8 Events That Prove Your Money Is Not Safe In Europe, Or Anywhere

03/08/2014

 http://www.activistpost.com/2014/03/8-events-that-prove-your-money-is-not.html

3-8-2014 9-40-31 AM Jeff Berwick

Activist Post

As I write this, the European Union has just announced a possible $15b aid package to Ukraine (including 8 billion euros in fresh credit). Everybody has read the headlines about Europe: record unemployment, no end in sight, and so on.

So you might be wondering just where the European Union, and its constituent nations, scraped together the money to propose aid for Ukraine.

Well, wonder no more, because the following eight events might give you an idea of where governments go to get a little extra cash.

1. In March, 2009, Ireland seized €4bn from its Pension Reserve fund in order to rescue its banks. In November 2010, the remaining savings of €2.5bn was seized to support the bailout of the rest of the country.

2. In December, 2010, Hungary told its citizens that they could either remit their private pension money to the state or lose their state pension funds (but still have to pay for it nonetheless).

3. In November, 2010, the French parliament decided to earmark €33bn from the national reserve pension fund FRR to reduce the short-term pension scheme deficit.

4. In early January 2011, $60 million in private retirement funds were transferred to the state’s pension scheme in Bulgaria.  They wanted to transfer $300 million, but were denied on their first attempt

5. In the Spring of 2013 Cyprus took it a step further and outright confiscated up to 50% of the funds from bank account holders in that country.6. In the Fall of 2013 the Polish government announced it would transfer to the state (aka. confiscate) the bulk of assets owned by the country’s private pension funds (many of them owned by such foreign firms as PIMCO parent Allianz, AXA, Generali, ING and Aviva), without offering any compensation.7.  In February 2014, Italian banks were ordered by the Italian government to withhold a 20% tax on all inbound wire transfers. Il Sole reported, “the deductions will be automatic (unless prior request for exclusion), and then it will be up to the taxpayer to prove that the money is not in the nature of compensation ‘income.'”

8. The savings of all 500 million Europeans can be stolenby the European Union. Why? Because the financial crisis is not over, according to an EU document. The Commission is looking to ask the bloc’s insurance watchdog in the second half of 2014 for advice on how to draft a law “to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing,” the document said.

So you see, European governments and institutions have already begun seizing private pension funds, slapping 20% taxes on all incoming wire transfers, confiscating up to 50% from private bank accounts and even stating all the savings of Europe are fair game.  As we’ve said before, this phenomenom of wealth confiscation won’t stay confined to Europe. The US has also taken measures to ensure ease of access to the funds of everyday Americans.

We’ve said for many years now that the US government and almost all Western governments are bankrupt. This means they will try to confiscate as much wealth as possible from people who don’t carefully save before the collapse. Mark our words: US 401ks and IRAs will be nationalized in the next four years as well—maybe as soon as the next one or two years.

If you’ve stayed in tune with the Dollar Vigilante blog, you probably already understood this. If you haven’t already, be sure to check into our subscription services to gain access to the intelligence you need to stay ahead of the pack.

Anarcho-Capitalist. Libertarian. Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks. Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast. Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox Business.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

A modest amount of currency, and as much ammo as you can afford is wise to keep in a safe at home, provided it is a good and heavy one. But the bulk of your investments and other assets must be protected from these thieves in our government and their employers, by converting it into commodities that are needed for survival in a post martial law environment. If you are a city dweller I recommend getting out asap, and by now you should know it is past time to start preparing for self defense in a more controllable residence than you may be presently in. I will not suggest which commodities are best for everyone because I really don’t know how other people think. I for one intend to be as independent from dependence on the existing infrastructure as possible. There are thousands of ways of accomplishing this and each person has a different opinion on how it’s accomplished. Do your own research. But, don’t depend on the existing system to continue much longer.

3-4-2014 10-44-14 PM

10 13 11 flagbar


The History and Science of Color Revolutions Part 1

03/07/2014

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/03/the-history-and-science-of-color.html

3-7-2014 3-24-30 PM

By Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

In my last article, “Color Revolutions 101: The Making Of A Controlled Revolution,” I discussed the basic setup of various State agencies, intelligence apparatus, Non-Governmental Organizations, and Foundations that enable and engineer color revolutions across the world. In that article, I attempted to show the different manifestations of the color revolution as well as the methodology used to coordinate such movements in their various locations.

Although more recent movements were the focus of that discussion, it is important to understand, however, that the color revolution is not merely a recent invention on the part of the ruling elite. In fact, this particular method of destabilization has quite a long history, having been perfected in the late 1960s and refined into an art form as time has progressed.

Indeed, Jonathan Mowat adds to the recent historical understanding of the controlled-coup and color revolutions in his article, “The New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents,’” also focusing on the players and the methods of deployment. Mowat writes,

Much of the coup apparatus is the same that was used in the overthrow of President Fernando Marcos of the Philippines in 1986, the Tiananmen Square destabilization in 1989, and Vaclav Havel’s “Velvet revolution” in Czechoslovakia in 1989. As in these early operations, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and its primary arms, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and International Republican Institute (IRI), played a central role. The NED was established by the Reagan Administration in 1983, to do overtly what the CIA had done covertly, in the words of one its legislative drafters, Allen Weinstein. The Cold War propaganda and operations center, Freedom House, now chaired by former CIA director James Woolsey, has also been involved, as were billionaire George Soros’ foundations, whose donations always dovetail those of the NED.

What made the color revolution grow more successful, of course, is the predominance of the technology that now exists in today’s society. With the advent of cell phones, the Internet, social media and other forms of electronic communication, the ability of the color revolution to act in a more coordinated and effective fashion has been multiplied exponentially. Mowat addresses this issue when he states,

What is new about the template bears on the use of the Internet (in particular chat rooms, instant messaging, and blogs) and cell phones (including text-messaging), to rapidly steer angry and suggestible “Generation X” youth into and out of mass demonstrations and the like—a capability that only emerged in the mid-1990s. “With the crushing ubiquity of cell phones, satellite phones, PCs, modems and the Internet,” Laura Rosen emphasized in Salon Magazine on February 3, 2001,”the information age is shifting the advantage from authoritarian leaders to civic groups.” She might have mentioned the video games that helped create the deranged mindset of these “civic groups.” The repeatedly emphasized role played by so-called “Discoshaman” and his girlfriend “Tulipgirl,” in assisting the “Orange Revolution” through their aptly named blog, “Le Sabot Post-Modern,” is indicative of the technical and sociological components involved.

The emphasis on the use of new communication technologies to rapidly deploy small groups, suggests what we are seeing is civilian application of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s “Revolution in Military Affairs” doctrine, which depends on highly mobile small group deployments “enabled” by “real time” intelligence and communications. Squads of soldiers taking over city blocks with the aid of “intelligence helmet” video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their environment, constitute the military side. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell phones constitute the doctrine’s civilian application.

