Are Capitalism and Communism Becoming One?

PUTINgaz.jpg(left, Critics estimate Putin’s personal stake in Gazprom and
other corporations is worth $70 billion.)  

Are we witnessing a dialectic whereby Communism and Capitalism
are being “comfortably merged?”
Is the snake shedding its skin and revealing
its true character, private monopoly capitalism fronted by the State?

This is part two of  Do Americans Face a Red Terror?

by James Perloff
(henrymakow.com)

Could Americans experience a modernized Red Terror? Though America would never have accepted outright communist revolution, it is now adopting measures accurately termed socialism. The Illuminati are employing a timeworn principle: To boil a frog, don’t toss him in boiling water – he’ll jump out. Instead, put him in lukewarm water and gradually raise the heat; the frog never realizes he’s been boiled. This slow warming is “Fabian socialism” (gradual communism).

• In communist states, religion was abolished. This was impossible in America, so the Illuminati had Supreme Court Freemasons (whose Masonic oaths transcended their oaths to uphold the Constitution) destroy religious freedom by degrees – banning school prayer, outlawing Ten Commandments displays, etc.

socialism9.jpg• Whereas communists seize the economy, socialism does it gradually, confiscating income through rising taxes, while burdening businesses with mounting regulations. Whenever government usurps another sector of life – be it learning (Education Department) or health (Obamacare) we draw nearer to communism. Socialism’s end result is IDENTICAL to communism, but achieved over decades.

This fulfills the famous revelation Ford Foundation President Rowan Gaither made to Congressional investigator Norman Dodd: that Establishment foundations planned “to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”

However, this had a corollary. East-West merger required communist states to temporarily abandon hard-line communism and adopt moderate socialism with democratic trappings. I consider this the purpose of Gorbachev introducing glasnost in 1989. The ending of Orwell’s Animal Farm, where the pigs and farmers became indistinguishable, is being played out.

Communist genocide was not confined to Russia. Under Mao Tse-tung, China’s death toll rose above 60 million; Pol Pot eliminated nearly one-third of Cambodians in the 1970s. Yet suddenly, in the 1990s, worldwide communism put on a smiley.  It made no sense; totalitarians do not voluntarily yield power.

lies.jpgGlasnost’s meaning was disclosed by Anatoly Golitsyn, highest-ranking KGB officer to defect during the Cold War (Alfred Hitchcock dramatized his escape in Topaz). In Golitsyn’s 1984 book New Lies for Old, he revealed the groundbreaking strategy the KGB disclosed to him. His book predicted: Yuri Andropov’s replacement by “a younger leader with a more liberal image” [Gorbachev]; democratic liberalization throughout the Eastern bloc; the Berlin Wall’s fall and reunion of East and West Germany. Golitsyn’s book made 148 predictions; by 1993, 139 were fulfilled. Though a political prophet, the media ignored him.

Golitsyn warned the changes were a TEMPORARY DECEPTION. In the end, he wrote, “all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear.”

Could Putin ultimately prove to be an instrument of this agenda?

THE GUIDING HAND SEEN IN 1917

Czar Nicholas abdicated in March 1917. Since Bolshevik leaders Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky weren’t even in Russia then, how did they gain control of it by November 1917?

Western analysts uncovered parts of this mystery, but much remained unknown due to the Soviet government’s stranglehold on its history – as Orwell said, “Who controls the present controls the past.”

With glasnost, archives creaked open. Perhaps no one has collated the information better than Juri Lina whose out-of-print Under the Sign of the Scorpion can be found online until his new edition is released this April.

The Rothschild-Illuminati axis, through their network of banksters and Freemasons, controlled the Bolshevik operation.

• In February 1917, an artificially induced bread shortage accompanied orchestrated rioting in Petrograd (then Russia’s capital). In a “false flag,” the mobs were machine-gunned from hidden positions; the casualties were blamed on the Czar.

• British agents bribed Russian soldiers to mutiny and join the rioting. White Russian General Arsene de Goulevitch wrote: “I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord Milner in financing the Russian Revolution.” 33rd degree Freemason Alfred Milner was a Rothschild front man.

• Several Russian generals were Freemasons who betrayed the Czar under Masonic instructions.

karensk.jpg• Russians thought the provisional government, established under Alexander Kerensky after the Czar’s fall, meant future democracy. But Kerensky, Grand Secretary of Russia’s Grand Orient, was “phase one” of communist takeover. His government pardoned all political exiles – green light for return to Russia of fellow Freemasons Lenin and Trotsky.

• Jacob Schiff and Federal Reserve founder Paul Warburg ran Kuhn, Loeb – the Rothschilds’ New York banking satellite. Schiff supplied $20 million in gold to Trotsky, who sailed from New York with 275 other terrorists on a passport obtained through pressure the bankers put on the Wilson administration.

• In Germany, Warburg’s brother Max helped persuade the government to provide millions to Lenin and allow him to cross Germany with other revolutionaries in a special train. The Germans agreed because the Bolsheviks promised to remove Russia from the First World War after taking power.

• The Bolsheviks succeeded because they had what other revolutionaries (e.g., Mensheviks) lacked – limitless cash. By May 1917, Pravda already had a circulation of 300,000.

• It is a myth that Kerensky and the Bolsheviks were adversaries. Kerensky received $1 million from Jacob Schiff. During summer 1917, when it was revealed the Bolsheviks were on Germany’s payroll – treason during wartime – Kerensky protected them. When the Bolsheviks moved to seize power that autumn, he declined the option of requesting troops to preserve the government. Lenin and Trotsky gave Kerensky money and safe passage out. He died wealthy in 1970 in New York, where the Russian Orthodox Church refused him burial services.

• Postwar Britain sent the Bolsheviks rifles and ammunition for 250,000 men. With this and other Western assistance, the Reds crushed the White opposition. Loans and technology from Western capitalists poured in for decades, as documented in Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Joseph Finder’s Red Carpet.

