaker nation and it won’t even be
front-page news.
I’ve said
it before and
I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is the most honest US president of
all time. By that I don’t mean that he’s an honest person; he of
course lies
constantly.
I simply mean that while his predecessors have always made sure to
dress their imperialist military campaigns up as benevolent
humanitarian intercessions, Trump just stands there out in the open
like “Yeah we grabbed their oil and it’s ours now, blow me.”
There was once a time when claiming a war was really about oil got
you branded a conspiracy theorist. Now the US president just outright
says it.
And
this is really the only reason establishment power structures dislike
Trump. They don’t feel directly threatened by him, they just dislike
the way he’s always saying the quiet part out loud. Status quo power
has a vested interest in keeping a smiling mask on things and
preventing people from thinking too hard about what’s really going on
in the world, and Trump keeps ripping off that mask by telling
everyone what he’s doing in plain English.
Revolution
(the real kind, the kind that actually changes things) is ultimately
a fight against psychological compartmentalization on a mass
scale. Compartmentalization is
a tool people use to avoid the psychological discomfort (aka
cognitive dissonance) that would otherwise be experienced by trying
to hold on to two conflicting positions at one time, like, for
example, seeing yourself as a good person and simultaneously giving
your government your tacit permission to murder strangers on the
other side of the world in your name.
Establishment
power works to prevent people from looking directly at the ugly
aspects of the empire, like the horrific nature of what war is and
how much their country spreads it, or the fact that so many have so
little while a few others have so very much, or the reason their
government doesn’t seem to operate the way they were taught in
school. The empire has a vested interest in keeping these
things in the dark, while the clear-eyed rebel is always trying
to drag
them kicking and screaming into the light.
This
is why truth-tellers and whistleblowers are always made public enemy
number one by our rulers.
The
true rebel fights to enlighten things, the empire fights to endarken
them. This is the struggle from the largest power structures in our
world, right down to our own inner lives as individual human beings.
This is why I talk so much about the importance of inner work; it’s
all one struggle, from the evil secrets hidden behind thick walls of
government opacity all the way down to the parts of ourselves we try
not to look at. Your efforts to become a more consciously integral
and less compartmentalized human being are just as important as your
efforts to expose the puppet strings to the audience.
As
November 2020 draws nearer the screams to shut up and stop pointing
at the truth are going to get louder and louder for political
dissidents in America, even louder than the “shut
up and fall in line”
admonishments that Bernie-or-Busters received constantly in 2016.
This will only be the voice of the empire yelling “Pay no
attention to that man behind the curtain!” It will only be those
who are still plugged into the imperial
narrative matrix transforming
into a bunch of Agent Smiths and telling you to stop saying things
which cause them cognitive dissonance.
But,
for someone who has signed the truth-at-all-costs contract within
themselves, this simply won’t be an option. Our desire to bring
what’s dark into the light will overcome any pressure to keep things
endarkened, whether it be in ourselves, in our relationships, in our
society, in our government, or in our world. Followed through with in
a deep and integral way, it changes the way we think, it changes the
way we experience our own consciousness, it alters our behavior, it
ruins our experience of news media and Hollywood blockbusters, it
ends our marriages, it breaks up longstanding friendships and forges
new ones, and it makes the deceptions of the powerful utterly
intolerable. Truth come what may means truth come what may, and it’s
a lifetime commitment.
* De VS was al vanaf 2006 bezig met de voorbereiding van een opstand in Syrië die moest leiden tot de afzetting van het bewind Assad, dit daar deze regering pijpleidingen weigerde die over haar grondgebied zouden moeten lopen in de richting van de EU, het ging daarbij vooral om gaspijpleidingen….. Ofwel de VS is direct verantwoordelijk voor de opstand in Syrië, waarvoor ook terroristen werden ingevlogen door de VS, terroristen die geweld moesten gebruiken tijdens demonstraties, zodat het bewind Assad de schuld in de schoenen kon worden geschoven, waarna het volk zich tegen Assad zou keren en hij afgezet zou worden, een beproefd recept van de VS……. Dit keer mislukte de opzet, waarna de VS en Egypte grote groepen terroristen (ook IS leden) van Libië naar Irak vervoerden en deze voorzien van wapens, munitie en rollend oorlogstuig over de Syrische grens brachten, om daar het bewind Assad ten val te brengen…..
