Revolutionary News

The Ukrainian Dystopia – Domestic and Foreign Factors

Leonid Savin (nsnbc) : First of all, the situation in Ukraine is not as simple as it is being described by the Western media and Brussels/Washington politicians. The protest was started just before the Vilnius summit of the Eastern Partnership at the end of November 2013. Actually, most of protesters didn’t read the proposed agreement about the association with the EU, but were galvanized by leaders of the oppositional parties (Svoboda, Udar, Batkivschina). The slogan was that Ukraine is part of Europe (yes, of course, there was no doubt about this), but only a few interested individuals knew that such an agreement of association had previously been signed with… Jordan, Morocco, and some other countries.

Vitaly Klitschko (L) and Arseny Yatsenyuk (R) Photo: RIA Novosti/Iliya Pitalev

This document was developed as tool of the EU’s soft power for engagement of the African and Eastern European markets. When President Yanukovich did not sign this agreement, the West initiated a colossal campaign against him: from political and diplomatic pressure to direct support of the Ukrainian opposition. We must take into account that the opposition, both nationalistic and liberal, was supported by the EU and USA years before through grant program.
Klichko’s Udar party was especially supported by Germany (he is also a resident of Germany). Russia has supported the decision of the Ukrainian president and provided a large discount for gas supplies and a loan of $15 billion. This gesture of good will was interpreted by the opposition and Ukrainian right-wing nationalists as the imperial ambitions of Moscow. From this point of view, Yanukovich is a puppet of Russia.
Some Ukrainian oligarchs also started to actually support the opposition because they are not pleased with Yanukovich and have their own funds abroad. Of course, there were long consultations between these oligarchs and Western politicians for how to better increase the pressure against the president, and the protests were intensified. We see that the general frontline of the protests was captured by ultra-radical groups similar to the Black Bloc of the antiglobalist movement a few years ago, but with a different political orientation.
These right-wing groups committed most of the violence during the protests (the destruction of Lenin’s memorial, attacks on police with Molotov cocktails, the ‘occupying’ of governmental building), and the political opposition was an umbrella that brought together these radicals. In reality, neo-Nazi radicals are strongly against the EU and European values and have no any road map for the future of Ukraine. They are funded by an umbrella of opposition groups (300 UAH for a day’s stay on Maidan and 2000 UAH for those who attacked police with Molotov cocktails. 1 $ US = 8 UAH) and both structures (the political opposition and neo-Nazi urban insurgents) choose the victims – it is the president, the Party of Regions, and the police.
After violent attacks near the ministers’ offices, parliament issued new laws pertaining towards addressing responsibility for such acts of protests and violence. But even these measures did not provide a cure for the crisis. On 25 December, three policemen were captured by extremists (one was wounded by a knife) and illegally held in one of the captured buildings in Kiev. The same day, Yanukovich proposed giving the post of prime minister to the leader of the Batkivshina party (Yatsenyuk) and the post of vice-prime-minister to Klischko (they refused).
Despite Western allegations otherwise, there really wasn’t much police violence, and the government does have the legal right to use such power if need be. In two words, we have a conflict between the established legal structures (president, parliament, other governmental structures) and those with self-proclaimed legitimacy (the opposition with mass support), as described by Carl Schmitt. The problem is that the opposition is very active, but the followers of the president, government, and order are passive. When the “Euromaidan” civil activists in Kiev and other regions began their street blockades and use of violence, the majority of Ukrainians did nothing and hoped that the police and the security service would intervene. But a paralyzed police force cannot perform their own standard functions because the opposition describes such measures as “violence against the people”.
The current problem is that the opposition umbrella does not have control over the violent neo-Nazi groups in Kiev and other regions, and some opposition leaders are nervous about their own place in any future political system in Ukraine. Another problem is that the “Euromaidan” activists have raised support from abroad (including from the Ukrainian diaspora) under the idea of “the people fighting against an authoritarian regime”. The masses do not usually understand the complexity behind such situations, and thus, they are profitably manipulated by those who are directing the destabilization.
The Strategic Landscape
The general context of these (and previous) protests may be found in the political system of Ukraine – it is liberal capitalism. For the last ten years, the social sector was destroyed, and Ukraine experienced a rapid rise in unemployment. Many citizens therefore needed to go abroad for work (Russia, Poland, and the European countries) or immigrate. When the “Orange Revolution” started in 2004, there was lots of optimism. The majority believed in changing the status quo and there were many calls of “Yes, we can!”. But this process of reorganization was twisted and stagnant.
The leaders were politically impotent, and corruption increased by leaps and bounds. The governmental system became more rotten than it had ever been before, and this process continued to accelerate. When Yanukovich returned to the presidency, he did not do enough to pursue radical changes to this trend. He cares more about his own “clan”, and this began the conflict between the oligarchs.
As I wrote above, some of them began to support the opposition (whereas they had supported Yanukovich in the past). The feeling of “yes, indeed” penetrated the minds of some oligarchs and they began to play their own game. Yet, they did not understand that another game was already in effect and that they were simply pawns within it!

