in the time remaining, to help us understand how the man-made system of capitalism will lead to the extinction of our human species, and so many others.
I have been a bit skeptical of all of Brown's article regarding China because they seem to be excessively positive. Brown sounds to me like a China booster. I have also been skeptical that China can by offering cheap labor for capitalists to exploit remain untouched by the whole culture of capitalism. And, in addition, there is the further problem of alarming pollution that China has exhibited by being the "workshop of the world". Still, with the paucity of accurate information about China that Western corporate media offers, I think we need occasionally to read Brown's reports with a critical eye.
The following is probably the editor's introduction to the article:
Despite the Western empire’s banner of democracy in China, communism is working well in its society. The article discusses how China’s socioeconomic and geopolitical advances since 1949 can be attributed to its unique version of democracy.
Click here if you wish to access the video and introduction directly from Newsbud.
In this week’s episode of The Geopolitical Report with Kurt Nimmo, we examine a recent revelation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on a Pentagon psychological operation in Iraq following the 2003 invasion by the United States. From there we look at how the CIA spawned its Operation Mockingbird and the ongoing effort by the national security state to control media and form consensus for its foreign policy objectives. Watch this informative eye-opener episode and bring in your reaction and thoughts.
Entrenched within institutionalized U.S. processes, these projects won’t end soon, it seems. Apart from huge amounts of money provided for propaganda through Radio and Television Martí, publicly-acknowledged U.S. funding for so-called “democracy promotion” in Cuba passes through USAID and NED. These agencies deliver it to high-purposed NGOs that pay agents to meddle directly inside Cuba. Or they pay Cuba’s enemies abroad to arrange for such intrusions.
Prof. Miller is professor of media studies at New York University and a noted media critic who offers some very important insights about the increasing convergence of sheer right-wing propaganda in mainstream media in place of any pretense of journalism that I have often referred to in my blog. I don't normally post such lengthy podcasts, but this discussion is extremely important for any citizen who wants to be any kind of perceptive critical observer and thinker about what is going on in our increasingly dangerous world and in our own country.
This week Eric sits down with author and academic Mark Crispin Miller to discuss the controlled corporate media and its grip on discourse in the United States, conspiracy theories versus conspiracy facts, US elections as both farce and illusion, and much more. Eric and Mark begin with a discussion of the history of media propaganda, and how the corporate media we know and loathe came to be the monolithic servant of power it is today. The conversation then turns to the issue of conspiracy theories and the importance of nuanced analysis that is skeptical of power but also avoids the pitfalls, and outright fascism, of the online conspiracy world. The final part of the program shifts into vote fraud and the controlled and manipulated election system in the US which, Eric and Mark both argue, simply cannot be trusted. So much ground is covered in this wide-ranging discussion on CounterPunch Radio.
I try not to speak of “saving the planet”. Whatever human beings may do, the planet will continue to rotate on its axis and to orbit the sun as it has done for some four and a half billion years. Planet earth, which we think of as “ours”, is not really “ours” at all. It could perfectly well continue, utterly changed, to move along its prescribed path without us. Indeed, one could easily argue, as the so-called “deep ecologists” do, that the planet would be far better off without us, since they stress that we humans are the most predatory, wasteful and destructive species ever to have lived on earth in those four and a half billion years.
I am not here to promote the deep ecology view. I am here rather to introduce and define what I see as a new phenomenon in the history of humankind. I call it Geocide.
What I found most interesting in this article were the details about the close ties between government officials and Monsanto corporation and the way Congress slips pro-Monsanto legislation in bills they pass. Monsanto represents one typical example--probably the most egregious one because it affects the food we eat--of the integration of government with corporate interests.
All major corporations together with the more powerful banking industry is thoroughly in control of what passes in ruling class ideology as "democratic" governance. To reinforce the latter illusion, they periodically hold well managed elections and long campaigns to distract their subjects from the realities of capitalist rule. It needs to be understood that the integration of government with corporate and financial interests is one classic feature of fascism.