This parallel should not be surprising since the US military and National Security Agency subsidized the development of the Internet, cellular phones, and software platforms. From their inception, these technologies were studied and experimented with in order to find the optimal use in a new kind of warfare. The “revolution” in warfare that such new instruments permit has been pushed to the extreme by several specialists in psychological warfare. . . . .

The new techniques of warfare include the use of both lethal (violent) and nonlethal (nonviolent) tactics. Both ways are conducted using the same philosophy, infrastructure, and modus operandi. It is what is known as Cyberwar. For example, the tactic of swarming is a fundamental element in both violent and nonviolent forms of warfare. This new philosophy of war, which is supposed to replicate the strategy of Genghis Khan as enhanced by modern technologies, is intended to aid both military and non-military assaults against targeted states through what are, in effect, “high tech” hordes. In that sense there is no difference, from the standpoint of the plotters, between Iraq or Ukraine, if only that many think the Ukraine-like coup is more effective and easier.[1]

Mowat then goes on to demonstrate how this theory of destabilization fits with that endorsed by military-industrial theoreticians like Dr. Peter Ackerman who wrote the aptly-named book Strategic Nonviolent Conflict. For instance, when Ackerman spoke at the “Secretary’s Open Forum” at the State Department in June 29, 2004, Ackerman did not quibble with the imperialist goals of the Bush administration, only the methods used to achieve them.

In his speech, “Between Hard and Soft Power: The Rise of Civilian-Based Struggle and Democratic Change,” Ackerman suggested that youth movements, not American military might, could be used to bring down North Korea and Iran and that they could have been used to bring down Iraq. Ackerman also stated in his speech that he was working with Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, the U.S. weapons designer, for the purpose of creating new communications technologies that might be used by these “youth insurgencies.”[2]

As Mowat points out, Ackerman is the founding Chairman of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflicts of Washington, D.C. where Jack Duvall, a former U.S. Air Force officer, is President. Ackerman is also co-director with former CIA Director James Woolsey of the Arlington Institute (AI) of Washington, D.C. The AI was created by John L. Peterson, in 1989 who is the former Chief of Naval Operations, for the stated purpose of helping “redefine the concept of national security in much larger, comprehensive terms” by introducing “social value shifts into the traditional national defense equation.”[3]

Yet the theory of “youth insurgencies” in no way began with Ackerman. As far back as 1967, the Tavistock Institute, the major psychological experimentation wing of the military industrial complex, was studying the effects of using “swarming adolescents” as an instrument of governmental disruption and regime change. As Jonathan Mowat summarizes,

As in the case of the new communication technologies, the potential effectiveness of angry youth in postmodern coups has long been under study. As far back as 1967, Dr. Fred Emery, then director of the Tavistock Institute, and an expert on the “hypnotic effects” of television, specified that the then new phenomenon of “swarming adolescents” found at rock concerts could be effectively used to bring down the nation-state by the end of the 1990s. This was particularly the case, as Dr. Emery reported in “The next thirty years: concepts, methods and anticipations,” in the group’s “Human Relations,” because the phenomena was associated with “rebellious hysteria.” The British military created the Tavistock Institute as its psychological warfare arm following World War I; it has been the forerunner of such strategic planning ever since. Dr. Emery’s concept saw immediate application in NATO’s use of “swarming adolescents” in toppling French President Charles De Gaulle in 1967.[4]

Of course, the publicly acknowledged and published studies and theoretical applications of using “swarming adolescents” for the purposes of destabilizing one’s enemy continued on through the years becoming more and more refined as it moved forward in both theory and practice. As mentioned in my article “Color Revolutions 101: The Making Of A Controlled Revolution,” the use of death squads and mass movements against the nation state or rival movements is nothing new. This much is evidenced by the work T.E. Lawrence many years ago. However, the details and techniques of the manipulation of mass numbers of people have only continued to become more and more advanced and sophisticated. Mowat further describes the research and theory behind color revolutions:

In November 1989, Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, Ohio, under the aegis of that university’s “Program for Social Innovations in Global Management,” began a series of conferences to review progress towards that strategic objective, which was reported on in “Human Relations” in 1991. There, Dr. Howard Perlmutter, a professor of “Social Architecture” at the Wharton School, and a follower of Dr. Emery, stressed that “rock video in Kathmandu,” was an appropriate image of how states with traditional cultures could be destabilized, thereby creating the possibility of a “global civilization.” There are two requirements for such a transformation, he added, “building internationally committed networks of international and locally committed organizations,” and “creating global events” through “the transformation of a local event into one having virtually instantaneous international implications through mass-media.”

Mowat goes on to describe what he deems to be the “final” aspect of color revolutions and destabilizations – the implementation of polling operations providing false “exit poll” data, confidence in government, satisfaction with the current regime, support for the opposition, etc. This method serves to create the perception both inside and outside the target country that conditions were abominable before the “revolution” (which may or may not be true), that the overwhelming majority of the citizens within the target country support the coup, and that the regime is failing. In short, the goal is to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of governmental collapse.

After a short propaganda blitz citing these “poll watchers,” “freedom and democracy organizations,” and “human rights organizations,” the door is opened to the implementation of international pressure against the target governments, covert action inside and outside of the nation, and the defection of pre-planned agents planted within the governmental and military structure.

Mowat writes,

This brings us to the final ingredient of these new coups—the deployment of polling agencies’ “exit polls” broadcast on international television to give the false (or sometimes accurate) impression of massive vote-fraud by the ruling party, to put targeted states on the defensive. Polling operations in the recent coups have been overseen by such outfits as Penn, Schoen and Berland, top advisers to Microsoft and Bill Clinton. Praising their role in subverting Serbia, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (and later Chairman of NDI) , in an October 2000 letter to the firm quoted on its website, stated: “Your work with the National Democratic Institute and the Yugoslav opposition contributed directly and decisively to the recent breakthrough for democracy in that country . . . This may be one of the first instances where polling has played such an important role in setting and securing foreign policy objectives.” Penn, Schoen, together with the OSCE, also ran the widely televised “exit poll” operations in the Ukrainian elections.

In the aftermath of such youth deployments and media operations, more traditional elements come to the fore. That is, the forceful, if covert, intervention by international institutions and governments threatening the targeted regime, and using well placed operatives within the targeted regime’s military and intelligence services to ensure no countermeasures can be effectively deployed. Without these traditional elements, of course, no postmodern coup could ever work. Or, as Jack DuVall put it in Jesse Walker’s “Carnival and conspiracy in Ukraine,” in Reason Online, November 30, 2004, “You can’t simply parachute Karl Rove into a country and manufacture a revolution.”[5]

Because color revolutions, destabilizations, and coups require much more than propaganda inside or outside the country, it is necessary to organize, train, indoctrinate, and mobilize with “boots on the ground” inside the target nation. Since the movement will not be an organic one, the “swarming adolescents” must be organized by the agents directing the destabilization.