Image Copyright – Stevo Sinik, Croatia

Yanukovich understood that associating with the EU would be the last major political decision he would make. After the agreement, he would have to release Yulia Timosehnko (the former prime minister) from jail, and there is even a chance that he himself would then be sent to jail! Secondly, EU association would mean the implementation of protective tariffs from Russia. Russian gas would then be sold to Ukraine for the same price as it is to the EU. For example, in 2014 it would be about $370-380 per 1000 cubic meters, but Belarus would only be paying $175!!!
The difference can most certainly be felt, especially when one thinks about the economy’s industrial complex. In the process of building the Customs Union and the Eurasian Union, Russia will be very sensitive about any economic vectors near and around its own space. Ukraine would lose access to the huge Russian (but also Belarusian and Kazakh) market for its own goods, as well as the cheap goods coming out of the Customs Union. But the protesters do not think in geopolitical norms. They only rely on emotions…
European Involvement
European leaders are really confused. The European and US politicians need to stop and think before they continue to act, as they do not fully understand what it is they are doing. In the EU, we see much more police violence during protests than is the norm. When information about right-wing neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine entered into the Western media, there was cognitive dissonance. When Ukrainian Jews were attacked by the same protesters standing in Maidan, there was a strong reaction from the international Jewish community, but the European establishment once more expressed cognitive dissonance.
They wanted a planned and manipulated reality, but real life is different than their constructed images of it. They even wanted to present different images and pictures of what is happening. After two people were killed, new questions emerged: what is happening inside the opposition’s camp, and why can’t the opposition leaders control the radical groups under their own umbrella? I think that the European security services have knowledge and experience in dealing with leaderless resistance movements and insurgent anarchism, but the recognition of this occurring in Ukraine would also lead to the recognition that the Ukrainian government must use force to combat this extremist (even with European assistance)! In actuality, the EU does not have special think tanks or well-educated analysts that focus on Ukraine. Therefore, the European community does not have enough information about what is happening there, what its roots are, and what the possible tree of scenarios could be.
The Goals of the Ukrainian Opposition
The opposition wants to organize new presidential and parliamentary elections because that is the only legal way to change the power system. Because new presidential elections are scheduled for March 2015, this crisis is a serious test for Yanukovich. For the opposition, it is chance to get more publicity, because until now, they were supported only by some regions. And with the promotional aid of the EU and US, such a goal will be easier. On the other hand, they do not have a single leader to rally behind, so we could see an internal battle be waged inside the opposition’s camp in the future.
Ukraine actually has a very clear electoral map where one can see which region votes for the Party of Regions and which support the nationalists’ parties. If confidence in Yanukovich decreases, then he will lose support from the East and South of Ukraine (his classic base of electoral support). Nonetheless, Yanukovich is a legal president and he will not leave office before his term is over – this is certain. His post is guaranteed by the Constitution, and he has already proposed a plan for ending the crisis. The opposition does not have any such constructive ideas, and they speak with the language of ultimatums. This attitude is impossible to use in any normal negotiations, and the EU understands this very well. Therefore, they (the outsiders) cannot propose anything and just have to wait to see what happens.
The Role of the Media 
Most of the Ukrainian and European media take an incendiary position. There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the events in Kiev. Some US media outlets have used strategic rhetoric, for example, the Foreign Affairs magazine issued by the Council on Foreign Relations used the word “ceasefire” in an article about the process of ongoing negotiations between the authorities and the opposition.
Such a discourse is symbolic of a war of conscience against the state of Ukraine. Blogs and social networks are also effective in advancing this campaign. If one looks at a map of the “Euromaidan” hashtag, most activity will be seen as coming from three locations – Kiev, Washington, and London! Alternative media can also be of use in finding out more information about various figures of the opposition, for example, Oleg Tyagnibok of the Svoboda Party (formerly the Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine), statements from his hate speeches (mostly against Jews, Russians, Poles, and communists), his background, and where he gets his money from to fund his current activities.
External Actors 
Ukrainian MPs, the prime minister, and even oppositional leaders (Klichko) already recognized that there have been manipulations and interference from abroad. This means that external influence has already happened. If regime change occurs, this will not mean anything good for Ukrainians. Radicals are radicals under any regime. They will use Molotov cocktails again, but this time, the target of their attacks will be the EU’s occupational regime, the degraded culture of the West, banks, and corporations (under the auspices of honor and Ukrainian independence, of course). This type of bourgeois right-wing nationalist that we currently see on Maidan will be emancipated in the near future.
Some oppositional leaders will get preferential treatment from the West, while a select few will be used as technical actors during the consequent engagement of Ukraine with the West. European institutionalism is a good tool for gradual reforms, but with the rise of Euroscepticism, especially in the neighboring countries of Hungary and Slovakia, this will no longer be as easy as before. The “Palestine-ization” of Ukraine could worryingly occur. There is a serious present crisis affecting the state system, political processes, national identity, geopolitical thinking, and sovereignty. I think that the key decisions that we see in the upcoming days will address each of these topics. Then we will see a test that can gauge the actual sovereignty of Ukraine.
The Geopolitical Scale 
In this crisis, the main geopolitical actors are trying to get new experience in order to use it for their own benefits. Russia is following a clumsy strategy of engagement and acts more reactively than proactively. The EU seems to be a timid actor, as the Ukrainian vector had been a fault line in the European strategy for many years. Because of the economic crisis and problems with its own identity within the EU, Ukraine is perceived as a difficult partner.
The homogenization of the Ukrainian space would not go as easily as previously planned, and Ukrainian society is divided in their vision of the future. The US continues to battle against Russia and the Eurasian Union. For this reason, Ukraine is a good place to wage such a campaign. The timing is on the side of the US, because the Olympic Games in Sochi may distract the global public (in a similar fashion as the 2008 Olympic Games in China provided a cover for Saakashvili’s regime to begin military aggression against South Ossetia). In this situation, Ukraine loses its geopolitical maneuverability very quickly. The moderate balance that served as a useful political tool for Ukraine’s external activities during the presidency of Leonid Kuchma no longer works. This is because in a geopolitical sense, Ukraine does not understand the necessity of a strong alliance with Russia and the Eurasian bloc, as without it, the country will be slowly devoured by the EU and manipulated by the US. Separatism could also possibly occur in Ukraine.
The first mirage of this processes emerged in 2004, but now the situation is more complex and there will be more than two separate pieces if this scenario becomes reality. The Zakarpatie region (bordering Hungary and Slovakia) does not want to be in an independent Western Ukraine. The Crimea has some Tatars who generally supported the “Euromaidan” events, so a conflict in the Crimea Autonomous Republic is also possible there, especially when we take into account that many Tatars have already been waging jihad in Syria and now have experience in military insurgency.
Any results of “Euromaidan” will be negative both for the Ukrainian people and regional geopolitics. The society inside of the country is divided, and part of it thinks in the framework of revenge and resentment (both sides of the current conflict). The process of reconciliation will not be fast and easy. The only possible way for a positive political development would be innovation, but the Ukrainian political elites are lazy and do not have enough intellectual skills and experience to devise such innovations, as neither do the opposition. European and US advisors will not bring winning ideas to the Ukrainian opposition. The radical nationalistic sector thinks only about the realization of their own ideas which are similar to xenophobia and Nazism. Because of the activity of these aforementioned elements, there is no possibility to marginalize and “freeze” them.
The oligarchs will also try to use radicals as a frontline to further their own profit. It is very strange that the nationalists cooperate so closely with the cosmopolitan oligarchs and the neoliberals in Ukraine, because the doctrine of Ukrainian nationalism is against oligarchy and globalization. This alliance thus symbolizes nothing besides the hypocrisy that is standard for business interests involved in politics. Therefore, the new state of a hypocritical Ukraine is the most plausible scenario that we will have in the future.
Read more of our extensive coverage of The Ukraine with news, analysis and opinion in nsnbc international.