** De VS gaat de oliewinning zogenaamd controleren om te zorgen dat IS (ISIS) niet weer de oliewinning kan gebruiken voor haar terreur…… Terwijl de VS bij het zogenaamde vertrek stelde dat IS in hetzelfde gebied was verslagen…… Ongelofelijk, je zou denken dat er werkelijk geen mens meer is die de VS nog gelooft of vertrouwt, maar onze westerse leiders laten zich graag ‘belazeren’ door de VS, sterker nog: ze doen als NAVO-lidstaten maar al te graag mee aan de grootschalige VS terreur in de hoop ook een graantje mee te pikken en dat middels grootschalige verspilling van ons belastinggeld….. Daarmee zijn de westerse regeringen verantwoordelijk voor de terreur op de Europese straten en voor de enorme vluchtelingenstromen!!!
Zoals je
wellicht wel weet, erger ik me kapot aan het enorme leugencliché dat De Krim is geannexeerd door de Russen en dat het daar
gehouden referendum werd gemanipuleerd door de Russen, die tijdens
het referendum met grote aantallen militairen op straat zouden zijn gezien…… Niets van waar, bovendien hebben internationale waarnemers het referendum gecontroleerd en zij stelden dat het referendum eerlijk en goed was verlopen…….
Eva
Bartlett, de bekende onderzoeks- en oorlogsjournalist uit de VS ging
op reis om e.e.a. te onderzoeken. Ze sprak met mensen die al
generaties in De Krim wonen, de oorspronkelijke bevolking van De Krim, Oekraïners (mensen die voorheen in Oekraïne woonden), etnische Russen en anderen, waarbij ze telkens weer hetzelfde verhaal te horen kreeg: men wilde zich aansluiten bij Rusland.
Niet voor niets leefde die wens onder de bevolking, zeker als je de staat van de
infrastructuur zag (van wegen t/m de havens en het vliegveld van Simferopol) ten tijde van
het Oekraïense bestuur: enorm veel gaten in de wegen, alles afgeragd
en slecht onderhouden, Kiev stak dan ook geen geld in De Krim….. Ook de bouw van ziekenhuizen en crèches bleef ver achter bij de behoefte daaraan….. Uit
eerdere berichtgeving (al van voor de opstand) weet ik dat men
destijds stemde voor Janoekovytsj, die beloofde e.e.a. op te knappen, bovendien wilde hij vriendschappelijke banden met Rusland onderhouden, waarbij Oekraïne zelfs een verdrag werd aangeboden, dat in tegenstelling tot een verdrag met de EU, uiterst lucratief zou zijn geweest (iets dat de VS zo stak dat het
de opstand in Oekraïne organiseerde en regisseerde*).
De
opstand eindigde met het afzetten van Janoekovytsj en het installeren
van een VS vriendelijk dictatuur o.l.v. de zwaar corrupte Porosjenko,
bovendien een neonazi……. Dit was voor de bevolking van de Krim en de
bevolking van de Donbass-regio het sein om een punt achter de relatie
met Oekraïne te zetten, immers de door hen gekozen president werd
afgezet en vervangen door een fascistische junta……
Lees het
volgende mooie reisverslag waarin diverse mensen stellen dat men
volkomen achter het besluit staat tot aansluiting bij Rusland en dat Rusland in de paar jaar dat Oekraïne zich aansloot zo ongeveer gehele infrastructuur heeft
vernieuwd dan wel opgeknapt……. Lees het verhaal en onthoud dat
als je weer eens hoort over de ‘annexatie’ van De Krim en de ‘Russian
backed rebels’ die samen met het Russische leger zouden vechten in de
Donbass-regio, waar het Porosjenko regime enorme oorlogsmisdaden
heeft begaan, oorlogsmisdaden als het bombarderen van steden en dat
NB door neonazi-bataljons, om nog maar te zwijgen over de schuld van de Porosjenko junta voor het neerhalen van MH17…..