Regardless, the propaganda that is used both inside and outside of the target nation is traditionally very effective in garnering domestic support for whatever additional measures are then taken against the victim state. Americans have typically fallen for every color revolution enacted overseas (and domestically) just as much as Eastern Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Africans have done.

The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions, destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all.

Notes:

[1] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[2] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[3] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[4] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[5] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 247-248.

Recently by Brandon Turbeville:

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 275 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. 

10 13 11 flagbar


The Powers and Abuses of Americas Mega Corporations

03/06/2014

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-powers-and-abuses-of-americas-mega-corporations/5371901

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls

“Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.” –– Anonymous

In 2010 the Neo-Conservative, pro-corporate, anti-democratic Roberts’ 5/4 Supreme Court’s decided in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling to grant personhood to corporations by allowing unlimited, anonymous monetary contributions to political campaigns and candidates. This ruling, called by many to be the worst Supreme Court decision of the past century, has emboldened the already powerful and corruptible multinational corporations (that now have achieved dominion over US politics as well as the economy) to “buy” any number of politicians and brain-wash voters by multi-million dollar ad campaigns that the rest of us can’t afford to counter in state and national elections.

The US Supreme Court has thus made legal the absurd notion that inanimate corporations like Poly-Met and GTac (potential despoilers of northern Minnesota and northern Wisconsin’s irreplaceable wetlands, aquifers and aboriginal land and water rights) deserve the same privileges (but not the same responsibilities) as living humans.

After the ruling came down, there was only a brief bit of outrage from the so-called national leadership of our essentially “one-party system” (one-party, that is, when it comes to the GOP and Democratic Party’s corporate and militarist agendas). What outrage was expressed was quickly drowned out by a well-timed, mainstream media-orchestrated “tempest in a teapot”, namely Toyota’s recall of tens of thousands of accelerator pedals (that had only infrequently been the cause of significant accidents).

What Should be the Punishment for Corporate Entities That Plunder and Pillage?

The following question about the consequences of the Supreme Court’s democracy-threatening decision must be asked:

If corporations are given the privileges of personhood, shouldn’t they also bear the same responsibilities and incur the same punishments as individuals when they commit crimes, poison the water and air or rape the land?

Peace and justice activists applauded when the citizens of Shapleigh, Maine protected their water rights last year from the insatiable water-extracting corporate giant Nestle. (See video and more information on this episode at: (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/40335).

Nestle, one of the many multinational corporate exploiters, has no allegiance to Maine, Minnesota or Wisconsin or any other state where this foreign entity tries to extract water or minerals that never were theirs to begin with. But when the minerals have been depleted and the water has been polluted or drained, Nestle, PolyMet and GTac will be gone, and so will Exxon/Mobil, British Petroleum, Halliburton, Deep Water Horizon, British Petroleum, Coca-Cola, Perrier or whatever other corporate intruder that ruthlessly extracts or poisons the people’s resources — all for the economic benefit of their faceless investors, shareholders and CEOs at their out-of-state corporate headquarters, none of whom will have to live with the poisoned environment that they have left behind.

The good citizens of Shapleigh recognized the foxes that tried to get inside their henhouse, and they did the right thing by vigorously resisting; and another underdog David — with a lot of justice, a lot of pluck and a little luck on his side — won a rare victory against another evil giant.

Move to Amend: Overturning Citizens United

That small victory against injustice should illustrate what must be done if American democracy is ever to thrive again. The outrageous Citizens United decision must be overturned with a constitutional amendment. (See www.movetoamend.org for more.) The future of the nation, our children, the planet, our drinking water, natural habitat and aboriginal rights are all at stake. And exploitative corporations, just like other sociopathic entities, don’t seem to care.

It is important to understand that the allegiance of big corporations is to its investors, shareholders, executives and management teams, and not to the people whose lives and health depend on the sustainability of the land, water, air and food supplies. Most corporate shareholders and executives from multinational corporations that are part of Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Agribusiness, Big Oil, Big Finance, etc are motivated by profits and not the common good, and therefore they are not concerned when local resources are used up and the struggling, degraded communities are left behind to fend for themselves (after being fooled into trusting non-human corporations that are inherently untrustworthy [see below]).

”Trust us: We’re the Experts; Toxic Sludge is Good for You; We’ll Clean up After Ourselves” — and Other Corporate Lies

Conscienceless mega-corporations that swoop down on unsuspecting people and naïve governmental bodies, usually ask them to “trust us” and that — at some time in the uncertain future – they will un-poison the often permanently-toxified environment that they secretly intend to just leave behind. The people, understandably desperate for jobs, are usually fooled into believing well-crafted disinformation that is cunningly delivered — until it is too late and the mess that is left behind is no longer the sneaky corporation’s problem. It’s an old con.

Promises made during the courtship phase are likely to be broken with impunity when these foreign corporations are forced to pull-out, merge with other entities or file for bankruptcy. Silver-tongued experts from out of state are very good at getting us rubes up north all starry-eyed over temporary jobs, jobs, jobs while discounting the huge risks of permanent dead and dying zones being created because of their poisonous chemicals.

Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Union Carbide/Dow Chemical and Henry Kissinger

A good example of the many tax-avoiding American mega-corporations is Wal-Mart. A large portion of its profits go to a handful of Walton family billionaires in Arkansas. Wal-Mart successfully — and legally — avoids paying for healthcare insurance and other benefits for most of their exploited, underpaid, part-time employees, who are also victims of the corporation’s notorious union-busting policies.

US taxpayers are left holding the bag while Wal-Mart legally avoids what should ethically be their corporate responsibility: to be fair to their employees. Wal-Mart’s notorious below-subsistence level wages forces many of their workers to work a second or third job and also seek welfare benefits — a cunning cost-shifting tactic that places economic burdens on the tax-paying public.

Another example is Coca-Cola. Coke depends on water that it extracts from any water source or aquifer from which the corporation can economically extract it, including, as a particularly egregious example, the aquifers that are situated beneath thirsty, struggling, starving (and then suicidal) farmers who are losing their farms in newly drought-stricken India.

Millions of gallons of water, that have traditionally been used for farmland irrigation systems, are being depleted by Coca-Cola in order to meet the artificial demand that has been created for the sweet, sugary, caffeinated (and therefore addictive), nutritionally useless, obesity-inducing and diabetes-producing soft drink that contains a few cents worth of ingredients and then is sold to poor people everywhere for as much as the market will bear.

Coke’s predation of poor people in India and elsewhere brings to mind another corporate crime that has never been brought to justice. The infamous 1984 Union Carbide cyanide catastrophe in Bhopal, India that killed 25,000 slum-dwellers, left 100,000 permanently poisoned victims whose lives were ruined, and has left uncounted numbers of people living on poisoned soil, drinking poisoned water and breathing poisoned air.