New translations of Dugin, and other reading

Alexander Dugin's Fourth Political Theory has just (2013) been translated into Greek, published by Esoptron (Έσοπτρον), a mainstream Greek publisher. English and German translations have also been published recently (2012) by Arktos, the current incarnation of the publisher previously noted in this blog (post here) under its former name, Integral Tradition Publishing.

All these books are available on Amazon, which makes it possible to see what other authors some of Dugin's readers are buying. Unsurprisingly, one finds Julius Evola, Alain de Benoist, and Guillaume Faye. There is also a new addition, Markus Willinger, whose Generation Identity: A Declaration of War against the 68ers is also published by Arktos. Willinger is a young (born 1992) Austrian, a reader of Evola and de Benoist and Faye, whose book contains forty short chapters on topics such as identity, loneliness, religion, ecology, death, sexuality, ethnopluralism, and the Zeitgeist. Chapter 41 is his "declaration of war." Another book that Dugin's Amazon US readers are buying is Jack Donovan's exploration of masculinity, The Way of Men. But then a lot of people are buying Donovan at present.

Eurasian Artists Association: The IVth Revolution!

Statement from The Eurasian Artists Association (EAA):

The Eurasian Artists Association (EAA) includes artists of all arts who support the Eurasian idea of Alexander Dugin, especially the aspect of struggle for culture and tradition and against modernism and globalism.
The EAA recently decided to work on a joint project, under the name „The Eurasian Artists Association presents: The IVth revolution“. It shall contain a book, a CD and a DVD to introduce itself and the associated artists to a broader public. Almost all EAA-members already agreed to support the project with their works, most of them exclusively for this release.

1.) The book will contain short stories, essays and/or poems by Boris Nad (Eurasianist writer from Serbia), David Beetschen (poet from Switzerland), Sergio Fritz Roa (traditionalist spiritual writer from Chile), James Porrazzo (of Open Revolt) and Irene Caesar (Russian philosopher and avantgarde artist) as well as graphic arts by the famous painter Alexey Guintovt (Russia), Hermann Bickler (from the band Puanteur de Charnier, France), Bernd Volkhardt (Germany) and the already mentioned Sergio Fritz Roa and Irene Caesar. One part will give a short introduction to the musical acts featured on the CD.
2.) The CD includes almost all musicians of the EAA: Barbarossa Umtrunk (French Martial), Betelgeuse (Alternative project by Alexander Dugin), Dasein May Refuse (Avantgarde Electro by Dari Dougina), Death Aesthetic (Neofolk from the US), Front Sonore (French Noise/Electro), Hoplites (Greek martial Ambient), La Derniere Attaque (Martial Ambient, Mexico), Le Cose Bianche (Noise from Italy), Mizar (Macedonian Dark Wave legend) Nevod (Martial Ambient/Usbekistan), Porta Vittoria (Italian Mediterranean Pop), Puanteur de Charnier (French Electro), Sonnenkind (German folk singer), Stirner (Dutch Noise), Suveräna (Spanish Martial), TSIDMZ (Martial Industrial, Italy), Valerio Orlandini (Dark Ambient from Italy), Vir Martialis (Martial from Argentinia)
3.) The DVD will contain music videos of some of the projects featured on the CD, a great presentation by Irene Caesar, and a video by Alexey Guintovt.
Further artists will probably take part, but we mentioned only those who gave as a clear confirmation until now.

28 Signs That The Middle Class Is Heading Toward Extinction

Michael Snyder
Activist Post

The death of the middle class in America has become so painfully obvious that now even the New York Times is doing stories about it.  Millions of middle class jobs have disappeared, incomes are steadily decreasing, the rate of homeownership has declined for eight years in a row and U.S. consumers have accumulated record-setting levels of debt. Being independent is at the heart of what it means to be "middle class", and unfortunately the percentage of Americans that are able to take care of themselves without government assistance continues to decline.