Zegt het
voort mensen, de leugenbrij en anti-Russische propaganda moet
eindelijk worden gestopt!! (en vergeet niet dat zoals gezegd ook rampvlucht MH17
onderdeel is geworden van die leugenbrij…..)
Hier het artikel van Bartlett, eerder gepubliceerd op MintPress News:
Eva
Bartlett traveled to Crimea to see firsthand out how Crimeans have
fared since 2014 when their country reunited with Russia, and what
the referendum was really like.
SIMFEROPOL,
CRIMEA — In
early August I traveled to Russia for the first time, partly out of
interest in seeing some of the vast country with a tourist’s eyes,
partly to do some journalism in the region. It also transpired that
while in Moscow I was able to interview
Maria Zakharova,
spokeswoman of the Foreign Ministry.
High
on my travel list, however, was to visit Crimea and Donetsk People’s
Republic (DPR) — the former a part of Russia, the latter an
autonomous republic in the east of Ukraine, neither accurately
depicted in Western reporting. Or at least that was my sense looking
at independent journalists’ reports and those in Russian media.
Both
regions are native Russian-speaking areas; both opted out of Ukraine
in 2014. In the case of Crimea, joining Russia (or
actually rejoining, as most I spoke to in Crimea
phrased it) was something people overwhelmingly supported. In the
case of the Donbass region, the turmoil of Ukraine’s Maidan coup in
2014 set things in motion for the people in the region to declare
independence and form the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.
In
March 2014, Crimeans held a referendum during which 96 percent
of voters chose
to join Russia.
This has been heavily disputed in Western media, with claims that
Crimeans were forced to hold the referendum and claims of Russian
troops on the streets “occupying” the peninsula.
Because
Western media insisted the referendum was a sham held under duress,
and because they bandy about the term “pro-Russian separatists”
for the people of the DPR, I decided to go and speak to people in
these areas to hear what they actually want and feel.
From
the Russian mainland to the Crimean Peninsula
From
St. Petersburg, where I spent a few touristy days, I booked a flight
to Simferopol, the capital of Crimea, and on August 22 I landed at
the attractive new airport. A Russian-American friend, Vlad, flies in
from Moscow and together we rent a car and drive to Alushta, a
tourist-packed seaside area to the south.
As
we drive from the airport, Vlad can’t get over the changes in the
airport, which had been dank and barely functional when he last
visited:
“When
I came here at the end of 2014, Simferopol Airport was very dated:
small and stuffy, low ceilings, small windows; the bathrooms didn’t
work, there was a constant stench in the air, and many facilities
weren’t working — even the baggage carousels didn’t work
properly. There were no restaurants or cafes, and no places to rent
taxis. Now, it’s a world-class international airport.”
We
drive south along smooth roads, passing endless vineyards on either
side, flanked by low mountains. As Vlad drives, he comments on the
condition of the roads, which five years prior were so rough “you
had to swerve to dodge the potholes.”
Descending
to the coast, along cypress tree-lined streets, we arrive in the hub
of Alushta, park, and stroll along the seaside. The beach scenes
could be anywhere: people sunbathing and swimming, jet-skiing,
drinking beer and eating. In the touristy hub before the beach, a
carnival sort of feel and smell, a man playing the accordion,
children’s rides, upscale restaurants, and fast-food stalls.
Revelers
enjoy the pristine Black Sea waters of Alushta. Photo | Eva Bartlett
As
it happens, we arrive on Russia’s National Flag Day and while
walking we come across a small event celebrating this with singers on
stage and a crowd that, when we pass by again some hours later, has
grown in size and enthusiasm.
I
remark on how kind and gentle people are here, just as in Russia.