What was the bankers’ purpose in establishing communism? With the exception of just a few issues (like homosexuality), Russia and the United states resemble each other more each day. Both states are essentially devoted to materialism. Both are potential totalitarian states, hidden by a patina of free speech and democracy. There is a saying, “You become what you fight against.” Is this happening?

James Perloff  is author of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior,  an expose of the satanic drive for a new world order.

This article in its original form can be found on James Perloff’s website.

Continue reading

“MANUFACTURING DISSENT”: THE ANTI-GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT IS FUNDED BY THE CORPORATE ELITES

THE PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT HAS BEEN HIJACKED 

ED Noor: As pointed out in previous articles, all of the above agencies are involved in the hijacking activities below to some extent. As also stated previously, the majority of the people involved in these organizations are decent dedicated folk who work with love and purpose. They are simply unaware of the truth of the matter.
.
The 4th media

March 10, 2014
ED Noor: As situations heat up in one area or another, lately we hear of NGO’s being ousted from various countries. It is time people understood the true roles these people play in the scheme of things. Many NGO’s are indeed well meaning individuals caught up in circumstances beyond their expectations, but these honest brokers are fewer and farther between. We know vested interests own our media and control the information flow; for years we have pointed out the results of these interests working through various international humanitarian organizations. Although Dr. Chussodovsky does not name any group in particular, my regular readers know full well who is behind these criminal shenanigans. These tactics are right in line with various precepts of infiltration, deception and domination as described in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

This article was first published in 2010. The author’s introductory quote was first formulated in 2001 in the context of the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City which was held a few months before 9/11.

“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the World safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government.“ ~ (McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (1961-1966), President of the Ford Foundation, (1966-1979))
“By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, … and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions” ~ (Paul Kivel, You Call this Democracy, Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Really Decides, 2004, p. 122)
“Under the New World Order, the ritual of inviting “civil society” leaders into the inner circles of power ~ while simultaneously repressing the rank and file  ~ serves several important functions. First, it says to the World that the critics of globalization “must make concessions” to earn the right to mingle. Second, it conveys the illusion that while the global elites should ~ under what is euphemistically called democracy ~ be subject to criticism, they nonetheless rule legitimately. And third, it says “there is no alternative” to globalization: fundamental change is not possible and the most we can hope is to engage with these rulers in an ineffective “give and take”.
.
While the “Globalizers” may adopt a few progressive phrases to demonstrate they have good intentions, their fundamental goals are not challenged. And what this “civil society mingling” does is to reinforce the clutch of the corporate establishment while weakening and dividing the protest movement. An understanding of this process of co-optation is important, because tens of thousands of the most principled young people in Seattle, Prague and Quebec City [1999-2001] are involved in the anti-globalization protests because they reject the notion that money is everything, because they reject the impoverishment of millions and the destruction of fragile Earth so that a few may get richer.

.
This rank and file and some of their leaders as well, are to be applauded. But we need to go further. We need to challenge the right of the “Globalizers” to rule. This requires that we rethink the strategy of protest. Can we move to a higher plane, by launching mass movements in our respective countries, movements that bring the message of what globalization is doing, to ordinary people? For they are the force that must be mobilized to challenge those who plunder the Globe.” ~ (Michel Chossudovsky, The Quebec Wall, April 2001)
 

ED Noor: Pretty fancy words. Someone was paid the big bucks to come up with such a slogan that can have so many double entrendres leading to such diverse interpretations depending upon agenda or level of naivete.

“MANUFACTURED CONSENT” VS. “MANUFACTURED DISSENT”