In fact, the percentage of Americans that are receiving government assistance is now at an all-time record high. This is not a good thing. Sadly, the number of people on food stamps has increased by nearly 50 percent while Barack Obama has been in the White House, and at this point nearly half the entire country gets money from the government each month.

Anyone that tries to tell you that the middle class is going to be "okay" simply has no idea what they are talking about. The following are 28 signs that the middle class is heading toward extinction...

#1 You don't have to ask major U.S. corporations if the middle class is dying.  This fact is showing up plain as day in their sales numbers.  The following is from a recent New York Times article entitled "The Middle Class Is Steadily Eroding. Just Ask the Business World"...

In Manhattan, the upscale clothing retailer Barneys will replace the bankrupt discounter Loehmann’s, whose Chelsea store closes in a few weeks. Across the country, Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants are struggling, while fine-dining chains like Capital Grille are thriving. And at General Electric, the increase in demand for high-end dishwashers and refrigerators dwarfs sales growth of mass-market models.

As politicians and pundits in Washington continue to spar over whether economic inequality is in fact deepening, in corporate America there really is no debate at all. The post-recession reality is that the customer base for businesses that appeal to the middle class is shrinking as the top tier pulls even further away.


#2 Some of the largest retailers in the United States that once thrived by serving the middle class are now steadily dying.  Sears and J.C. Penney are both on the verge of bankruptcy, and now we have learned that Radio Shack may be shutting down another 500 stores this year.

#3 Real disposable income in the United States just experienced the largest year over year drop that we have seen since 1974.

#4 Median household income in the United States has fallen for five years in a row.

#5 The rate of homeownership in the United States has fallen for eight years in a row.

#6 In 2008, 53 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be "middle class".  In 2014, only 44 percent of all Americans consider themselves to be "middle class".

#7 In 2008, 25 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket considered themselves to be "lower class".  In 2014, an astounding 49 percent of them do.

#8 Incredibly, 56 percent of all Americans now have "subprime credit".

#9 Total consumer credit has risen by a whopping 22 percent over the past three years.

#10 The average credit card debt in the United States is $15,279.

#11 The average student loan debt in the United States is $32,250.

#12 The average mortgage debt in the United States is $149,925.

#13 Overall, U.S. consumers are $11,360,000,000,000 in debt.

#14 The U.S. national debt is currently sitting at $17,263,040,455,036.20, and it is being reported that is has grown by $6.666 trillion during the Obama years so far.  Most of the burden of servicing that debt is going to fall on the middle class (if the middle class is able to survive that long).

#15 According to the Congressional Budget Office, interest payments on the national debt will nearly quadruple over the next ten years.

#16 Back in 1999, 64.1 percent of all Americans were covered by employment-based health insurance.  Today, only 54.9 percent of all Americans are covered by employment-based health insurance.

#17 More Americans than ever find themselves forced to turn to the government for help with health care.  At this point, 82.4 million Americans live in a home where at least one person is enrolled in the Medicaid program.

#18 There are 46.5 million Americans that are living in poverty, and the poverty rate in America has been at 15 percent or above for 3 consecutive years.  That is the first time that has happened since 1965.

#19 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has gone from 32 million to 47 million.

#20 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the percentage of working age Americans that are actually working has declined from 60.6 percent to 58.6 percent.

#21 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the average duration of unemployment in the United States has risen from 19.8 weeks to 37.1 weeks.

#22 Middle-wage jobs accounted for 60 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession, but they have accounted for only 22 percent of the jobs created since then.

#23 It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year in wages.

#24 Approximately one out of every four part-time workers in America is living below the poverty line.

#25 According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, an all-time record 49.2 percent of all Americans are receiving benefits from at least one government program each month.

#26 The U.S. government has spent an astounding 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs over the past five years.

#27 Only 35 percent of all Americans say that they are better off financially than they were a year ago.

#28 Only 19 percent of all Americans believe that the job market is better than it was a year ago.
As if the middle class didn't have enough to deal with, now here comes Obamacare.

As I have written about previously, Obamacare is going to mean higher taxes and much higher health insurance premiums for middle class Americans.

Not only that, but millions of hard working Americans are going to end up losing their jobs or having their hours cut back thanks to Obamacare.  For example, a fry cook named Darnell Summers recently told Barack Obama directly that he and his fellow workers "were broken down to part time to avoid paying health insurance"...

And the Congressional Budget Office now says that Obamacare could result in the loss of 2.3 million full-time jobs by 2021.

Several million people will reduce their hours on the job or leave the workforce entirely because of incentives built into President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

That would mean job losses equal to 2.3 million full-time jobs by 2021, in large part because people would opt to keep their income low to stay eligible for federal health care subsidies or Medicaid, the agency said. It had estimated previously that the law would lead to 800,000 fewer jobs by that year.

But even if we got rid of Obamacare tomorrow that would not solve the problems of the middle class.
The middle class has been shrinking for a very long time, and something dramatic desperately needs to be done.

The numbers that I shared above simply cannot convey the level of suffering that is going on out there on the streets of America today.  That is why I also like to share personal stories when I can.

Below, I have posted an excerpt from an open letter to Barack Obama that a woman with a Master's degree and 30 years of work experience recently submitted to the Huffington Post.  What this formerly middle class lady is having to endure because of this horrible economy is absolutely tragic...