The dominance of capitalists over our political institutions has always existed in US history; but now that this class so thoroughly manages our governance behind a facade of "democratic" governance while maintaining the elements of a police state behind this facade qualifies our system as one of fascism. By maintaining this facade, our current fascist governance differs superficially from the classic forms of Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan that was prevalent in the 1930s.
Our present ruling capitalist class finds it very useful to retain the appearance of democracy by holding "show elections", by managing the information you receive about the real world through their carefully controlled media which they advertise as "a free press", by their vigorous control of all institutions that serve an ideological function such as Hollywood and education, and by their complete control of all government institutions that supply the appearance of democratic rule.
Meanwhile as insurance to continue their rule should this facade of "democracy" break down, they have developed all the other classic features of fascist rule: an infrastructure of a police state as reflected in the Patriot Acts and other laws which can suspend all civil liberties instantly, militarized (and racist) local police forces, and 24/7 surveillance technology over their subjects (that's us).
While I think Escobar is correct in his observation that Empire policies are still driven by the Empire imperative expressed in the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guide, I don't think he has read the latest political views of Zbigniew Brzezinski which indicates a very significant change. He now sees that the US Empire is no longer a dominant global power; and to secure its future, he thinks that the Empire should seek cooperation with either Russia or China, preferably the latter.
...it behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one
of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest
for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing
the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to
overreach.
However, I don't think that Brzezinski is still influential regarding Empire policies, and the neoconservative agenda as expressed in the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guide is still in control of the Empire's actions. As Escobar writes:
Twenty-four years after the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guide, the same mindset prevails; “Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival…to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and southwest Asia”.
While I think Escobar is correct in his observation that Empire policies are still driven by the Empire imperative expressed in the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guide, I don't think he has read the latest political views of Zbigniew Brzezinski which indicates a very significant change. He now sees that the US Empire is no longer a dominant global power; and to secure its future, he thinks that the Empire should seek cooperation with either Russia or China, preferably the latter.
...it behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one
of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest
for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing
the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to
overreach.
However, I don't think that Brzezinski is still influential regarding Empire policies, and the neoconservative agenda as expressed it the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guide is still in control of the Empire's actions. As Escobar writes:
Twenty-four years after the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guide, the same mindset prevails; “Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival…to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and southwest Asia”.
Click here to access article by anonymous author from Mornington Peninsula Bandicoot (Australia). (This is a local website for the inhabitants of the Mornington Peninsula located just south of Melbourne, Australia. A bandicoot is one those exotic creatures found only in Australia.)
Australia along with the rest of the former British Empire is now a part of the US-led Empire. Following WWII when Britain along with most of the developed world was in shambles and bankrupt while the US was completely intact with a huge military establishment. The British with its vast empire and the US ruling capitalist class saw a convergence of interests by merging the British Empire with the US. As a result the Brits retained control over their Empire and the US ruling class gained an empire. This latter Empire is ruled by a transnational class of capitalists from all the countries of this Anglo-American Empire (I usually refer to it as a US-led Empire).
So, I take issue with his/her description of the conflict in Syria as one of an "existential contest between the US and Russia". The author doesn't seem to be aware that Australia is an integral part of the US-led Empire. Just as corporate media is integrated across this Empire so is the outcome of this conflict: it will affect Australians as much as we Americans (although we might arguably suffer the consequences of a nuclear war more that the Australians). The author provides an excellent summary of the history of the conflict in Syria that leads him/her to this conclusion:
There is a mountain of inconvenient facts and alternative interpretations that the media are not passing on to you, in favour of perpetuating a distorted narrative about a civil war and the “moderates” these outside governments are said to be supporting. In fact they are the groups (or their clones) against which we were supposed to be aligned in the “war on terror”. In any case this is no longer just a Syrian war but an existential contest between the US and Russia. The US is losing but is determined to win. Vladimir Putin, having committed Russian forces, cannot back off, either.