Every person that has been exposed to the Union Carbide cyanide plant environs is chronically ill, and Indian mothers are still delivering malformed babies and dead fetuses because of the pesticide residues that cannot be detoxified. Union Carbide, the American corporation responsible for the disaster, has consistently shirked, just like most criminal entities, its moral responsibilities to the suffering victims. Carbide eventually sold itself to the equally infamous Dow Chemical, the company that brought us Agent Orange, immune-destroying silicone breast implants and a multitude of other highly profitable but very poisonous products.

Carbide’s corporate executives have been repeatedly subpoenaed to appear in Indian courts for their crimes. But the US has not honored the extradition treaties it has with India. These executives have repeatedly refused to appear and are therefore in contempt of court. There are warrants out for their arrests in India, just as there are warrants out for the arrest of Citizen Henry Kissinger for his part in international war crimes and crimes against humanity in Chile, East Timor, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc. All of these accused criminals remain at large, harbored by America’s Big Business-friendly, corporate-controlled nation.

Sociopathy and the DSM: The Common Denominator Linking Human and Corporate Criminals

There are a number of common denominators that link human criminals and the multinational corporations that populate the Fortune 500 and/or Dow 30 Industrial Average lists (like Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Dow, Chevron, Exxon/Mobil, du Pont, British Petroleum, Halliburton Monsanto, Merck, Pfizer, Proctor and Gamble, Nestle, Perrier, Nike, Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan Chase, Enron, etc, etc). For one, the corporations, being just as afraid of facing the music as were Henry Kissinger, Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay and the other multibillionaires of their ilk (that are rich enough to employ rafts of cunning defense lawyers). Be certain that they will use any means necessary to evade or delay justice. Similarly, none of them can be expected to show any genuine remorse for the human suffering that their actions have caused.

There are checklist diagnoses for various personality disorders in the billing and diagnostic manual for psychiatrists (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel [DSM] which, by the way, contains no statistics – go figure). One of the 374 disorders that are listed in the 4th edition of the DSM is antisocial personality disorder (code number 301.7), which identifies chronic pathological liars, cheaters, extortionists, abusers, thieves and killers whose lack of morals, ethics or consciences commonly enables them to avoid being caught or punished for crimes and misdeeds.

These “sociopaths” (aka psychopaths) typically refuse to accept blame or responsibility for their actions. In the case of sociopathic mega-corporations that are occasionally successfully sued in court, business-friendly judges will often allow a gag rule to be imposed against the plaintiff and may also allow the corporation to deny any wrong-doing even as it accepts the penalty!

Those supposedly “human” corporate entities can easily meet the criteria of antisocial personality disorder, and thus they seem to be incapable of showing genuine remorse if or when they are caught or convicted for their crimes. (Learn more about corporate sociopathy at http://www.thecorporation.com/ or by watching the 2003 Canadian documentary titled The Corporation at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHrhqtY2khc.)

Below are seven diagnostic criteria that are used to diagnose antisocial (aka, sociopathic or psychopathic) personality disorder in humans (be mindful that only three of the seven are needed for a positive diagnosis):

1) callous disregard for the feelings of other people

2) the incapacity to maintain human relationships

3) reckless disregard for the safety of others

4) aggressiveness

5) deceitfulness (repeated lying and conning others for profit)

6) incapacity to experience guilt and

7) the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.

Other common traits manifested by sociopaths include:

Lack of conscience

Lack of remorse for evils done to others

Indifference to the suffering of its victims

Rationalizes (makes excuses for) having hurt, mistreated or stolen from others

Willingness to exploit, seduce or manipulate others

No sign of delusional or irrational thinking

Cunning, clever

Usually above average intelligence

Always looking for ways to make money or achieve fame or notoriety

Willing to cause or contribute to the financial ruin of others

Untrustworthy

Cannot be trusted to adhere to conventional standards of morality.

We are talking about criminality in individuals that are not considered mentally ill. Sadly, sociopaths are, for all intents and purposes, totally sane but are also incurable of their personality disorder. These individuals make up at least 4% of the US population, although certain professions, such as the killing professions, tend to attract larger percentages of them (read The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us, by Martha Stout, PhD – buy it at: https://www.google.com/#q=The+Sociopath+next+door).

Actually the exact number of sociopaths — humans or their corporate counterparts — is not precisely known, but, lacking a conscience, neither truly feels guilty about their misdeeds. And therefore they never truly try to change. Believing that there is nothing wrong with them, human sociopaths rarely ask for help, and corporations are no different, especially when the law and the markets are on their side.

If and when human sociopaths are court-ordered to submit to evaluation and “treatment”, they typically only pretend to change until the pressure is off and their unethical or criminal activities look doable again. Academic psychologists tell us that attempts to rehabilitate full-fledged sociopaths are useless, although the often charming, charismatic, silver-tongued sociopath will commonly fool the treatment team into thinking progress is being made.

And sociopathic corporations don’t seem to have much trouble seducing regulatory agencies, local governmental entities and desperate underemployed workers by promising jobs and a secret un-tested plan to prevent environmental catastrophes. Only when it’s too late and the mega-corporation has skipped the country with the loot will all the painful truths come out.

What Should be the Punishment for Sociopathic Corporations When They Lie, Cheat, Advertise Falsely, Act Unethically, Poison or Rape the Environment or Commit Crimes?

Experienced psychologists tell us that sociopathic individuals that have committed crimes have to be locked away to protect society from them.

So a number of questions need to be asked, “what needs to be done with corporate entities that meet three of the seven criteria above? What needs to be done with corporations that have a history of deceiving, lying, cheating, raping the land, poisoning the water, fouling the air or otherwise acting unethically?

Given the anti-constitutional 2010 Roberts’ Supreme Court ruling granting personhood to corporations (Citizens United), shouldn’t sociopathic corporations be dealt with just like their human counterparts when they act criminally? Shouldn’t long prison sentences be given to the CEOs, Boards of Directors and management teams? Shouldn’t there be confiscation of property or even capital punishment in the case of egregious cases including mass deaths as in the cases of Union Carbide, Coca-Cola and Merck (examples: the Vioxx and Gardisil deaths)?

I hasten to add that I am against capital punishment for humans, but any person with a conscience and more than a double digit IQ knows that corporations are not really human. Corporations don’t bleed and don’t cry out in pain during the execution process, although they may plead for mercy while shedding insincere crocodile tears. Capital punishment for corporations, contrary to the data on capital punishment for humans, would prevent a lot of future sociopathic behaviors.

What about the crime of rape as applied to corporations? Rape has several definitions, including the following ones that are in my dictionary:

1) Any violent seizure or hostile action against a weaker opponent;

2) to rob or plunder;

3) the act of seizing and carrying off by force;

4) the crime of having forcible sexual intercourse without consent.