Dear Mr. President,

I write to you today because I have nowhere else to turn. I lost my full time job in September 2012. I have only been able to find part-time employment -- 16 hours each week at $12 per hour -- but I don't work that every week. For the month of December, my net pay was $365. My husband and I now live in an RV at a campground because of my job loss. Our monthly rent is $455 and that doesn't include utilities. We were given this 27-ft. 1983 RV when I lost my job.

This is America today. We have no running water; we use a hose to fill jugs. We have no shower but the campground does. We have a toilet but it only works when the sewer line doesn't freeze -- if it freezes, we use the campground's restrooms. At night, in my bed, when it's cold out, my blanket can freeze to the wall of the RV. We don't have a stove or an oven, just a microwave, so regular-food cooking is out. Recently we found a small toaster oven on sale so we can bake a little now because eating only microwaved food just wasn't working for us. We don't have a refrigerator, just an icebox (a block of ice cost about $1.89). It keeps things relatively cold. If it's freezing outside, we just put things on the picnic table.

You can read the rest of her incredibly heartbreaking letter right here.

This is not the America that I remember.

What in the world is happening to us?

This article first appeared here at the Economic Collapse.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

NSA spies on world leaders to ruin them politically: Kevin Barrett

Press TV has conducted an interview with Kevin Barrett, editor of Veterans Today, about new revelations showing that the US National Security Agency (NSA) spied on former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder over his opposition to the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.
Press TV: Mr. Barrett, the United States has spied on former and current German leaders, why has Germany been much a focus for Washington?
Barrett: Well I think that the revelations that we have just heard about that the NSA was spying on Germany, suggest that what was going on in 2003 was actually, it was not just that 9/11 was a coup d'état within the United States, it was a kind of a global coup d'état.
At that time Gerhard Schroeder in Germany and Jacques Chirac in France were opposing the Iraq invasion which was essentially organized by the hard line Israeli neo-conservatives who had seized power in America after their 9/11 coup d'état and they wanted to go into Iraq and France and Germany - the two big European continental powers - were resisting, led by the very popular Gerhard Schroeder in Germany and Jacques Chirac in France. 
So the NSA was tasked with spying on these leaders and the result was that one way or another I think they were able to neutralize both of them and Angela Merkel is perhaps not as blatant a puppet of the Zionist as the more recent Heads of State in France have been. Sarkozy is with the hard line Zionist. And I think that what happened is we have to realize it is not just about listening in on these leaders, it is about actively interfering in the political process in these countries.

And they do all sorts of dastardly things with the information that they collect through NSA spying on world leaders. They not only can blackmail them if they get that kind of information but they can also arrange assassinations if they choose to or they can find ways to ruin them politically.

The US has a long history of overthrowing governments all over the world violently and less violently and that is what happened I believe in both France and Germany due to the opposition of their Heads of State to the Iraq war.
Now thank goodness that these people were not assassinated...but it is really unacceptable that any nation should take it upon itself to be able to spy on every world leader and then use all of these dastardly techniques of controlling these countries.
And I think that it is time for the world to absolutely reject this and say that we have to have a completely new world system that will not allow any global super power to have this kind of absolute control and absolute surveillance of world leaders.    
Press TV: And of course speaking of surveillance, how do you think the United States will ever pay the price for such global espionage activities?
Barrett: Well I think it will pay the price, perhaps not very quickly but the US Empire has become less and less popular. I think there was a reaction to 9/11.

I think the reason that Gerhard Schroeder refused to support the Iraq war and in fact put his foot down against it and said he would not support it even if the UN approved it was that he knew as German intelligence knew and various German intelligence people have come out and reported that 9/11 was an inside job and that this whole post 9/11 situation was created by the Zionist neoconservatives and Schroeder is also an honest broker with Russia and with other countries. He had to be gotten rid of.
So the US leaders who did this, well some of them are out of power now and the real powers behind the scenes people like the Rothschilds who now employed Gerhard Schroeder, they have hired him probably hoping to keep his mouth shut, these people are seeing their efforts to build a one world totalitarian dictatorship slowly slip away as the world public opinion shifts against these practices. 
I think it is going to be a long struggle but the victory is in Syria where we did not have the US coming and bomb Syria after the [al-Ghouta] false flag attack and elsewhere with Putin standing up against the warmongers in Washington and Tel Aviv.
I think that we are going to a multilateral world slowly but surely. 


Unrest spreads beyond Sweden capital

Unrest has spread beyond Sweden’s capital Stockholm, with the protesters setting ablaze vehicles and buildings in two other Swedish towns.

Police said that the protesters set a school and several cars ablaze in the town of Oerebro, 160 kilometers west of the capital on Friday.

An empty building was also set on fire in the town of Sodertalje just outside Stockholm.

Meanwhile, cars have been torched in several immigrant-dominated suburbs on the sixth consecutive night of violence in the capital, forcing police to ask for reinforcements from Gothenburg and Malmoe.

The United States and Britain have warned their citizens in Sweden to stay away from the affected areas.

The protests in Sweden began on May 19, six days after police shot dead a 69-year-old man, who had locked himself in an apartment in Husby, a poor district in western Stockholm.

Rights activists and local residents say the incident sparked anger among youths in the district, who claim the government discriminates against them.

The riots in one of Europe’s richest capitals have shocked a country that prides itself on a reputation for social justice, fueling a debate about how Sweden is coping with both youth unemployment and an influx of immigrants.


Obama committing war crimes: US Analyst

A political analyst tells Press TV that US President Barack Obama is committing war crimes by defending his administration's use of drones in a number of countries.