So be on your guard. Whether here or in the US or the UK, the mainstream media are parroting the government line. Look for alternative sources on the net and come to your own conclusions. For your sake, for the sake of Syria and its people, and for the sake of avoiding what Putin has described as America’s “irreversible course” towards war – a war that could be nuclear – do not allow yourselves to be played for fools again.
Unz not only finds the origins of this widely used smear to suppress real conspiracies, he also touches on a broader subject that is of interest: the post-WWII ideological takeover by fascist forces in the US. Those US major capitalist players (along with capitalists with other Western countries) who helped fund Nazi Germany hid under the more legitimate label of "isolationism". They vigorously opposed getting into the war against Nazi Germany and hoped that the latter country would realize Hitler's well laid out plans contained in Mein Kampf to crush the Soviet Union, the arch-nemesis of any true blooded capitalist. These corporate and financial interests together with their right-followers constituted a fascism-prone wing of the US ruling class. The knowledge that this ruling class faction took control of our nation after WWII is a well-suppressed secret. The fascists had long infiltrated the State Department and secret services like the FBI, but after WWII they accelerated their development of, and infiltration in, largely unaccountable secret services like the CIA, NSA, and 14 other such services. Numerous non-profit right-wing think tanks soon proliferated to promote their new right-wing ideology. This subversive right-wing faction also developed strong ties with corporate media, Hollywood,and all major ideological institutions to influence their coverage of news, information, and ideology.
Unz essentially describes his awakening from the cult-like ideology of this new faction starting in the 1970s and '80s to realize that a major ideological shift had occurred to suppress political conspiratorial ideas that were previously permitted in the pre-war years.
Click here to access article by David Cromwell from Media Lens. (Note: Credit should also be given to Rania Khalek and The Intercept for publishing an article by Khalek from which Cromwell extensively quotes. However, Cromwell also adds much substance to Khalek's report.)
Awkward facts that erode the 'benign humanitarian' self-image of the West are routinely side-lined or buried by the corporate media. Consider, for example, the severe impact of sanctions imposed on Syria by the United States and the European Union.
I'm not sure I can thoroughly justify posting this article. The main reason is that Amanda Knox is a young woman from my area and a student at the University of Washington in Seattle. I think it was a junior year abroad arrangement that took her to Italy where she ended up in this Italian judicial and capitalist media nightmare.
I thoroughly recommend the new documentary Amanda Knox to anyone
interested in either human nature or the role of the media – which
should include most of us. Here is the chance to hear the main
protagonists tell their stories. Don’t be put off by the lukewarm
reviews. Journalists don’t much like this film because it reveals so
much about how journalism works – and it isn’t pretty.
Of course, Cook is referring to capitalist journalism in which the reigning cult of capitalism permits and even rewards journalists to feed the profit and/or power mills of corporations. It's an old story, but well told according to Cook who sees the film's insights being very applicable to the current British scene where corporate media mills are being fed to stop Jeremy Corbin.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has come in for criticism due to its lack of attention to the detrimental effects of wars and military operations on nature. Considering the degree of harm to the environment coming from these human activities, one would think that the organization might have set aside some time at its World Conservation Congress this past week in Hawaii to specifically address these concerns.
Yet, of the more than 1,300 workshops crammed into the six-day marathon environmental meeting in Honolulu, followed by four days of discussion about internal resolutions, nothing specifically addressed the destruction of the environment by military operations and wars.
And, of course, "free market" is just a more polite term for capitalism.
Right now, lots of people—especially young people—don’t believe in capitalism. And so Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan takes it upon himself to make the counter-argument, that capitalism is actually good: because the “free market” fights poverty.
As always, Hudson views the finance section of capitalism as the sole evil that is wrecking societies. Thus he has always argued the need for government controls over financial institutions. His acolytes even argue for government ownership of central banks which issue this money in the form of debt. He and they seem to yearn for the good ol' days of the FDR administrations and for laws like the Glass-Steagall Act, and they rail against the new financial betting forms known as derivatives.