Corporations that plunder, pollute or poison Mother Earth (or do hostile mergers and acquisitions of weaker companies) meet most of the above definitions for rape. Shouldn’t our society punish corporate rapists/plunderers as severely as we punish human rapists?

And what about the serial corporate predators, poisoners and killers of the earth and the creatures that should have every right to co-exist on our threatened planet?

What about the known lethal poisons that thousands of unregulated chemical corporations knowingly discharge into the water, air, soil and food? Should their acts of desecration be regarded as premeditated murder? Their homicidal or ecocidal actions have already caused a multitude of die-offs of thousands of species (eventually, perhaps even humans), in the increasing numbers of dead zones in aquifers, wetlands, rivers, lakes, rivers and oceans.

What about the extractive mining companies that, with their poisonous explosives, blow the tops off mountains in Appalachia or the Philippines (and are now planned by GTac for the Penokee Mountain range of northern Wisconsin) in order to more economically extract the non-renewable mineral resources beneath? Does it make any sense whatsoever to believe them when they then claim innocence when living things downwind and downstream are sickened or die off from the poisoned water, air and toxic sludge that contaminates the previously pristine streams and aquifers that once provided safe drinking water and a healthy natural environment for fish, wildlife and humans (especially the aboriginal First Nation brothers and sisters that had their lands and livelihoods stolen from them a century or two ago)?

Zero Tolerance for Corporate Predators; Stop Them Before They do it Again!

How many strikes should any out-of-state corporate predator be allowed before they are called out and thrown off the land and out of the game? Shouldn’t exploitive intruders be stopped before they despoil even one more aquifer, one more stream, one more lake, one more mountain or this one planet? Shouldn’t cunning, politically-connected corporate exploiters be banned, arrested, tried and punished just like the human predators that normal civilized people need to stay away from? And shouldn’t there be generous monetary restitution to the victims of past corporate crimes?

Shouldn’t corporate thieves, liars, rapists and killers be treated the same as human thieves, liars, rapists and killers? Shouldn’t we refuse to trust untrustworthy corporations that have lied in the past, even if they have spent millions of dollars on powerful, multicolored Power Point presentations, feel-good commercials, “green-washed” billboards or highly-paid lobbyists that bribe politicians and the media to be on their side?

What about corporate junkies, those executives that are addicted to their wealth, profits, prestige, corporate jets, vacation homes and quarterly bonuses? We regularly intervene for society’s human addicts who need help overcoming their gambling or drug addictions who are a danger to themselves and others. Shouldn’t there be interventions planned for these wealth addicts before they do any more damage to us or their families?

The answer, in a fair society, should be yes to all these questions, no matter how often the smiley-faced, well-dressed corporate executives — in their most cunning damage-control mode — try to convince us that their companies are “responsible citizens”. We star-struck celebrity-worshippers of high profile corporations and CEOs seem to sucker for that line again and again. But the stakes are higher this time. The survival and sustainability of the planet and its creatures is at stake.

Perhaps Corporations Should be Judged Guilty Until Proven Innocent

One wonders what should be the best approach for dealing with cold-blooded, criminal, corporate entities. Rather than applying the standard American constitutional guarantee for human citizens to be judged innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t we be judging dangerous non-human entities as guilty until proven innocent?

I like that notion. I have often advised my psychologically traumatized patients (falsely diagnosed, by the way, of having a mental illnesses of unknown etiology) who were physically, sexually, emotionally or spiritually abused in childhood by parent figures to only give respect and forgiveness to those abusive adults when they have truly earned it, have sincerely and contritely asked to be forgiven and therefore deserve to be respected and forgiven. Psychologically speaking, not obeying — and also not respecting — one’s victimizers (even if they were parents) should be the norm in interpersonal relationships. Psychologically speaking, the existence of significant parental neglect or abuse in a family should be one of the exceptions to the 4th commandment rule (that commands children to unconditionally honor their father and their mother). Likewise, we should only do business with companies that have earned and truly deserve our respect.

Being suspicious of sociopathic entities is an important strategy to follow if one is to protect oneself from getting cheated or abused. Staying out of a sociopath’s grasp is the proper thing to do, even if the person or corporation appears on the surface to be charming or honorable, for both traits can be easily faked. Staying clear of anybody or anything that one suspects has no conscience makes tremendous sense, since conscienceless entities are also likely to be liars and thieves and are thus fully capable of rape, pillage and even murder if they can get away with such crimes.

Staying away from (boycotting) corporations that have behaved unethically in the past is one thing a person can do to combat corporate sociopathy. Guilty corporations hate it when the nonviolent tactic of economic boycott is used, but in our largely brainwashed, advertised-into-submission culture, only small minorities of people recognize — until it is too late — that they are being chumped.

Has the Corporate Coup d’etat Been Completed?

The concept of corporate power and privilege has massively benefited Big Businesses at the expense of the “consuming” public, but the reality is that it has been going on for generations. Multinational corporations and multibillionaires are increasingly in control of the White House, the US Congress and the court system, especially since Citizens United. Both political parties have been seduced by corporate campaign money/bribes.

And now, sadly, it appears that a majority of the judicial branch of the federal government has been bought off — and it appears that they are staying bought. It is not just the politicians that are controlled by corporate money anymore.

Actually, the mythical “unbiased”, “non-politicized” US Supreme Court has always been heavily influenced by corporate power. Throughout US history, it has always been wealthy corporations, wealthy businessmen, wealthy politicians, wealthy judges and wealthy attorneys that have been installed in federal judgeships by equally wealthy presidents — many of whom have been members of the same bipartisan “old boy’s clubs” such as Yale University’s elite, secretive Skull and Bones. America’s courts have always had judges that were in bed with capitalist, racist and union-busting ruling class folks who have never held the common good as a high priority.

Say Hello to Friendly American Fascism

The Italian dictator Benito Mussolini is often quoted as having said that “fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power:” He should know, he invented the term and the concept. Italy’s anti-worker, union-busting corporations loved him as much as most 1930s German corporations loved and supported Hitler.

Fascism is a right-wing, nationalistic, authoritarian political ideology that rules the people with military and police state power, backed up by a secretive national security apparatus, aggressive propaganda, control of the media and by suppression of trade unions. Therefore Big Businesses, notably the weapons industries and other war-related or police state industries thrive in fascist nations.

Fascist nations commonly violate the human rights of their own citizens (not to mention the rights of the nations that they invade and colonize). Fascists leaders try to unify the people by creating enemies, scapegoating those enemies and then, usually via false flag operations, going to war against them. Dissent is not tolerated in fascist nations and often elections are fraudulent. Oftentimes there is some sort of a merger of church and state and the fostering of anti-intellectual/anti-scientific attitudes. And there is always an obsession with law and order (police state tactics).