In a major policy speech at Washington's National Defense University on May 23, President Obama defended his policy of using drones, saying it was aimed at protecting the American nation against terrorists.

Scott Rickard said in an interview with Press TV that attacking other countries with drones was “an international war crime.”

“Obama is once again proving to speak through the size of his mouth. He has obviously committed war crimes as the president of the United States throughout the Middle East and across Africa,” he said.

He added that the West, spearheaded by the US, wages wars through their mercenaries in countries like Libya and then they launch their attacks on the war-ravaged countries under the pretext of fighting against militants.

“On one point they are recruiting mercenaries to attack Libya and Syria and on the other point they are saying they are fighting mercenaries because those countries cannot control it,” he said.

The commentator said the US would not stop launching drone attacks as the military business was highly lucrative.

”There is a lot of money being made every time a drone flies and every time a drone drops. There is a lot of money being made every time somebody shoots the cruise missile ... Boeing is a very profitable company in the United States and they have hundreds and hundreds of lobbyists,” he stressed.

He described the military industry as “a killing machine business” which contributed to the imperialist policies of major powers.

“It is a business and it is a horrific business, it is a killing machine business and it is highly imperialist,” he noted.

The US has employed drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen to launch aerial bombings.

Washington claims the airstrikes target militants, though most such attacks have resulted in civilian casualties.


In Guantanamo, fine words are no substitute for freedom

When President Obama delivered a major speech on America's drone program and the ongoing existence of the Guantanamo prison, the majority of those most affected by the latter - the prisoners themselves - were, ironically, unable to hear his speech.
Until six weeks ago, the majority of prisoners were spending most of their time communally, in Camp Six of the prison, where they were able to watch TV and would have seen President Obama's speech. Six weeks ago, however, after an early morning raid, the majority of the prisoners were moved to solitary cells, where they have remained ever since - as punishment for embarking on a prison-wide hunger strike, now in its fourth month.
Yesterday, Navy Captain Robert Durand, a spokesman for the Guantánamo prison, told Reuters that the prisoners "follow all coverage of Guantánamo closely," although he conceded that only "about two dozen had unrestricted access to television in communal settings."
The irony is lost on the military - and appears to be lost on the Obama administration too. The men's decision not to eat - and to risk starving themselves to death - was initially prompted by guards manhandling the prisoners' copies of the Qur'an, but it soon tapped into a deeper despair about their indefinite detention.
President Obama promised to close Guantánamo within a year when he took office in January 2009, but met opposition from Congress, which prevented him from closing the prison by bringing prisoners to a facility on the US mainland, and also prevented him from bringing any of the men to the US to face trials.
Throughout 2009, an inter-agency task force appointed by the President reviewed all the prisoners' cases, and recommended that, of the 166 men still held, 86 should be released. However, in January 2010, following a failed bomb plot, hatched in Yemen, to blow up a plane bound for Detroit, the President himself imposed a ban on releasing any cleared Yemenis, even though 56 of the 86 prisoners cleared for release are Yemenis.
In the last two years, Congress has imposed further restrictions, in successive versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), preventing the release of prisoners if there is a single claim that anyone previously transferred to their home country has “subsequently engaged in any terrorist activity,” and also preventing the release of prisoners to any other country unless the Secretary of Defense issues a certificate to ensure that any freed prisoner "cannot engage or re-engage in any terrorist activity.” 
The ban imposed by President Obama unjustly condemned the Yemenis to indefinite detention on the basis of their nationality alone, while the restrictions imposed by Congress partly echoed that, whilst also making the unreasonable demand that no one should be freed from a prison if there was a possibility that they might one day engage in acts of terrorism against their former jailers.

US President Barack Obama listens as a protester shouts during a speech about his administration's drone and counterterrorism policies, as well as the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, at the National Defense University in Washington, DC, May 23, 2013 (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)

To add insult to injury, judges in the court of appeals in Washington D.C., a deeply conservative court charged with reviewing the men's hard-won habeas corpus petitions, which were granted by the Supreme Court in 2008, were upset that, between 2008 and 2010, dozens of prisoners had their habeas corpus petitions granted by the lower courts, leading to their release. The court rewrote the rules, insisting that any information presented as evidence by the government should be treated as accurate unless it could be proved otherwise. Since then no habeas petitions have been granted, and, despite appeals from the prisoners, the Supreme Court has refused to get involved.
Abandoned by all three branches of the US government, the prisoners' hunger strike was a desperate way of trying to get the world to notice them and to remember them, and it worked. In the last few months, the world's media has woken up to the horrors of Guantánamo, and the President has been bombarded with criticism - from senior lawmakers, including Sen. Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, as well as from the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the European Parliament. Critical editorials have graced the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, op-eds written by prisoners have appeared in the New York Times and the Observer, and nearly a million people have signed petitions calling for the release of prisoners and the closure of the prison.

So what now?
On Thursday President Obama delivered a series of promises in response to the criticism directed at him. These appear to show the way forward - and to bring hope to the men at Guantánamo for the first time since 2009 - but they will need close monitoring, and relentless pressure, to make sure they lead to meaningful action.
Firstly, the President said, “I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries.”
Secondly, he said, “I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis.”
Thirdly, he said, “To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries.”