What he and his followers apparently don't understand is that finance as it exists today is a product of capitalism, and as such, the institution is designed to support capitalists. Some early capitalists realized that if they are in charge of creating money and controlling money (who gets the money and for what purposes), they can sell it like any other product and make much more money without having all the headaches associated with getting resources, dealing with wage laborers, costs, etc. And with more money comes more power (the most addictive substance of all) to get what they want in spite of societal opposition. Hence many early capitalists saw the splendid opportunities of owning banks which issued their own notes, and following this period they saw much greater opportunities by owning central banks which were backed by all the enforcement powers of the state. The owners of central banks now own and control much of the world. In effect economies now serve financial institutions and the people who own them--not societies. So, I ask you: do not people like Hudson, while limiting their criticisms to preserve their careers, also help protect and preserve the system and the tiny group of people who preside over it? Isn't that the problem? With so many knowledge people limiting their criticism of the way capitalism works, could they not be helping to preserve the system which is wrecking havoc on societies and destroying the environment?
Also, notice the title of the re-post on Hudson's website: "Democracy’s Debt Ladder". This is so typical of capitalist ideologists: they insist on equating capitalism with "democracy".
This American libertarian exposes the terrible waste of taxpayers' money in Afghanistan during the past 15 years, and the results are all negative.
I have written several of these columns on the various anniversaries of the Afghan (and Iraq) wars, pointing out that the wars are ongoing and that the result of the wars has been less stable countries, a less stable region, a devastated local population, and an increasing probability of more blowback. I would be very happy to never have to write one of these again. We should just march home.
I think that his narrow petite-bourgeois focus misses the bigger picture of an Empire that is racked with debts and must resort to imperialism with the hope of stealing resources and wealth from other regions of the world to pay off some of these debts to major capitalists. This is very similar to what happened with the Nazis who were heavily financed by Western capitalists.
Nazi Germany was broke on the eve of WWII, and only by conquering regions to the east (as laid out in Hitler's Mein Kampf) and stealing their wealth could save Nazi Germany from bankruptcy. Of course, one of the major reasons Western capitalists invested in them was because of the promise that the Nazi's offered to crush their nemesis--the Soviet Union. Similarly today we read daily reports about the huge debt hole that is plaguing nearly all sectors of the capitalist economies under the US-led Empire. And I don't think that there is any doubt that this same motivation is driving the directors of the Empire to urgently pursue imperialist actions that we see today in the Middle East and eastern Europe. I don't think Paul understands this.
There is a powerful force field, some kind of a lead-lined shield inside you, that protects your belief from the truth, from reality. You don’t deny that you ‘came back’ and settled the land, you just can’t see what it means. So let me spell it out for you one more time. When a group of people comes into a territory (no matter their reason), removes the indigenous people and takes their land and resources, it’s called settler-colonialism. Settler-colonialism is immoral and it is a crime against humanity.
Absolutely excellent article from a survivor of the Zionist cult! And, it got me thinking--which is another mark of an excellent article. Occasionally I have toyed with the concept of "cult" as a quite useful way of understanding my fellow Americans (and even my own sister) who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the mythology of Americanism (see this, this, and this). Most every nation with which I have become acquainted has their own mythology that gives its inhabitants meaning about what it means to be a part of a nation. What is entirely missing in the mythologies of contemporary nations is that they are divided into classes where one class is a ruling capitalist class, and this class imposes their self-serving ideology on all classes. Of course, the very concept of class structure is essentially missing from these mythologies. Isn't this exactly the same as what we normally regard as cults? Do we not see cults as imposing an ideological structure on its members in order to use them for some self-serving purpose of the cult leaders? This we can easily see with conventional cults within our nations because their ideologies are so different than the dominant one, but we most often fail to question our own native mythology to see that we, too, are taught beliefs that serve a ruling class that have very different interests than ordinary people.