The term “manufacturing consent” was initially coined by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky.
“Manufacturing consent” describes a propaganda model used by the corporate media to sway public opinion and “inculcate individuals with values and beliefs…”:
The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behaviour that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda. ~ (Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky)
“Manufacturing consent” implies manipulating and shaping public opinion. It establishes conformity and acceptance to authority and social hierarchy. It seeks compliance to an established social order. “Manufacturing consent” describes the submission of public opinion to the mainstream media narrative, to its lies and fabrications.
.
ED Noor: At this point, dear Reader, remember the work of Edward Bernays, nephew of Freud, creator of modern social psychological manipulation, and the Frankfurt School. Might I also suggest that, if you have not yet seen it, The Century of the Self, would be worth watching.
.
In this article, we focus on a related concept, namely the subtle process of “manufacturing dissent” (rather than “consent”), which plays a decisive role in serving the interests of the ruling class.
.
Under contemporary capitalism, the illusion of democracy must prevail. It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent.
.
To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition, with a view to preventing the development of radical forms of protest, which might shake the very foundations and institutions of global capitalism. In other words, “manufacturing dissent” acts as a “safety valve”, which protects and sustains the New World Order.
.
To be effective, however, the process of “manufacturing dissent” must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement.
.
“FUNDING DISSENT”
How is the process of manufacturing dissent achieved?
.
Essentially by “funding dissent”, namely by channelling financial resources from those who are the object of the protest movement to those who are involved in organizing the protest movement.
.
Co-optation is not limited to buying the favours of politicians. The economic elites ~ which control major foundations ~  also oversee the funding of numerous NGOs and civil society organizations, which historically have been involved in the protest movement against the established economic and social order. The programs of many NGOs and people’s movements rely heavily on funding from both public as well as private foundations including the Ford, Rockefeller, McCarthy foundations, among others.
.
The anti-globalization movement is opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Big Oil) with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities.
.
The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.
.
Whereas the mainstream media “manufactures consent”, the complex network of NGOs (including segments of the alternative media) are used by the corporate elites to mould and manipulate the protest movement.
.
Following the deregulation of the global financial system in the 1990s and the rapid enrichment of the financial establishment, funding through foundations and charities has skyrocketed.
.
In a bitter irony, part of the fraudulent financial gains on Wall Street in recent years have been recycled to the elites’ tax exempt foundations and charities. These windfall financial gains have not only been used to buy out politicians, they have also been channelled to NGOs, research institutes, community centres, church groups, environmentalists, alternative media, human rights groups, etc. “Manufactured dissent” also applies to the “corporate left” and “progressive” media, funded by NGOs or directly by the foundations.
The inner objective is to “manufacture dissent” and establish the boundaries of a “politically correct” opposition.
In turn, many NGOs are infiltrated by informants often acting on behalf of western intelligence agencies. Moreover, an increasingly large segment of the progressive alternative news media on the internet has become dependent on funding from corporate foundations and charities.
.
PIECEMEAL ACTIVISM
Ed Noor: Another form of divide and conquer in action.
The objective of the corporate elites has been to fragment the people’s movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic.
War and globalization are no longer in the forefront of civil society activism. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to the US led war.
Dissent has been compartmentalized.
Separate “issue oriented” protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women’s rights, climate change) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement. This mosaic was already prevalent in the counter G7 summits and People’s Summits of the 1990s.
.
THE ANTI-GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT
The Seattle 1999 counter-summit is invariably upheld as a triumph for the anti-globalization movement: “a historic coalition of activists shut down the World Trade Organization summit in Seattle, the spark that ignited a global anti-corporate movement.” (See Naomi Klein, Copenhagen: Seattle Grows Up, The Nation, November 13, 2009).
.
Seattle was an indeed an important crossroads in the history of the mass movement. Over 50,000 people from diverse backgrounds, civil society organizations, human rights, labour unions, environmentalists had come together in a common pursuit. Their goal was to forcefully dismantle the neoliberal agenda including its institutional base.
.
But Seattle also marked a major reversal. With mounting dissent from all sectors of society, the official WTO Summit desperately needed the token participation of civil society leaders “on the inside”, to give the appearance of being “democratic” “on the outside”.
.
While thousands of people had converged on Seattle, what occurred behind the scenes was a de facto victory for neo-liberalism. A handful of civil society organizations, formally opposed to the WTO had contributed to legitimizing the WTO’s global trading architecture. Instead of challenging the WTO as an illegal intergovernmental body, they agreed to a pre-summit dialogue with the WTO and Western governments. “Accredited NGO participants were invited to mingle in a friendly environment with ambassadors, trade ministers and Wall Street tycoons at several of the official events including the numerous cocktail parties and receptions.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Seattle and Beyond: Disarming the New World Order , Covert Action Quarterly, November 1999, See Ten Years Ago: “Manufacturing Dissent” in Seattle).
The hidden agenda was to weaken and divide the protest movement and orient the anti-globalization movement into areas that would not directly threaten the interests of the business establishment.
Funded by private foundations (including Ford, Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers, Charles Stewart Mott, The Foundation for Deep Ecology), these “accredited” civil society organizations had positioned themselves as lobby groups, acting formally on behalf of the people’s movement. Led by prominent and committed activists, their hands were tied. They ultimately contributed (unwittingly) to weakening the anti-globalization movement by accepting the legitimacy of what was essentially an illegal organization. (The 1994 Marrakech Summit agreement which led to the creation of the WTO on January 1, 1995). (Ibid)
.
The NGO leaders were fully aware as to where the money was coming from. Yet within the US and European NGO community, the foundations and charities are considered to be independent philanthropic bodies, separate from the corporations; namely the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, for instance, is considered to be separate and distinct from the Rockefeller family empire of banks and oil companies.
.
With salaries and operating expenses depending on private foundations, it became an accepted routine:
In a twisted logic, the battle against corporate capitalism was to be fought using the funds from the tax exempt foundations owned by corporate capitalism.
The NGOs were caught in a straightjacket; their very existence depended on the foundations. Their activities were closely monitored. In a twisted logic, the very nature of anti-capitalist activism was indirectly controlled by the capitalists through their independent foundations.
.
“PROGRESSIVE WATCHDOGS”
In this evolving saga, the corporate elites ~whose interests are duly served by the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO– will readily fund (through their various foundations and charities) organizations which are at the forefront of the protest movement against the WTO and the Washington based international financial institutions.
Supported by foundation money, various “watchdogs” were set up by the NGOs to monitor the implementation of neoliberal policies, without however raising the broader issue of how the Bretton Woods twins and the WTO, through their policies, had contributed to the impoverishment of millions of people.
The Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Network (SAPRIN) was established by Development Gap, a USAID and World Bank funded NGO based in Washington DC.
.
Amply documented, the imposition of the IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) on developing countries constitutes a blatant form of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states on behalf of creditor institutions.
.
Instead of challenging the legitimacy of the IMF-World Bank’s “deadly economic medicine”, SAPRIN’s core organization sought to establish a participatory role for the NGOs, working hand in glove with USAID and the World Bank. The objective was to give a “human face” to the neoliberal policy agenda, rather than reject the IMF-World Bank policy framework outright:
“SAPRIN is the global civil-society network that took its name from the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative (SAPRI), which it launched with the World Bank and its president, Jim Wolfensohn, in 1997.
.
SAPRI is designed as a tripartite exercise to bring together organizations of civil society, their governments and the World Bank in a joint review of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) and an exploration of new policy options. It is legitimizing an active role for civil society in economic decision-making, as it is designed to indicate areas in which changes in economic policies and in the economic-policymaking process are required. (http://www.saprin.org/overview.htm  SAPRIN website, emphasis added)
Similarly, The Trade Observatory (formerly WTO Watch), operating out of Geneva, is a project of the Minneapolis based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), which is generously funded by Ford, Rockefeller, Charles Stewart Mott among others. (See Table 1 below).
.
The Trade Observatory has a mandate to monitor the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). (IATP, About Trade Observatory, accessed September 2010).
,
The Trade Observatory is also to develop data and information as well as foster “governance” and “accountability”. Do we refer to accountability to the victims of WTO policies or accountability to the protagonists of neoliberal reforms?
.
The Trade Observatory watchdog functions does not in any way threaten the WTO. Quite the opposite: the legitimacy of the trade organizations and agreements are never questioned.
.
Table 1 Minneapolis Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) largest donors