Sadly, there has been a slow, rolling corporate coup d’etat that has gradually overthrown America’s one person/one vote republic. America has all the marks of a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy privileged class).

Wealthy corporations and their plutocratic billionaires appear to be in charge of both major political parties, the economy and even foreign and domestic policy. And now they have their privatizing eyes on our water, our land, our breathable air and even our food (as Bob Dylan sang in Union Sundown, “I can see the day comin’ when even your home garden is gonna be against the law”.).

Elections will continue, although the choice of candidates, the orchestrated “debates” (that excludes minor party candidates), the speechifying and the value of small monetary donations will be increasingly meaningless. There will be fewer viable, courageously anti-establishment candidates like Paul Wellstone (or a Green Party or a Democratic Socialist Party candidate) for whom to cast votes. The American dream (that “you have to be asleep to believe in”, as George Carlin told us) appears to have vanished. And we sheep were asleep at the wheel when it disappeared.

Corporate Rights vs. Corporate Responsibilities

It is the greedy, non-human, conscienceless, under-regulated corporations (and NOT “man”) that have poisoned the planet’s ecosystems. It has been nonhuman corporations that have caused the economic and environmental crises — including the global weather changes. And, because they rarely get indicted, much less punished for their misdeeds, they are continuing to try to get away with planetary murder — and they don’t seem to care. Their motto seems to be: “grab everything you can steal by any means necessary; enrich your CEOs, your boards of directors, your shareholders, spokespersons, lawyers, lobbyists, legislators and judges; don’t get caught; hunker down in your gated communities with your chauffeurs and your bodyguards; hope nobody revolts; and let the devil take the hindmost.”

Wrist slaps seem to be the norm for corporations and the superrich when they are eventually “brought to justice” for their crimes. If there are any consequences for reckless or destructive business practices at all, the company usually gets assessed a relatively small, very affordable fine. For large corporations, fines are now just an affordable part of doing business. Sometimes though, a corporation about to be brought to justice will threaten to move its headquarters or its operations to another state, leaving their smelly and toxic messes to be cleaned up by somebody else, just as one would expect of a conscienceless sociopath.

The brazen action of the Roberts’ court in Citizens United might be one of the final nails in the coffin of America’s mortally wounded democracy. Given the fact that the myth of corporate personhood is now the law, it is past time that the 99% and its representatives in Congress insist that the 1% be punished as severely as are human criminals. The 99% needs to exercise its duty to preserve and defend the constitution (and the planet) from all enemies, foreign or domestic, human or corporate, even if the corporate criminals are hiding behind boardroom walls during the day or living the celebrity high life at night.

We must identify and courageously name America’s domestic enemies even if they are members of the executive, legislative or judicial branches of our federal and state governments. Naming the evil-doers (and naming the evil that they do) must be done in order to effectively confront them. Simultaneously, we need to demand that our basic human right to have access to uncontaminated water, food, soil and air (and access to affordable health care) be safe-guarded from the greedy exploiters and predators in the plutocratic classes who want to extract the wealth and resources from whomever they can. The fate of our children, grandchildren and planet Earth depends on those safe-guards.

Among the first of the many steps that must be taken if we are to reverse the multinational corporate takeover/privatization of the planet is to demand that our local, state and federal legislators reverse the Citizens United ruling and correct the damage done. (See http://www.movetoamend.org for more information.)

Dr Kohls is involved in peace, nonviolence and justice issues and therefore writes about fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, imperialism, totalitarianism, economic oppression, anti-environmentalism and other violent, unsustainable, anti-democratic movements.

Copyright © 2014 Global Research

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Kudos for Dr. Kohl’s, as there are few who can elucidate this tragedy any clearer. But let us not rest with just giving praise to one man, for there are many who are equally equipped to publish the truth on other subjects of equal importance, such as National Governments, and especially ours. It is apparent that our government is as populated with psychopathic scumbags as are the profit driven corporations, and there are few who have the courage to oppose them, as they consistently tyrannize our country. Freedom of expression, of the press, from false arrest, from seizure of personal property, and all the rest of the Bill of Rights, have met the same fate as the air, water, and other resources. Where are the people who will oppose this tyranny and reconstruct our once great Nation? How is it possible to resist legally when the Law its self is polluted with the enemy, which leaves only physical force as an offensive action? How is it possible for a patriotic group to communicate and construct a plan of action, when every fart is listened to and recorded? America, will you accept a life where every component in your home and vehicle is a recording device, and the skies are full of armed drones watching your every move. When you have sex, take a bath or shower, relieve yourself, and are constantly afraid of making a spastic comment that will land you in the gulag, will you stand up then? AND IF YOU DO, WILL YOU BE ALONE?

Land of the free, and the home of the brave, MY ASS!

10 13 11 flagbar


Color Revolutions 101 The Making Of A Controlled Revolution

03/05/2014

 http://www.activistpost.com/2014/03/color-revolutions-101-making-of.html

 3-4-2014 10-46-15 PM Ukrainian Revolution

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

With the recent destabilization having taken place inside Ukraine and the ongoing destabilization of Venezuela currently playing out in South America, it is important to discuss, in a relatively detailed fashion, the manner in which the destinies of seemingly independent nations are controlled by a world oligarchy.

The precise techniques of regime change, balkanization, and the weakening of nation-states for political and/or geopolitical purposes are too lengthy to enter into a detailed expose’ in the course of this series of articles. However, it is important to understand the basics of these controlled social movements and how they work so that some guard may be erected against their continued occurrence and, at the very least, provide a mechanism for understanding a contrived revolution when it appears.

The destruction of the modern nation-state or the implementation of regime change can take a variety of forms.

The open war method, a favorite of the Neo-Con factions of the ruling elite, usually relies on the manipulation of death squads, dupes, fanatics, or mentally handicapped and criminally insane into committing or attempting to commit (acting as a patsy will suffice) a terrorist act of violence, thus justifying a response from the victim nation.

The Brzezinski method, a favorite of the more neo-liberal, leftist factions, may often involve the outright organization, arming, funding, and direction of death squads such as the method employed in Libya and Syria in order to stir up as much tension and stress as possible within the country, weaken the national government, and even allowing these death squads to directly seize power.

Lastly, there is the strategy of the “color revolution” which is largely nonviolent in terms of organized assaults but is massive in scale, politically motivated, and is often made up of largely genuine participants; although the movement itself is directed by the most disingenuous agents of powerful interests.

In dividing up the three methods of destabilization, it should not be assumed that these are the only three available methods of eviscerating the self-determination of a people or sovereign nations or that these methods are mutually exclusive. Indeed, these methods often bleed over into one another, blending aspects of two or even all three.

The agenda of destruction aimed at Afghanistan and Iraq used only the first method (direct military aggression) initially. Iraq subsequently required the invocation of the second method (death squads) in order to divide the Iraqi opposition to American occupation. The efforts against Tunisia and Egypt largely involved the third method (color revolution) with a sprinkling of the second (death squad).