Vlad replies:
“It
shouldn’t be surprising — people are people anywhere. But Western
media conditions us with stereotypes of Russians as cold and hard,
vilifying an entire nation.”
The
coastal city of Yalta lies further west along the peninsula. The
drive there the following day is more beautiful still, the road
flanked by mountains to one side, hills cascading down to the Black
Sea on the other, endless wineries and, before Yalta itself, the
stunning cliff-top castle known as “Swallow’s Nest.”
In
the evening, we stay in the home of Vlad’s friend Tata, a Russian
woman who moved to Crimea in 2012.
Since
there was so much hype in Western media about a Russian takeover of
the peninsula, I ask the burning questions: Were Crimeans forced to
take part in the referendum? What was the mood like around that time?
Tata replied:
“I
never saw so many people in my life go out to vote, of their own free
will. There was a period before the referendum, maybe about two
months, during which there were two holidays: International Women’s
Day, March 8, and Defender of the Fatherland Day, February 23.
Normally,
people would go away on vacation during these holidays. But that
year, Crimeans didn’t go anywhere; they wanted to be sure they were
here during the referendum. We felt the sense of a miracle about to
happen. People were anxiously awaiting the referendum.
There
were military tents in the city, but they were not erected by the
military, but by local men. They would stand there every day, and
people could come and sign a document calling for a referendum.
I
went one day and asked if I could add my name but I couldn’t,
because I have a Russian passport. Only Crimean citizens could sign
it. This was the fair way to do it.
At
that time, my husband was in America. One day, he was watching CNN
and got scared and called me because he saw reports of soldiers in
the streets, an ‘invasion’ by Russia.
The
local navy came from Sevastopol to Yalta and anchored their ships off
the coast, made a blockade to ensure no larger Ukrainian or other
ships could come and attack.
But
I never saw tanks, I never saw Russian soldiers. I never saw any of
that in the city.”
Young
boys enjoy a local skate park in Sevastopool. Photo | Eva Bartlett
I
asked Tata about how life had changed after the referendum:
“When
I came here in December 2012, everything was dilapidated and run
down. The nice roads you were driving on, they didn’t exist when we
were a part of Ukraine. I didn’t understand why Crimea was still a
part of Ukraine. It was Russian land ever since the Tsars, the
imperial time of Russia. This is where the Russian soul is, and the
soul of the Russian navy.
After
the Soviet Union collapsed, it wasn’t the will of the Crimean
people to join Ukraine. People were always Russian here; they always
identified as Russian. Ukraine understood this well, and put nothing
into Crimea, as punishment. Ukraine didn’t build any hospitals,
kindergartens or roads.
In
the past four years, the Crimean government has built 200 new
kindergartens. This is the most obvious example of how things have
improved. They also built the new Simferopol airport.
I
worked in aviation. It took three years to build an airport of this
standard in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It took half a year in
Simferopol.”
International
Jazz Festival
On
my third day in Crimea, we drive eastward anew, driving for hours
through the gorgeous countryside, along winding and rolling roads
flanked by jagged mountains, past an exceptionally beautiful church
(Nicholas Church Lighthouse) overlooking the coast, and down along
the sea through more touristy seaside towns and past lines of day
tents along the beach. The local FM radio plays a variety of both
Russian and Western songs.
Finally,
after night falls, we drive into the city of Koktebel, where an
annual Jazz Festival is starting.
Buskers
entertain passersby at the annual Koktebel Jazz Festival. Photo | Eva
Bartlett
During
all these hours of driving, the roads are smooth and well-trafficked,
and I don’t see a single Russian military vehicle.
The
next day, I walk through Koktebel, taking in the local markets
brimming with produce, cheeses, and other goods, and every so often
come across a streetside stand laden with fresh fruits. In the late
afternoon, I walk along the sea, past packed beaches, and meet with a
Crimean woman, Yaroslava, who lives in Austria but every summer
returns to her beloved Crimea. She is ardently supportive of the
decision to have joined Russia and spends much of her time back in
Austria trying to educate people on why Crimeans wanted to be a part
of Russia.