(for complete list click here)

Ford Foundation
$2,612,500.00
1994 – 2006
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
$2,320,000.00
1995 – 2005
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
$1,391,000.00
1994 – 2005
McKnight Foundation
$1,056,600.00
1995 – 2005
Joyce Foundation
$748,000.00
1996 – 2004
Bush Foundation
$610,000.00
2001 – 2006
Bauman Family Foundation
$600,000.00
1994 – 2006
Great Lakes Protection Fund
$580,000.00
1995 – 2000
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
$554,100.00
1991 – 2003
John Merck Fund
$490,000.00
1992 – 2003
Harold K. Hochschild Foundation
$486,600.00
1997 – 2005
Foundation for Deep Ecology
$417,500.00
1991 – 2001
Jennifer Altman Foundation
$366,500.00
1992 – 2001
Rockefeller Foundation
$344,134.00
2000 – 2004
THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. “ALL ROADS LEAD TO DAVOS”
The people’s movement has been hijacked. Selected intellectuals, trade union executives, and the leaders of civil society organizations (including Oxfam, Amnesty International, Greenpeace) are routinely invited to the Davos World Economic Forum, where they mingle with the World’s most powerful economic and political actors. This mingling of the World’s corporate elites with hand-picked “progressives” is part of the ritual underlying the process of “manufacturing dissent”.
.
The ploy is to selectively handpick civil society leaders “whom we can trust” and integrate them into a “dialogue”, cut them off from their rank and file, make them feel that they are “global citizens” acting on behalf of their fellow workers but make them act in a way which serves the interests of the corporate establishment:
“The participation of NGOs in the Annual Meeting in Davos is evidence of the fact that [we] purposely seek to integrate a broad spectrum of the major stakeholders in society in … defining and advancing the global agenda … We believe the [Davos] World Economic Forum provides the business community with the ideal framework for engaging in collaborative efforts with the other principal stakeholders [NGOs] of the global economy to “improve the state of the world,” which is the Forum’s mission. (World Economic Forum, Press Release 5 January 2001)
The WEF does not represent the broader business community. It is an elitist gathering: Its members are giant global corporations (with a minimum $5 billion annual turnover). 
.
The selected non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are viewed as partner “stakeholders” as well as a convenient “mouthpiece for the voiceless who are often left out of decision-making processes.” (World Economic Forum ~ Non-Governmental Organizations, 2010)
“They [the NGOs] play a variety of roles in partnering with the Forum to improve the state of the world, including serving as a bridge between business, government and civil society, connecting the policy makers to the grassroots, bringing practical solutions to the table…” (Ibid)
Civil society “partnering” with global corporations on behalf of “the voiceless”, who are “left out”? 
.

Trade union executives are also co-opted to the detriment of workers’ rights.

.