Likewise, the failed destabilization of Iran involved both the color revolution and the death squad motive. Libya was attacked by the death squad method but eventually required direct military intervention. Being a special case where the national government is much stronger and the civilian population stalwart against foreign invasion, the Syrian situation called for a combination of both color revolution and death squads as well as, quite possibly, in the near future, direct military invasion.

While color revolutions have tended to be vastly more successful in the Baltic states and Eastern Europe than in the Middle East, what is important to understand, whether color revolution or death squad organization, is that the NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), Foundations, and “Human Rights” organizations are always acting as on-the-ground trainers, manipulators, and propagandists of and for the “revolutionaries.”

As Eric Pottenger and Jeff Frieson of Color Revolutions and Geopolitics describe the color revolution process,

Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. . . . . .

It’s a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and “channel” local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership.

Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks.

Yet the color revolution is not merely some communique’ presented to a small group of people than organically gains a life of its own. There is an entire science behind the application of a movement of destabilization. As Pottenger and Frieson write,

Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences’ intellect, the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.

Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.

It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental organizations.

Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.

Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.

3-4-2014 10-44-14 PM

Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.

With this explanation in mind, consider the description provided by Ian Traynor of the Guardian regarding the “revolutions” and “mass movements” which was taking place in Ukraine, Serbia, Belarus, and Georgia in 2004 and the time of the writing of his article. Traynor writes,

With their websites and stickers, their pranks and slogans aimed at banishing widespread fear of a corrupt regime, the democracy guerrillas of the Ukrainian Pora youth movement have already notched up a famous victory – whatever the outcome of the dangerous stand-off in Kiev.

Ukraine, traditionally passive in its politics, has been mobilised by the young democracy activists and will never be the same again.

But while the gains of the orange-bedecked “chestnut revolution” are Ukraine’s, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.

Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.

Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.

Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko.

That one failed. “There will be no Kostunica in Belarus,” the Belarus president declared, referring to the victory in Belgrade.

But experience gained in Serbia, Georgia and Belarus has been invaluable in plotting to beat the regime of Leonid Kuchma in Kiev.

The operation – engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience – is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people’s elections.

Traynor’s article represents a rare moment of candor allowed to seep through the iron curtain of the mainstream Western media regarding the nature of the Eastern European protests in 2004. Even so, Traynor’s depiction of the methodology used by the Foundations, NGOs, and government agencies stirring up dissent and popular revolt is equally illuminating. He writes,

In the centre of Belgrade, there is a dingy office staffed by computer-literate youngsters who call themselves the Centre for Non-violent Resistance. If you want to know how to beat a regime that controls the mass media, the judges, the courts, the security apparatus and the voting stations, the young Belgrade activists are for hire.

They emerged from the anti-Milosevic student movement, Otpor, meaning resistance. The catchy, single-word branding is important. In Georgia last year, the parallel student movement was Khmara. In Belarus, it was Zubr. In Ukraine, it is Pora, meaning high time. Otpor also had a potent, simple slogan that appeared everywhere in Serbia in 2000 – the two words “gotov je”, meaning “he’s finished”, a reference to Milosevic. A logo of a black-and-white clenched fist completed the masterful marketing.

In Ukraine, the equivalent is a ticking clock, also signalling that the Kuchma regime’s days are numbered.

Stickers, spray paint and websites are the young activists’ weapons. Irony and street comedy mocking the regime have been hugely successful in puncturing public fear and enraging the powerful.

These slogans and symbols are the product of mass marketers employed by State Departments and intelligence agencies for the sole purpose of destabilizing and/or overthrowing a democratically elected or unfavorable (to the oligarchy)government.

Still, Traynor sheds even more light on the mechanism and methodology used to create and implement a color revolution when he mentions the regional players such as the various agencies, Foundations, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that are involved in movements such as the ones mentioned above. Traynor continues,

The Democratic party’s National Democratic Institute, the Republican party’s International Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaig

US pollsters and professional consultants are hired to organise focus groups and use psephological data to plot strategy.

The usually fractious oppositions have to be united behind a single candidate if there is to be any chance of unseating the regime. That leader is selected on pragmatic and objective grounds, even if he or she is anti-American.

In Serbia, US pollsters Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates discovered that the assassinated pro-western opposition leader, Zoran Djindjic, was reviled at home and had no chance of beating Milosevic fairly in an election. He was persuaded to take a back seat to the anti-western Vojislav Kostunica, who is now Serbian prime minister.

In Belarus, US officials ordered opposition parties to unite behind the dour, elderly trade unionist, Vladimir Goncharik, because he appealed to much of the Lukashenko constituency.

Officially, the US government spent $41m (£21.7m) organising and funding the year-long operation to get rid of Milosevic from October 1999. In Ukraine, the figure is said to be around $14m.

Another essential ingredient for a successful color revolution is the dispatch of fake polling data rolled out to convince both the populations being targeted as well as the population of the nation initializing the destabilization that the target population has no confidence in the current regime, is steadfastly against the ruling government, and that the fall of the regime is inevitable. Although Traynor buttresses his statement with the caveat that vote rigging is a favorite trick of corrupt and authoritarian governments, he does draw attention to the process by which fake polling data is used to invoke a coup. Traynor writes,

Apart from the student movement and the united opposition, the other key element in the democracy template is what is known as the “parallel vote tabulation”, a counter to the election-rigging tricks beloved of disreputable regimes.

There are professional outside election monitors from bodies such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but the Ukrainian poll, like its predecessors, also featured thousands of local election monitors trained and paid by western groups.

Freedom House and the Democratic party’s NDI helped fund and organise the “largest civil regional election monitoring effort” in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers. They also organised exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for much of what has followed.

The exit polls are seen as critical because they seize the initiative in the propaganda battle with the regime, invariably appearing first, receiving wide media coverage and putting the onus on the authorities to respond.

The final stage in the US template concerns how to react when the incumbent tries to steal a lost election.

In Belarus, President Lukashenko won, so the response was minimal. In Belgrade, Tbilisi, and now Kiev, where the authorities initially tried to cling to power, the advice was to stay cool but determined and to organise mass displays of civil disobedience, which must remain peaceful but risk provoking the regime into violent suppression.

If the events in Kiev vindicate the US in its strategies for helping other people win elections and take power from anti-democratic regimes, it is certain to try to repeat the exercise elsewhere in the post-Soviet world.

One wonders whether or not Mr. Traynor sees his words in 2004 as prophetic in 2014 since, only ten years after his writing this article, Kiev is once again the center of a Western-backed coup.

In the end, it is important to remember that geopolitics is not a mere game played by only one actor. The Western world, particularly the United States, is courting war with the East which could potentially take the form of thermonuclear confrontation.

The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions, destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all.