These
are reasons I hear throughout my travels in Crimea: We wanted to
be able to speak our native language [Russian] and be educated in
that language; we wanted to be able to practice our cultural
traditions; we have always been a part of Russia and we wanted to
return.
Yaroslava
is busy helping out with the Jazz Festival and wants to use the rest
of our short time talking to help me arrange future meetings with
people in Crimea. We decided to do a proper interview via Skype in
the future when time allows.
I
drift on to the Jazz Festival, where a talented pianist and band play
beach-side to an enthusiastic crowd. Some songs later, I drift back
along the beach, passing numerous musicians busking, and a pulsing
nightlife that isn’t going to bed any time soon.
Construction
everywhere
On
the fifth day, we drive back to Simferopol; Vlad is heading back to
Moscow. As we drive, we see road work repeatedly, just as we had when
driving from Simferopol south to Alushta: roads being widened,
repaved; bridges being repaired or newly built. This is something I
observed throughout my travels around Crimea. I remember Tata’s
words about “everything being dilapidated” and have a hard time
imagining that now with what I see.
Vlad
departs for Moscow, and I’m on my own now, traveling from the
airport via public bus and minibus. At one point I ask a young
couple, using Yandex translate, for directions. They get me on the
right minibus and, following my route via Yandex maps, I get myself
to Simferopol’s rail station and walk the half-hour to my
nondescript hotel. I again need to ask locals for directions, as the
unmarked hotel is in some parking lot behind a supermarket.
I
retrace my steps to the train station the next day and repeat the
routine to buy a ticket for Sevastopol. The ticket is 119 rubles
(just under $2). Over the next two hours on a slow train with wooden
seats, I watch as more beautiful scenery and construction slide by.
Construction
dots the train ride to Sevastopol. Photo | Eva Bartlett
Arriving
in Sevastopol, I leave the train station and hope to find some cafe
where I can charge my phone, as I need it to navigate to the
guesthouse where I’ve theoretically reserved a room online.
As
I stand to orient the map route and zoom in to look for any signs of
cafes, a woman walks by me and says with a smile something with the
word “shto,” which I think means “what.” When I reply in
English, she laughs and flags down another woman, Yana, who speaks
English well and insists she and her husband drive me.
As
we drive, we chat. I ask her about the referendum, mentioning that
many in the West have the notion that it was done under duress, with
a heavy military presence to influence the vote. She laughs, saying:
“There were no troops, no military, around us during the
referendum.” She speaks of the joy of Crimeans to vote, says that
maybe 98 percent of Sevastopol voters had voted in favor [it
was apparently
96 percent,
but close enough], and adds, “We are now under the wing of Russia.”
I
ask about developments since then. She mentions the improvements in
roads, also the modern trolley-buses and regular buses, the opening
of kindergartens and schools, and free courses (like music) for
children.
We
arrive at the remote guesthouse, where we realize that no one is home
to give me a room. Yana mentions her parents have a guesthouse just
outside the city and overlooking the bay. We drive to it, I meet the
owners, charming people who set me up in a little apartment
surrounded by fig and pear trees and with a small swimming pool to
cool off in.
They
invite me for dinner, but I have to politely decline in order to get
back to work, though I do take a few minutes to enjoy their pool, the
stars, the silence, and the incredible fragrance of some night
blossoms.
The
stunning view of the bay in Malorichenske. Photo | Eva Bartlett
The
next few days, when not working on my laptop, I go for walks in the
area, take in Sevastopol Bay, and one day take a minibus into the
city and walk for hours around it, seeing some of the key sights.
When
I finally need to leave Sevastopol for Simferopol again, the couple
refuses to take my money, insists I am their guest, and drives me to
the bus station, stopping en route at a market where
they search for ten minutes until they find the traditional Armenian
treats they want to give me: walnuts covered in the syrup of various
fruits (pomegranate, peach, currant, grape), and a box of
walnut-stuffed dried figs.