The leaders of the International Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), the AFL-CIO, the European Trade Union Confederation, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), among others, are routinely invited to attend both the annual WEF meetings in Davos, Switzerland as well as to the regional summits. They also participate in the WEF’s Labour Leaders Community which focuses on mutually acceptable patterns of behaviour for the labour movement. The WEF “believes that the voice of Labour is important to dynamic dialogue on issues of globalisation, economic justice, transparency and accountability, and ensuring a healthy global financial system.”
.
ED Noor: Remember this the next time your region is brought low by union action that is, to all extents and purposes, quite righteous on behalf of the aggrieved party. Consider teachers, medical workers ~ off work for causes the public can identify with. They suffer great deprivation for the duration of the strike and heavily bombarded with “unbiased” news reports and interviews with the heads of the parties concerned. Society becomes more polarized around the issue and finally, finally, amid great fanfare, the impasse is bridged and waters smoothed. The public feels vaguely let down by the points the union has settled for but everyone else seems happy and they really just want to get back to “normal” and so life goes on, usually with the union having taken a few steps backwards in the long run. This is NOT to slam unions. Heaven knows they were founded on good intentions and have done great work but they, too, have been infiltrated.
.
“Ensuring a healthy global financial system” wrought by fraud and corruption? The issue of workers’ rights is not mentioned. (World Economic Forum ~ Labour Leaders, 2010).
.
THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUM: “ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE”
The 1999 Seattle counter-summit in many regards laid the foundations for the development of the World Social Forum.
.
The first gathering of the World Social Forum took place in January 2001, in Porto Alegre, Brazil. This international gathering involved the participation of tens of thousands of activists from grass-roots organizations and NGOs.
.
The WSF gathering of NGOs and progressive organizations is held simultaneously with the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF). It was intended to voice opposition and dissent to the World Economic Forum of corporate leaders and finance ministers.
.
The WSF at the outset was an initiative of France’s ATTAC and several Brazilian NGOs’:
“… In February 2000, Bernard Cassen, the head of a French NGO platform ATTAC, Oded Grajew, head of a Brazilian employers’ organisation, and Francisco Whitaker, head of an association of Brazilian NGOs, met to discuss a proposal for a “world civil society event”; by March 2000, they formally secured the support of the municipal government of Porto Alegre and the state government of Rio Grande do Sul, both controlled at the time by the Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT)…. A group of French NGOs, including ATTAC, Friends of L’Humanité, and Friends of Le Monde Diplomatique, sponsored an Alternative Social Forum in Paris titled “One Year after Seattle”, in order to prepare an agenda for the protests to be staged at the upcoming European Union summit at Nice. The speakers called for “reorienting certain international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO… so as to create a globalization from below” and “building an international citizens’ movement, not to destroy the IMF but to reorient its missions.” (Research Unit For Political Economy, The Economics and Politics of the World Social Forum, Global Research, January 20, 2004)
From the outset in 2001, the WSF was supported by core funding from the Ford Foundation, which is known to have ties to the CIA going back to the 1950s: “The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source.” (James Petras, The Ford Foundation and the CIA, Global Research, September 18, 2002) 
.
The same procedure of donor funded counter-summits or people’s summits which characterized the 1990s People’s Summits was embodied in the World Social Forum (WSF):
“… other WSF funders (or `partners’, as they are referred to in WSF terminology) included the Ford Foundation, ~ suffice it to say here that it has always operated in the closest collaboration with the US Central Intelligence Agency and US overall strategic interests; the Heinrich Boll Foundation, which is controlled by the German Greens party, a partner in the present [2003] German government and a supporter of the wars on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan (its leader Joschka Fischer is the [former] German foreign minister); and major funding agencies such as Oxfam (UK), Novib (Netherlands), ActionAid (UK), and so on.
.
Remarkably, an International Council member of the WSF reports that the “considerable funds” received from these agencies have “not hitherto awakened any significant debates [in the WSF bodies] on the possible relations of dependence it could generate.” Yet he admits that “in order to get funding from the Ford Foundation, the organisers had to convince the foundation that the Workers Party was not involved in the process.” Two points are worth noting here. First, this establishes that the funders were able to twist arms and determine the role of different forces in the WSF ~ they needed to be `convinced’ of the credentials of those who would be involved. Secondly, if the funders objected to the participation of the thoroughly domesticated Workers Party, they would all the more strenuously object to prominence being given to genuinely anti-imperialist forces. That they did so object will be become clear as we describe who was included and who excluded from the second and third meets of the WSF….
.
… The question of funding [of the WSF] does not even figure in the charter of principles of the WSF, adopted in June 2001. Marxists, being materialists, would point out that one should look at the material base of the forum to grasp its nature. (One indeed does not have to be a Marxist to understand that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.) But the WSF does not agree. It can draw funds from imperialist institutions like Ford Foundation while fighting “domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism” (Research Unit for Political Economy, The Economics and Politics of the World Social Forum, Global Research, January 20, 2004)
The Ford Foundation provided core support to the WSF, with indirect contributions to participating “partner organizations” from the McArthur Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the European Commission, several European governments (including the Labour government of Tony Blair), the Canadian government, as well as a number of UN bodies (including UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, ILO and the FAO). (Ibid).
.
In addition to initial core support from the Ford Foundation, many of the participating civil society organizations receive funding from major foundations and charities.
In turn, the US and European based NGOs often operate as secondary funding agencies channelling Ford and Rockefeller money towards partner organizations in developing countries, including grassroots peasant and human rights movements.
The International Council (IC) of the WSF is made up of representatives from NGOs, trade unions, alternative media organizations, research institutes, many of which are heavily funded by foundations as well as governments. (See Fórum Social Mundial). The same trade unions, which are routinely invited to mingle with Wall Street CEOs at the Davos World Economic Forum (WSF) including the AFL-CIO, the European Trade Union Confederation and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) also sit on the WSF’s International Council (IC). Among NGOs funded by major foundations sitting on the WSF’s IC is the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) (see our analysis above) which oversees the Geneva based Trade Observatory.
.
The Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (FTNG), which has observer status on the WSF International Council plays a key role. While channelling financial support to the WSF, it acts as a clearing house for major foundations. The FTNG describes itself as “an alliance of grant makers committed to building just and sustainable communities around the world”. Members of this alliance are Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers, Heinrich Boell, C. S. Mott, Merck Family Foundation, Open Society Institute, Tides, among others. (For a complete list of FTNG funding agencies see FNTG: Funders). FTNG acts as a fund raising entity on behalf of the WSF.
.
WESTERN GOVERNMENTS FUND THE COUNTER-SUMMITS AND REPRESS THE PROTEST MOVEMENT
In a bitter irony, governments including the European Union grant money to fund progressive groups (including the WSF) involved in organizing protests against the very same governments which finance their activities:
“Governments, too, have been significant financiers of protest groups. The European Commission, for example, funded two groups who mobilised large numbers of people to protest at EU summits at Gothenburg and Nice. Britain’s national lottery, which is overseen by the government, helped fund a group at the heart of the British contingent at both protests.” (James Harding, Counter-capitalism, FT.com, October 15 2001)
We are dealing with a diabolical process: The host government finances the official summit as well as the NGOs actively involved in the Counter-Summit. It also funds the multimillion dollar anti-riot police operation which has a mandate to repress the grassroots participants of the Counter-Summit, including members of NGOs directly funded by the government. 
.
The purpose of these combined operations, including violent actions of vandalism committed by undercover cops (Toronto G20, 2010) dressed up as activists, is to discredit the protest movement and intimidate its participants.
The broader objective is to transform the counter-summit into a ritual of dissent, which serves to uphold the interests of the official summit and the host government. This logic has prevailed in numerous counter summits since the 1990s.
At the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, funding from the Canadian federal government to mainstream NGOs and trade unions was granted under certain conditions. A large segment of the protest movement was de facto excluded from the People’s Summit. This in itself led to the formation of a second parallel People’s venue, which some observers described as a “a counter-People’s Summit. In turn, in an agreement with both the provincial and federal authorities, the organizers directed the protest march towards a remote location some 10 km out of town, rather than towards the historical downtown area were the official FTAA summit was being held behind a heavily guarded “security perimeter”.
“Rather than marching toward the perimeter fence and the Summit of the Americas meetings, march organizers chose a route that marched from the People’s Summit away from the fence, through largely empty residential areas to the parking lot of a stadium in a vacant area several miles away. Henri Masse, the president of the Federation des travailleurs et travailleuses du Quebec (FTQ), explained, “I deplore that we are so far from the center-city…. But it was a question of security.” One thousand marshals from the FTQ kept very tight control over the march. When the march came to the point where some activists planned to split off and go up the hill to the fence, FTQ marshals signalled the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) contingent walking behind CUPE to sit down and stop the march so that FTQ marshals could lock arms and prevent others from leaving the official march route.” (Katherine Dwyer, Lessons of Quebec City, International Socialist Review, June/July 2001)

Quebec City 2001, Building the Security fence

.