Recently from Brandon Turbeville: 

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 275 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

10 13 11 flagbar


Free Speech RIP: A Relic of the American Past

03/04/2014

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f6eb78f457b7b82887b643445&id=57ce9a23d0&e=84f74f6a6a

By John W. Whitehead

“The First Amendment was intended to secure something more than an exercise in futility.”—Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting in Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight (1984)

Living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what they think is right, whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign. That’s what the First Amendment is supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, as I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American  Police State, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials. In fact, if the court rulings handed down in the last week of February 2014 are anything to go by, the First Amendment has, for all intents and purposes, become an exercise in futility.

On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling, held that anti-nuclear activist John Denis Apel could be prosecuted for staging a protest on a public road at an Air Force base, free speech claims notwithstanding, because the public road is technically government property.

Insisting that it’s not safe to display an American flag in an American public school, on February 27, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school officials were justified when they ordered three students at a California public high school to cover up their patriotic apparel emblazoned with American flags or be sent home on the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo, allegedly out of a concern that it might offend Hispanic students.

On February 28, a federal court dismissed Marine veteran Brandon Raub’s case. Despite the fact that Raub was interrogated by Secret Service agents, handcuffed, arrested, subjected to a kangaroo court, and locked up in a mental facility for posting song lyrics and statements on Facebook critical of the government—a clear violation of his free speech rights—the court ruled that Raub’s concerns about the government were far-fetched and merited such treatment.

There you have it: three rulings in three days, from three different levels of the American judicial system, and all of them aimed at suppressing free speech. Yet what most people fail to understand is that these cases are not merely about the citizenry’s right to freely express themselves. Rather, these cases speak to the citizenry’s right to express their concerns about their government to their government, in a time, place and manner best suited to ensuring that those concerns are heard.

The First Amendment gives every American the right to “petition his government for a redress of grievances.” This amounts to so much more than filing a lawsuit against the government. It works hand in hand with free speech to ensure, as Adam Newton and Ronald K.L. Collins report for the Five Freedoms Project, “that our leaders hear, even if they don’t listen to, the electorate. Though public officials may be indifferent, contrary, or silent participants in democratic discourse, at least the First Amendment commands their audience.”

The challenge we face today, however, is that government officials have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents, making it increasingly difficult for average Americans to make themselves seen or heard by those who most need to hear what “we the people” have to say. Indeed, while lobbyists mill in and out of the White House and the homes and offices of Congressmen, the American people are kept at a distance through free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, and security barriers. And those who dare to breach the gap—even through silent forms of protest—are arrested for making their voices heard.

This right to speak freely, assemble, protest and petition one’s government officials for a redress of grievances is front and center right now, with the U.S. Supreme Court set to decide five free speech cases this term, the first of which, U.S. v. Apel, was just handed down. The case was based upon claims brought by John Denis Apel, an anti-war activist who holds monthly protests at Vandenburg Air Force Base near Lompoc, California. While the Court did not uphold his conviction for trespassing on military property, they doubled down on the notion that the public is subject to the whims of military commanders in matters relating to use military property, even when it intersects with public property. The Court refused to rule on Apel’s First Amendment claims.

The Supreme Court is also set to decide McCullen v. Coakley, which will determine whether or not a Massachusetts law which restricts protests on public sidewalks near the entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics in the state is constitutional. The facts of the case indicate that the law does not abide by a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, and places an undue burden on protestors. However, it’s unclear which way the Court will rule, especially with their refusal to clarify matters in Apel.

Free speech can certainly not be considered “free” when expressive activities across the nation are being increasingly limited, restricted to so-called free speech zones, or altogether blocked, including in front of the Supreme Court’s own plaza. If citizens cannot stand out in the open on a public road and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies, without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window—pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.

The case of Harold Hodge is a particularly telling illustration of the way in which the political elite in America have sheltered themselves from all correspondence and criticism.

On a snowy morning in January 2011, Harold Hodge quietly and peacefully stood in the plaza area near the steps leading to the United States Supreme Court Building, wearing a 3’ X 2’ sign around his neck that proclaimed: “The U.S. Gov. Allows Police To Illegally Murder And Brutalize African Americans And Hispanic People.” There weren’t many passersby, and he wasn’t blocking anyone’s way. However, after a few minutes, a police officer informed Hodge that he was violating a federal law that makes it unlawful to display any flag, banner or device designed to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement while on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court and issued him three warnings to leave the plaza. Hodge refused, was handcuffed, placed under arrest, moved to a holding cell, and then was transported to U.S. Capitol Police Headquarters where he was booked and given a citation.

According to the federal law Hodge is accused of violating, “It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.” The penalty for violating this law is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to 60 days in jail.

With the help of The Rutherford Institute, in January 2012, Hodge challenged the constitutionality of the statute barring silent expressive activity in front of the Supreme Court. A year later, in a strongly worded opinion, District Court Judge Beryl L. Howell struck down the federal law, declaring that the “the absolute prohibition on expressive activity [on the Supreme Court plaza] in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment.”

Incredibly, one day later, the marshal for the Supreme Court—with the approval of Chief Justice John Roberts—issued even more strident regulations outlawing expressive activity on the grounds of the high court, including the plaza. Hodge’s case, along with a companion case challenging the new regulations on behalf of a broad coalition of protesters, is now making its way through the appeals process. Ironically, it will be the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who will eventually be asked to decide the constitutionality of their own statute, yet they have already made their views on the subject quite clear.

This desire to insulate government officials from those exercising their First Amendment rights stems from an elitist mindset which views “we the people” as different, set apart somehow, from the citizens they have been appointed to serve and represent. It is nothing new. In fact, the law under which Harold Hodge was prosecuted was enacted by Congress in 1949. In the decades since, interactions with politicians have become increasingly manufactured and distant. Press conferences, ticketed luncheons, televised speeches and one-sided town hall meetings held over the phone now largely take the place of face-to-face interaction with constituents.

Additionally, there has been an increased use of so-called “free speech zones,” designated areas for expressive activity used to corral and block protestors at political events from interacting with public officials. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have used these “free speech zones,” some located within chain-link cages, at various conventions to mute any and all criticism of their policies.

Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say. Yet if Americans are not able to peacefully assemble for expressive activity outside of the halls of government or on public roads on which government officials must pass, the First Amendment has lost all meaning. If we cannot stand silently outside of the Supreme Court or the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and liberties that we cherish as Americans. And if we cannot proclaim our feelings about the government, no matter how controversial, on our clothing, or to passersby, or to the users of the world wide web, then the First Amendment really has become an exercise in futility.

George Orwell, always relevant to our present age, warned against this intolerance for free speech in 1945. As he noted:

The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them… The notion that certain opinions cannot safely be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favor of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecuted.

This commentary is also
available at www.rutherford.org.

10 13 11 flagbar