Reuters / Bob Strong

On the first point, it is disappointing that the President has not decided to appoint an official within the White House to deal with Guantánamo, and it is also disappointing that the individual is only to be tasked with "the transfer of detainees to third countries" rather than the closure of the prison. However, it is progress. In January, it was revealed that the previous envoy, Daniel Fried, had been reassigned, and that no one had been appointed to take his place.
What needs to happen now is for this individual to be named as swiftly as possible, and for he or she to begin to transfer the 30 cleared prisoners who are not Yemenis. If Congress remains obstructive, the President and the Secretary of Defense must use a waiver provision that exists in the NDAA, which allows them to bypass Congress if they regard it as being “in the national security interests of the United States.”
On the second point, lifting the ban on releasing Yemenis is crucial, but there now needs to be immediate action to facilitate the men's release. Again, the waiver will be needed if Congress refuses to cooperate, but otherwise there should be no obstacles to the successful release of the 56 men. Prior to President Obama's speech, current and former administration officials told the Wall Street Journal that the transfers to Yemen “would begin slowly, starting with two or three detainees, to ensure Yemen can keep track of the detainees and prevent them from joining militant groups.” The beginning of this process, the official said, “could still be months away.”
The Wall Street Journal also noted that recent steps taken by the Yemeni government “may make it easier for the Pentagon to sign the waiver,” adding, “President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi’s government, which has increased counter-terrorism cooperation with the US, has pledged to monitor the detainees closely and put them through an intensive rehabilitation program.”

Reuters / Bob Strong

The Wall Street Journal also noted that “US and Yemeni officials have held negotiations in recent weeks about restarting the transfers, including promising to share information about former detainees. The Yemeni government has said multiple ministries will monitor the ex-detainees to guard against activities that are potentially threatening to the US and to ensure they receive counselling, job training and other aid to help their reintegration into society.”
On the third point, plans to free the 30 non-Yemeni prisoners cleared for release need to begin immediately, involving the President's new envoy and, if necessary, the waiver mentioned above. The first to be released should be Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison, but there are also five Tunisians, a Saudi, four Afghans and others whose release should not be a complicated matter.
The cases of others - including the last three Uighurs (Muslims from China's Xinjiang province), four Syrians, the last Tajik and the last Palestinian - are more complicated, because it is unsafe for them to be repatriated, and new homes need to be found for them. This is also the case with most, if not all of the last five Algerians. The plight of these men is complicated by the fact that the US refuses to resettle any of these men, but it is anticipated that third countries can be found if the Obama administration provides full backing to the President 's new envoy.
There is more that still needs doing, of course. The 80 other prisoners in Guantánamo also need justice, and will not be reassured that the President stated in his speech, "Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system," and specifically referred to some of the 80 men as those "who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted - for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law."
46 of the remaining 80 men were consigned to indefinite detention without charge or trial in an executive order issued by the President two years ago, on the basis of the "compromised" evidence mentioned by the President. At the time, these men were promised periodic reviews of their cases, but those have not yet taken place. These need to be initiated, and they need to allow objective analysis of that "compromised" evidence - because that will reveal that much of it is worthless, consisting of false statements made by prisoners subjected to torture or other abuse, or who were bribed with food or the promise of additional "comfort items."
For the others, recommended for trial by the task force, only seven currently face charges in the much-criticized military commissions at Guantánamo, and most of the men in this category should also receive objective reviews of their cases. This is particularly important because judges recently ruled that most of the charges relied upon by the government - providing material support for terrorism, and conspiracy - are not war crimes, and threw out two of the only convictions secured in the military commissions' stumbling history.
Mostly, however, as outlined above, the men at Guantánamo need to see meaningful progress from the President who promised "hope and change" back in 2008, and then failed to deliver it - and for 86 of these men, that means, as soon as possible, that they should be given their freedom, and not just subjected to the fine words that President Obama is so good at delivering, as a substitute for action. 
Andy Worthington for RT
Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, author and filmmaker, who has been researching and writing about Guantánamo since 2006. He is also the co-founder of the "Close Guantánamo" campaign. See his website here.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Wall Street is writing its own regulation bill

Bank lobbyists have a direct influence on financial legislation drafted in Congress, and are in some cases even writing the measures themselves. Citigroup this month drafted a regulation bill that has already passed through a House committee.
To soften financial regulations, bank lobbyists frequently ‘assist’ lawmakers in writing draft legislation that serves to benefit them at the expense of American taxpayers, according to a New York Times investigation.
Lobbyists working for Citigroup Inc., a multinational financial services corporation, wrote 80 percent of a regulation bill that was approved by the House Financial Services Committee this month. Citigroup wrote 70 lines of 85-line bill, which exempts “broad swathes of trades” from new regulation, the Times reported based on e-mails it obtained.
Two paragraphs of the bill were copied “nearly word for word” from what Citigroup drafted. The only difference between the versions were two words, which lawmakers changed to make plural.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was signed into law in 2010, inflicted heavy financial regulatory reform following the most recent recession. The bill was pushed into law by Democrats, but now, both Democrats in the House and Senate are siding with bank lobbyists to roll back parts of the regulation overhaul.
The bill drafted primarily by Citigroup this month was starkly opposed by the Treasury Department, but easily made it through the House Financial Services Committee, the Times reports. MapLight, a nonprofit group that analyzes campaign finance records, found that lawmakers who supported Wall Street’s legislation received twice as much in contributions from financial institutions than those who opposed such measures, which appears to indicate that lawmakers’ support can be bought.
This month, Wall Street groups also held fundraising dinners for lawmakers who co-sponsored the bills they backed and in some cases co-wrote. As a reward for siding with bank lobbyists, these lawmakers were granted a dinner in which attendees paid up to $2,500 for a plate.
When questioned by the Times, bank industry officials said that helping draft legislation was a common practice on Capitol Hill, but argued that they do not undermine Dodd-Frank.
“We will provide input if we see a bill and it is something we have interest in,” said Kenneth E. Bentsen Jr., a Wall Street lobbyist. Bentsen is a former lawmaker himself, and many financial institutions’ lobbyists have worked as Capitol Hill aides and staffers before taking on their current roles.
Jeff Connaughton, a former lobbyist and former congressional staffer, said that Wall Street has so much influence on the Hill that it “skews the thinking of Congress.”
“It’s appalling, it’s disgusting, it’s wasteful and it opens the possibility of conflicts of interest and corruption,” Rep. Jim Himes, a top recipient of Wall Street donations and a former banker at Goldman Sachs, told the Times, admitting his own faults. “It’s unfortunately the world we live in.”