SECURITY PERIMETER, QUEBEC CITY 2001
The Summit of the Americas was held inside a four kilometer  “bunker” made of concrete and galvanized steel fencing. The 10 feet high “Quebec Wall” encircled part of the historic city center including the parliamentary compound of the National Assembly, hotels and shopping areas.
 .

Quebec City, April 2001

.

NGO LEADERS VERSUS THEIR GRASSROOTS
The establishment of the World Social Forum (WSF) in 2001 was unquestionably a historical landmark, bringing together tens of thousands of committed activists. It was an important venue which allowed for the exchange of ideas and the establishment of ties of solidarity.
.
What is at stake is the ambivalent role of the leaders of progressive organizations. Their cozy and polite relationship to the inner circles of power, to corporate and government funding, aid agencies, the World Bank, etc, undermines their relationship and responsibilities to their rank and file. The objective of manufactured dissent is precisely that: to distance the leaders from their rank and file as a means to effectively silencing and weakening grassroots actions.
.
Funding dissent is also a means of infiltrating the NGOs as well as acquiring inside information on strategies of protest and resistance of grass-roots movements.
.
Most of the grassroots participating organizations in the World Social Forum including peasant, workers’ and student organizations, firmly committed to combating neo-liberalism were unaware of the WSF International Council’s relationship to corporate funding, negotiated behind their backs by a handful of NGO leaders with ties to both official and private funding agencies.
.
Funding to progressive organizations is not unconditional. Its purpose is to “pacify” and manipulate the protest movement. Precise conditionalities are set by the funding agencies. If they are not met, the disbursements are discontinued and the recipient NGO is driven into de facto bankruptcy due to lack of funds.
.
The WSF defines itself as “an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a society centred on the human person”. (See Fórum Social Mundial, accessed 2010).
.
The WSF is a mosaic of individual initiatives which does not directly threaten or challenge the legitimacy of global capitalism and its institutions. It meets annually. It is characterised by a multitude of sessions and workshops. In this regard, one of the features of the WSF was to retain the “do-it-yourself” framework, characteristic of the donor funded counter G7 People’s Summits of the 1990s.
.
This apparent disorganized structure is deliberate. While favouring debate on a number of individual topics, the WSF framework is not conducive to the articulation of a cohesive common platform and plan of action directed against global capitalism. Moreover, the US led war in the Middle East and Central Asia, which broke out a few months after the inaugural WSF venue in Porto Alegre in January 2001, has not been a central issue in forum discussions.
.
What prevails is a vast and intricate network of organizations. The recipient grassroots organizations in developing countries are invariably unaware that their partner NGOs in the United States or the European Union, which are providing them with financial support, are themselves funded by major foundations. The money trickles down, setting constraints on grassroots actions.
Many of these NGO leaders are committed and well meaning individuals acting within a framework which sets the boundaries of dissent. The leaders of these movements are often co-opted, without even realizing that as a result of corporate funding their hands are tied.
GLOBAL CAPITALISM FINANCES ANTI-CAPITALISM: AN ABSURD AND CONTRADICTORY RELATIONSHIP.
“Another World is Possible”, but it cannot be meaningfully achieved under the present arrangement.
.
A shake-up of the World Social Forum, of its organizational structure, its funding arrangements and leadership is required.
.
There can be no meaningful mass movement when dissent is generously funded by those same corporate interests which are the target of the protest movement. In the words of McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation (1966-1979),“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as ‘making the World safe for capitalism’”.
.
Dr. Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism”(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. He can be reached at crgeditor@yahoo.com

Continue reading

GRAND PUPPETMASTER BRZEZINSKI DIRECTING WAR STRATEGIES FROM THE SHADOWS

The official version is that Putin is to blame; he did this. But it simply isn’t true. This began 20 years ago when Clinton began the movement of NATO toward Russia, a movement that’s continued. … The fundamental issue here is that, three or four years ago, Putin made absolutely clear he had two red lines…One was in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. (Putin would not allow NATO in Georgia) The other was in Ukraine. We crossed both. You got a war in Georgia in 2008, and you have got today in Ukraine because we, the United States and Europe, crossed Putin’s red line.” ~ Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies and history emeritus at NYU, PBS Newshour, March 10, 2014.