Ukrainians
in Crimea
In
Simferopol anew, I meet Anastasiya Gridchina, the Chair of the
Ukrainian Community of Crimea, an organization formed in 2015 whose
main goals, she tells me, “are to have friendly relations between
two great peoples: Ukrainians and Russians — not the politicians
but the people. The second goal is to preserve inter-ethnic peace in
the Republic between different nationalities.”
Gridchina
explains that in Crimea there are more than 175 nationalities, just
20 less than in all of Russia, but in a very small territory. Hence
the importance of preserving inter-ethnic peace. After Russians,
Ukrainians comprise the second largest population in Crimea.
I asked Anastasiya whether she supported, much less participated in the
referendum.
“I
worked very hard in order that we could have a referendum. I live in
Perevalne, the last settlement in the mountains above Alushta. There
was a Ukrainian military detachment which did surrender. In February
2014, I was among a line of people standing between the Ukrainian and
Russian military detachments, to prevent any bloodshed. The fear that
prevailed at that time was that nationalists from Ukraine would come
here and we would have massacres.
In
February, there was a confrontation outside the Parliament here in
Simferopol. It was organized by leaders of the Mejlis — the
Crimeans Tatars. On the other side, there were some pro-Russia
organizations who were protecting the Parliament. They were far less
[numerous] than the Mejlis. The Mejlis were armed with sticks and
knives. There were clashes and two people were killed, but thankfully
it didn’t escalate beyond that.
When
the news came that there would be a referendum, people relaxed. They
had a chance to express their point of view and 96 percent of the
population of Crimea voted for Crimea to return to Russia.”
Since
she is Ukrainian, I asked Anastasiya why she wanted Crimea to join
Russia:
“I’ve
lived in Crimea all my life, and my language is Russian. And I know
the history of Crimea, which has always been Russian territory, which
has a history beginning with the Russian Empire and then the Soviet
Union. So, it is Russian-speaking territory, first of all. That’s
why I believe it should be in the Russian Federation, not in
Ukraine.”
Singer
entertain a crowd in Alushta on Russia’s National Flag Day. Photo |
Eva Bartlett
I
asked about the claims that Russian soldiers invaded Crimea:
“Whatever
they might have said about Russian soldiers forcing people to
participate in the referendum, it was all lies, pure lies. We did not
see any soldiers on the streets, especially on the day of the
referendum.
I
gave an interview to foreign journalists before the referendum. But
when they published it, they changed my words. I said we were very
thankful to the Russian troops that were here, that protected us from
the attacks of Ukrainian nationalists prior to the referendum. But
they translated it that I said ‘Please, we want Ukrainian soldiers
to defend us from those Russian soldiers.’
The
Russian troops that were here were not on the streets on the day of
the referendum but, at the time in general, they were there to
protect civilians from an attack by Ukrainians.
On
the day of the referendum, there were no soldiers, no military. The
only security were there to prevent any illegal actions. No military
people were there, no arms, no armored personnel carriers, no
military equipment, nothing. Only members of the election commission
and the people voting.”
I
asked whether many Ukrainian Crimeans left following the referendum:
“There
were those who immediately after the referendum left Crimea for
Ukraine because it was their personal wish. Nobody prevented them
from going. Even the soldiers had an option: to stay and continue
military service here, or to leave.
There
were also some people who didn’t like that Crimea joined Russia,
but didn’t leave for pragmatic reasons. Because the quality of life
in Russia is much higher than in Ukraine. So they continue living in
Crimea.”
Finally,
Anastasiya gave me a message for the people outside of Crimea:
“I’d
like to tell people around the world, welcome to Crimea, come here
yourselves and see and hear with your own eyes and ears, to
understand that all the lies you hear about Crimea, that we are
oppressed or under pressure from the military…this is all lies,
this is all not true.
Also,
that we are not allowed to speak Ukrainian is a lie. One of the state
languages is Ukrainian. Russian and Tatar are also state languages.”
As
she leaves to go to the Ukrainian festival she has helped organize,
she notes that the government allotted part of its budget towards
financing the festival. She invites me to join. “You can see us
singing Ukrainian songs, see our culture and traditions preserved.”