UK chickens come home to roost in Woolwich

Malcolm X memorably described the JFK assassination as America's chickens coming home to roost. Now some British chickens have come home to roost in Woolwich.

Were elements of the British government complicit in the killing of a British soldier by two apparent “salafi jihadists” - in the same way that elements of the US government killed JFK? Quite possibly. We know that the so-called war on terror is a fraud, and that all of its emblematic incidents, including 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali, Mumbai, and most recently Boston, have been false flag operations by Zionist elements of the Western security services.

But Malcolm X's roosting chickens represent more than just official complicity. Malcolm's larger meaning was “what you sow, so you shall reap.” And since the British government has been sowing terror all over the world for centuries, including synthetic “Islamic terror,” it is only to be expected that some of that terror should return to the island that launched it.

The two suspects in the Woolwich attack are said to be salafi-wahhabi jihadists. They are allegedly associates of salafist preacher Anjem Choudary, with whom I squared off on Press TV's “The Debate” a few weeks ago.

Choudary claims to be a defender of Muslims. But everything he does seems calculated to make Muslims look bad.


Maybe it's because Choudary's brand of Islam has long been shaped and manipulated by the enemies of Muslims.

According to researcher David Livingstone, agents of the British crown created the whole wahhabi-salafi jihadist movement four centuries ago. The purpose: Sow discord in the House of Islam, turn Muslim against Muslim, and eventually destroy the great Muslim polities, beginning with the Ottoman, Persian, and Mughal empires.

The most extreme salafi-wahhabis are more aptly described as takfiris, meaning “those who declare their fellow Muslims to be apostates.” Such people are very useful to Western imperialists seeking to divide and conquer the Islamic world.

Whether or not the British were behind the wahhabi movement from the beginning, it is undeniable that the wahhabi-takfiri extremist movement has been the servant of Anglo-American power for at least a century. The House of Saud, with its wahhabi-takfiri enforcers, has served as the leading Arab puppet of the Anglo-Americans since T.E. Lawrence used the Saudis and wahhabi-takfiris to help destroy the Ottoman empire.

The wahhabi-takfiris prop up the Rothschild petrodollar with their oil. And they sow chaos in the House of Islam by attacking Sufis, Shia, traditional Muslims - just about everyone who doesn't buy their obscurantist dogma.

Naturally, people like Anjem Choudary - “ Muslims everyone loves to hate” - are invaluable tools of the British authorities (and their Israeli and American allies). The British, in particular, have specialized in recruiting and manipulating salafi-takfiri jihadists. It has been an open secret for years that the Finsbury Park and Brixton mosques in London are virtual extensions of British intelligence.

While Anjem Choudary may just be a hapless, half-bright fanatic, his hero, Ayman al-Zawahiri - allegedly the current head of “al-Qaeda” - is a Western intelligence asset. As Webster Tarpley wrote in his book 9/11: Synthetic Terror: “The world needs to remember Sadat's widow, Jehan Sadat, recalling in a television interview after 9/11 that Zawahiri, a murderer of her husband, had lived in London for years after that crime, while extradition to Egypt was always refused by the UK. The guess here would be that Zawahiri is a double agent working for MI-6...”

Tarpley's guess was a good one. Britain's leading scholarly researcher on al-Qaeda, Nafeez Ahmed, recently cited FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds:

“In interviews with this author in early March, Edmonds claimed that Ayman al-Zawahiri, current head of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s deputy at the time, had innumerable, regular meetings at the US embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, with US military and intelligence officials between 1997 and 2001, as part of an operation known as ‘Gladio B’. Al-Zawahiri, she charged, as well as various members of the bin Laden family and other mujahideen, were transported on NATO planes to various parts of Central Asia and the Balkans to participate in Pentagon-backed destabilization operations.

“According to two Sunday Times journalists speaking on condition of anonymity, this and related revelations had been confirmed by senior Pentagon and MI6 officials as part of a four-part investigative series that were supposed to run in 2008. The Sunday Times journalists described how the story was inexplicably dropped under the pressure of undisclosed 'interest groups', which, they suggest, were associated with the US State Department.”

In other words, “al-Qaeda” and the whole wahhabi-takfiri “Islamic extremist” milieu is the creature of the Western intelligence services. When Western intelligence agencies and their Persian Gulf Arab puppets send criminals, fanatics and mercenaries to Syria to chop off heads and devour their victims' hearts live on camera, they are doing so as part of a long-term, global effort to destroy the Islamic Awakening. The same is true when they deploy their assets in London rather than Damascus.

Bottom line: Anjem Choudary and other “Finsbury Park Mosque” Muslims, presumably including the two Woolwich suspects, are agents of the British crown, whether they realize it or not. The killing of a British soldier at Woolwich was not a defense of Islam; it was an act of psychological warfare against the religion of Islam, orchestrated by the enemies of Islam, namely the British-American-Israeli governments and the House of Rothschild that owns them.


Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). His website is