Mike Whitney
March 9, 2014
“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders…
.
This crisis is in part the result of a zero-sum calculation that has shaped US policy toward Moscow since the Cold War: Any loss for Russia is an American victory, and anything positive that happens to, for, or in Russia is bad for the United States. This is an approach that intensifies confrontation, rather than soothing it.” ~ Stephen Kinzer, “US a full partner in Ukraine debacle”, Boston Globe
.
“We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas ~ a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.” ~ Russian President Vladimir Putin, Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 2007
The Obama administration’s rationale for supporting the fascist-led coup in Ukraine collapsed on Wednesday when a “hacked” phone call between EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet revealed that the snipers who fired on protestors in Maidan Square in Kiev were not aligned with President Viktor Yanukovych, but with the protest leaders themselves.
.
The significance of the discovery cannot be overstated since the Obama team has used the killing of protestors to justify its support for the new imposter government.
Now it appears that members of the new government may be implicated in the killing of innocent civilians.
This new information could force Obama to withdraw his support for the coup plotters in Kiev, which would derail the administration’s plan to remove Russia from the Crimea and expand NATO into Ukraine.
.
Here’s a short recap of the details from an article in Russia Today:
“Estonian foreign ministry has confirmed the recording of his conversation with EU foreign policy chief is authentic. Urmas Paet said that snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were hired by Maidan leaders.
.
During the conversation, Paet stressed that “there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”
The Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also issued a statement on its website, saying that the recording of the leaked telephone conversation between Paet and Ashton is “authentic.” (“Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked call on Kiev snipers“, Russia Today)
To its credit, the UK Guardian published an article reporting the basic facts, but there’s been no coverage by the New York Times, the Washington Post or any of the major TV News networks.
America’s elite media are engaged in a coordinated news blackout to keep people from seeing that the Obama administration and their EU collaborators are supporting a group of far-right extremists who were directly involved in the killing of civilians in order to topple a democratically-elected government. Here’s more from the same article:
“…there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition,” Paet says…the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” (“Ukraine crisis: bugged call reveals conspiracy theory about Kiev snipers“, Guardian)
There won’t be an investigation because an investigation would reveal the truth, and the truth would undermine Obama’s plan to install a puppet regime in Kiev. The new government has already shown that it is more than willing to do Washington’s bidding, that is, to impose austerity measures on the working people of Ukraine, to pay off fatcat bondholders in Berlin and Brussels via more extortionist IMF loans, to extend NATO to Russia’s border in contravention of agreements made with Bush the Elder following the fall of the Berlin Wall, and to pursue the crackpot dreams of global hegemony laid out in “The Grand Chessboard” by New World Order fantasist Zbigniew Brzezinski. These are the primary objectives of the present policy which could be upended by the allegations of foul play.
.
The smoking gun revelations of the hacked phone call came just hours before US officials indicated they were planning to increase their military footprint in Eastern Europe. According to the World Socialist Web Site:
“Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the Pentagon will boost joint training of NATO forces in Poland and step up NATO air patrols in the Baltics… US military officials said they were deploying six F-15 fighter jets and KC-135 transport planes. ….One guided-missile frigate, the USS Taylor, is still in a Black Sea port in Turkey after patrolling the region during the Sochi Olympics…
.
Turkish officials confirmed that they had given a US Navy warship permission to pass through the Bosphorus straits into the Black Sea, which borders Ukraine.” (“Amid Ukraine crisis, US launches military escalation in Eastern Europe”, World Socialist Web Site)
Also Russia Today reports that: “The guided missile destroyer, the USS Truxton, is heading to the Black Sea, for what the US military said is a “routine” deployment…The ship has a crew of about 300 and is part of an aircraft carrier strike group that left the US in mid-February.” (“US navy confirms missile destroyer USS Truxton approaching the Black Sea”, RT)
“Routine deployment”?
So provoking a war with Russia is “routine”?
Talk about understatement.
ED Noor: Don’t forget that this Russophobe Jew, Zbigniew Brzezinski, created the Majuhadeen and armed them to help them defeat Russia and drive them from Afghanistan. This group included Osama bin Laden and morphed into what became Al-Qaeda. When asked if he would do it again in view of the events following the creation of this group, due to the losses suffered by Russia, Brzezinski crowed that the operation was such a rounding success that he would do it again and had no regrets. He has no qualms sending the children of the chattel in to die for his hatreds and NWO ambitions.
.
The military escalation occurs in an atmosphere of heightened tension between the two nuclear-armed powers and will certainly add to their mutual distrust. Hagel’s deployment is consistent with a plan for antagonizing Moscow that was proposed just days earlier in the Washington Post by the Obama administration’s ideological godfather, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Here’s a bit of what Brzezinski had to say in the article titled “What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response”:
“…the West should promptly recognize the current government of Ukraine as legitimate. Uncertainty regarding its legal status could tempt Putin to repeat his Crimean charade…
.
“…the West should convey.. that the Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance its defensive capabilities. There should be no doubt left in Putin’s mind that an attack on Ukraine would precipitate a prolonged and costly engagement, and Ukrainians should not fear that they would be left in the lurch.
.
Meanwhile, NATO forces, consistent with the organization’s contingency planning, should be put on alert. High readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U.S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful. If the West wants to avoid a conflict, there should be no ambiguity in the Kremlin as to what might be precipitated by further adventurist use of force in the middle of Europe.” (“What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response”, Washington Post)
“Adventurist”? Dr. Strangelove is calling the Kremlin adventurist when his recommendations would put NATO, the US and Moscow on hair-trigger alert increasing the chances of an error in judgment that could lead to thermonuclear war. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
.
But listen to the tone of Brzezinski’s op-ed. In just a few short paragraphs, the author–who many respect as a restrained and brilliant global strategist–refers to Putin as a thug, a Mafia gangster, Mussolini, and Hitler. I imagine if he had another paragraph to work with, he would have added Beelzebub Satan to the list.
.
This isn’t politics; it’s hysterics. 
It’s incendiary, jingoistic mumbo-jumbo 
intended to rouse the public 
and fan the flames of nationalism. 
It’s the same kind of self-righteous raving 
that precipitated the invasion of Iraq.
.
And what is Brzezinski saying?
.
Is he saying that events in the Crimea are a threat to US national security? Is he saying that the US should now feel free to apply the Monroe Doctrine everywhere across the planet, sticking our big nose wherever the president sees fit?
The trouble in the Crimea has nothing to do with the United States.
We have no dog in this fight.
This is about military expansion into Eurasia,
this is about pipeline corridors and oil fields,
this is about dismantling the Russian Federation
and positioning multinational corporations
and Wall Street investment banks in Asia for the new century.
And, finally, this is an ego-driven crusade by an old man who wants to see his looneybin NWO global hegemony vision enacted before they cart him off on a marble slab.
That’s what this is really about;
the glorious new world disorder,
the dystopian wetdream of thinktank patricians everywhere
whose only purpose in life is to initiate wars
that other-peoples’-sons will have to fight.
Entering Ukraine into the corporate-western alliance is a critical part of Brzezinski’s master plan. The basic strategy has been underway since the fall of the Berlin Wall when neoliberal carpetbaggers from the US assisted in the looting of the former Soviet state leaving Russia politically broken and economically destitute.
Since then, US policy towards Russia has been overtly hostile, making every effort to encircle the oil-rich nation while positioning nuclear missile installations on its perimeter.
Now Washington is using its fascist-backed coup in Ukraine to force Moscow to relinquish its grip on a region that is vital to its national security.
.
Here’s a brief excerpt from an interview with Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies and history emeritus at New York University on Monday on PBS Newshour. Cohen helps to clarify what is really going on viv a vis the US and Russia:
“What we’re watching today is the worst kind of history being made, the descent of a new Cold War divide between West and East in Europe, this time not in faraway Berlin, but right on Russia’s borders through Ukraine. That will be instability and the prospect of war for decades to come for our kids and our grandchildren.  