Next,
I speak to Yuri
Gempel,
a member of Parliament, and the chairman of the Standard Commission
on Inter-Ethnic Relations of the Parliament of Crimea.
* Hillary Clinton stak als minister van buitenlandse zaken tijdens de Obama administratie maar liefst 4 miljard dollar in het organiseren van de opstand, die tot de afzetting van Janoekovytsj leidde…….
Het psychopathische beest Trump heeft laten weten dat ‘illegale migranten’* die de grens proberen over te steken, dan wel deze al zijn gepasseerd, in de benen moeten worden geschoten, zodat ze worden vertraagd bij hun vlucht….. Moet je nagaan, dit is een afzwakking, daar Trump eerder suggereerde dat vluchtelingen maar moesten worden doodgeschoten bij illegaal betreden van VS grondgebied…..
Vergeet niet dat de vluchtelingen die naar de VS trekken, werden vervolgd door regimes die ofwel door de VS in het zadel werden geholpen, dan wel via manipulaties door de VS aan het bewind zijn gekomen….* Het voorgaande o.a. door VS (CIA) manipulaties van verkiezingen in zo’n land, of anders door een opstand te organiseren, waarbij men hoopt dat daardoor de bevolking het heenzenden zal eisen van het zittende bewind (veelal voorafgegaan met het instellen van VS-terreursancties, waardoor het volk in opstand zal komen volgens de VS ‘doctrine’, iets dat overigens lang niet altijd succes heeft, maar wel grote aantallen mensen het leven kost**)….. Ook een door de VS georganiseerde en geregisseerde staatsgreep hoort tot de mogelijkheden, zoals in Honduras gebeurde in 2009, waar de democratisch gekozen president werd afgezet….. (verantwoordelijk minister destijds: Hillary Clinton, die werkte voor de Obama administratie, Obama die te belachelijk voor woorden de Nobelprijs voor de vrede kreeg….)
Hier een video over het schieten op vluchtelingen met de gewelddadige opperkleuter en fascist Trump:
Dan nog het volgende: vorige week liet Trump weten dat ‘illegale emigranten’ geen recht mogen doen gelden op de gezondheidszorg, daar ze de zorg onnodig duur maken en daarmee ontoegankelijk maken voor VS burgers….. Alsof hem het iets interesseert of VS burgers uit de grote onderlaag wel of geen toegang hebben tot de gezondheidszorg, sterker nog hij wil de beperkte toegang tot die zorg, zoals ingevoerd door Obama, weer ‘van de kaart vegen…….’
Ofwel: Trump wil vluchtelingen in de benen schieten en hen daarna medische hulp ontzeggen…… (alweer ‘rasechte’ fascistische opmerkingen)
Hoe is het mogelijk dat westerse landen de VS nog serieus nemen en niet pleiten voor sancties tegen dat ‘land’, anderen landen moeten e.e.a. wel ondergaan, terwijl ze nog niet in de schaduw kunnen staan van wat Trump zegt en doet, ook gezien wat de VS aan geweld, of zeg maar gerust terreur uitoefent op wereldschaal…….. Daarmee zijn m.i. de westerse regeringen die goede banden onderhouden met de VS en zich middels de NAVO laten misbruiken door de VS, mede verantwoordelijk voor wat Trump zegt en doet! (daarbij nog het volgende: de VS voert altijd het militair opperbevel in die Noord-Atlantische terreurorganisatie)
* ‘Illegale migranten’ ofwel vluchtelingen die hun land zijn ontvlucht doordat een door de VS geïnstalleerd bewind, dan wel fascistoïde regeringen hen het leven onmogelijk maken (fascistoïde en fascistische regeringen/regimes die VS vriendelijk zijn, hebben bij de zittende administratie, zoals nu die van Trump, altijd een dikke streep voor op andere landen)
** Zoals in Venezuela, waar al meer dan 40.000 mensen zijn omgekomen door die terreursancties