The official version is that Putin is to blame; he did this. But it simply isn’t true. This began 20 years ago when Clinton began the movement of NATO toward Russia, a movement that’s continued.

…the fundamental issue here is that, three or four years ago, Putin made absolutely clear he had two red lines…One was in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. (Putin would not allow NATO in Georgia) The other was in Ukraine. We crossed both. You got a war in Georgia in 2008, and you have got today in Ukraine because we, the United States and Europe, crossed Putin’s red line.” (PBS News Hour)
There’s no doubt who is to blame for the present conflict in Cohen’s mind. It’s Washington.
So, here we are, between a rock and a hard place: Putin cannot back down on an issue that’s crucial to national security, and Washington is more determined than ever to pull Ukraine into ~ what Henry Kissinger calls–”a cooperative international system.” (Aka ~ global capitalist rule)
That means there’s going to be a war.
On Thursday, Crimea MPs voted unanimously to hold a referendum on whether the region should become a part of Russia or not. The balloting will take place in 10 days although Obama has already said that he will not honour the results.
Apparently, other countries need to get the green-light from Washington before they conduct their elections now. This is how ridiculous things have gotten.
In 2008, Brzezinski revealed the real motives behind US aggression in Central Asia in an article that appeared in the Huffington Post that dealt primarily with the dust up in Georgia. (Where Putin deployed Russian troops to defend Russian speaking civilians in South Ossetia.) Here’s what Brzezinski had to say:
“The question the international community now confronts is how to respond to a Russia that engages in the blatant use of force with larger imperial designs in mind: to reintegrate the former Soviet space under the Kremlin’s control and to cut Western access to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia by gaining control over the Baku/Ceyhan pipeline that runs through Georgia.
.
In brief, the stakes are very significant. At stake is access to oil as that resource grows ever more scarce and expensive and how a major power conducts itself in our newly interdependent world, conduct that should be based on accommodation and consensus, not on brute force.
.
If Georgia is subverted, not only will the West be cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. We can logically anticipate that Putin, if not resisted, will use the same tactics toward the Ukraine. Putin has already made public threats against Ukraine.” (“Brzezinski: Russia’s invasion of Georgia is Reminiscent of Stalin’s attack on Finland”; Huffington Post)
Huh? It sounds a lot like Brzezinski thinks that oil should be his. Or maybe he thinks it belongs to the western oil giants; is that it?
.
So we’re not dealing with national security, sovereignty or spheres of influence here. What we’re really talking about is “access to oil.” Not only that, but Brzezinski is being quite blunt in his assertion that “the West” ~ as he calls it ~ has a legitimate claim to the resources on other people’s land. 
.
Where’d he come up with that one?
.
In another interview on Kavkacenter.com, in 2008, Brzezinski sounded the same alarm with a slightly different twist. Here’s an excerpt from the article titled ”Russia tends to destabilize Georgia”:
“Brzezinski said the United States witnessed “cases of possible threats by Russia… motivated not by some territorial disputes….but caused by intention to take control over the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline”.
“If Georgia government is destabilized, western access to Baku, Caspian Sea and further will be limited”, said Brzezinski …. He stated that Russia will try to consolidate its monopoly on these markets and will use all existing political and economic levers, including “politically motivated cessation of energy supplies” in Europe and Baltic states.
.
“Russia actively tends to isolate the Central Asian region from direct access to world economy, especially to energy supplies”, considers the political scientist.” (“Zbigniew Brzezinski: ”Russia tends to destabilize Georgia” kavkacenter.com)
.
Putin is not isolating anyone and he’s certainly not taking over anyone’s damned pipeline. He’s the president of Russia. He sells oil and makes money, that’s how the system works. It’s called capitalism. But the oil is theirs. The natural gas is theirs. The pipelines are theirs. Not ours. Get over it!
.
Don’t kid yourself, it’s all about oil. Oil and power. The United States imperial ambitions are thoroughly marinated in oil, access to oil, and control of oil. Without oil, there’s no empire, no dollar hegemony, no over-bloated, bullyboy military throwing weaker countries against the wall and extorting tribute. Oil is the coin of the realm, the path to global domination.
.
Putin has audacity to think that the oil beneath Russian soil belongs to Russia.  

.
Washington wants to change his mind about that. And that’s why the situation in Ukraine is so dangerous, because the voracious thirst for oil is pushing us all towards another world war.
.

ED Noor: I must set one thing straight here. Yes, it is largely about oil and power but there is more than that, much more than that. Perhaps this is the angle taken by Zbigniew Brzezinski but as we all know this is a war of ideologies as well. This is a power struggle for the global dominance that America seeks for “the New American Century” which is to be, in reality, “the new Jewish century”, a world that demands subjugation of all nations, something that Mr. Putin is decidedly against.

Continue reading

The Healthcare Crisis of the Century

Read more on this subject: Casey Research Articles
Feature Article by Alex Daley
It’s hardly a state secret that we Americans are getting old. Both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the overall population, the 65+ cohort is growing rapidly as the baby boomers slide into retirement.

On the plus side, these data confirm that more Americans are living to a ripe old age than ever before—many of them in good health well into their seventies and eighties.
But all too often, with age comes susceptibility to ever more serious ailments and a diminishing quality of life—especially if you contract a disease that obliterates your innate sense of self and destroys everything that makes life worth living.
That’s what Alzheimer’s disease does. This most common type of dementia was first described by the German physician Dr. Alois Alzheimer more than a century ago… but to this day science isn’t sure what exactly it is and what causes it.
It is also increasing in incidence, as would be expected with an aging population:

(Source: Alzheimer’s Association, 2012 Alzheimer’
Read More or Make a Comment Continue reading