Chinese foreign minister responds to Trump call to Taiwan president. pic.twitter.com/cjSfZlLnG7
— Chris Buckley 储百亮 (@ChuBailiang) December 3, 2016
— Lefty Bollocks (@LeftyBollocks) December 3, 2016
Chinese foreign minister responds to Trump call to Taiwan president. pic.twitter.com/cjSfZlLnG7
— Chris Buckley 储百亮 (@ChuBailiang) December 3, 2016
— Lefty Bollocks (@LeftyBollocks) December 3, 2016
Russia accuses Ukraine of sabotaging Trump
Kenneth Vogel, Julia Ioffe, Politico, Dec 1 2016
The spox for Russia’s Foreign Ministry is accusing the Ukrainian government of undermining Donald Trump’s presidential campaign by trashing him on social media and disseminating dirt on one of his close associates. On Thursday, according to a transcript of her remarks posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website, Maria Zakharova contended that the Ukrainian government damaged Trump’s campaign over the summer by implicating his then-campaign chief Paul Manafort in a corruption scandal involving a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party funded by oligarchs. She told assembled reporters:
Ukraine seriously complicated the work of Trump’s election campaign headquarters by planting information, according to which Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort allegedly accepted money from Ukrainian oligarchs. All of you have heard this remarkable story.
In a follow-up exchange with Politico, Zakharova went further, suggesting that the Ukrainian government was intentionally trying to undermine Trump’s campaign by releasing records from the oligarch-backed party naming Manafort. She wrote:
That’s exactly what it looks like.
The renewed scrutiny of Manafort’s dealings in Ukraine comes at an awkward time for the veteran operative and for Trump. As the president-elect works to assemble his foreign policy team, his stance toward Russia and its neighbors is being closely watched by the international community. Manafort, who had been pushed out of Trump’s campaign in late August because of growing press scrutiny of his work in Ukraine in recent weeks has re-emerged as an informal adviser to Trump has assembled his administration, according to a handful of people around the transition team. And Thursday’s allegation from Moscow also seems at least mildly ironic, coming amid calls from Washington Democrats for an investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election in a manner that damaged Hillary Clinton. The ODNI during the campaign accused Russia of directing the DNC & Podesta hacks, yielding emails that raised questions about Clinton’s connections to Wall Street and her family’s foundation and financial interests. The hacking elevated Russia as a major issue in the presidential race. Clinton and her allies cast Trump as the preferred candidate of Russia, citing the hacking as well as Trump’s ties to Russia and his laissez-faire stance on
Russian aggression toward Ukraine, not to mention Manafort’s connections to Yanukovich. Manafort’s work in Ukraine started becoming a more serious liability for Trump’s campaign when the NYT in August reported that the (new fascist Kiev regime’s) National Anti-Corruption Bureau was investigating a “secret ledger” that listed $12.7m in cash payments earmarked for Manafort by the Party of Regions. While the anti-corruption agency stressed that Manafort’s inclusion on the ledger “does not mean that he actually got the money,” and Manafort denied that he had received any cash payments, the agency did not challenge characterizations that Manafort was among the targets of their investigation into the Party. After Trump’s stunning victory over Clinton in last month’s presidential election, officials with the corruption bureau appeared to backpedal. One was quoted in Komsomolskaya Pravda saying:
Mr Manafort does not have a role in this case.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau earlier this week didn’t respond to questions from Politico about its investigation into the Party of Regions ledger, or whether the bureau was investigating Manafort. On Thursday, Manafort told POLITICO that the bureau had never contacted him. He said:
I never understood why I was the target. I wasn’t the candidate. I was just caught in the crossfire.
Manafort wouldn’t comment on his role in Trump’s transition. But he was spotted at Trump Tower last week, and a handful of sources around the transition team told Politico that Manafort has spoken to Trump periodically since the election. They said that Manafort, who spent the last three decades collecting huge sums from businesses and politicians all over the world, has acted as a sort of informal matchmaker, advising foreign policy operatives on how to join the transition. Additionally, close Manafort associates have worked for Trump’s transition, as well as his inaugural committee. Trump spox Hope Hicks rejected the suggestion that Manafort was playing even an informal role, saying:
Paul Manafort has absolutely no involvement with the transition team or communication with the president-elect.
Trump’s team did not respond to questions about Zakharova’s comments at Thursday’s briefing, nor did representatives from the Ukrainian and Russian embassies in Washington. Zakharova contended during the briefing that Ukrainian officials were desperate to protect their favorable relationship with Pindostan after having run afoul of Trump and Manafort during the campaign. Zakharova said, according to the transcript:
It appears that keeping this sponsorship is a big challenge for the Kiev authorities, who were uncivilized and rude toward President-elect Donald Trump when he was a presidential candidate.
In her follow-up exchange with Politico, Zakharova said that it was Pres Poroshenko who chose not to meet with Trump on the sidelines of the UNGA in New York in September, though multiple media outlets reported that Trump’s team chose nopt to meet Poroshenko. Trump and Poroshenko did meet after the election, when Poroshenko called to congratulate Trump and the two agreed to a bilateral meeting. Zakharova suggested during her Thursday presser that there was cause for lingering bad blood between Trump and the Ukrainian government, saying:
You probably remember that Ukrainian officials and diplomatic representatives abroad did not express their views or political assessments, but openly insulted the person whom the Pindo creeple elected as their president. You may remember that they later tried to delete these statements from their social networks accounts and their sites, saying that they had been wrong and had rushed to conclusions.
That appears at least in part to be a reference to since-deleted July tweets by Ukraine’s ex-minister of internal affairs, Arsen Avakov. In a tweet, Avakov had called Trump a “clown” and asserted that he was “an even bigger danger to Pindostan than terrorism.” Avakov lashed Trump in a Facebook post for saying that Putin would not invade Ukraine, despite the fact that Putin already presided over the 2014 annexation of Crimea,
which is internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory. Trump’s assessment was “a diagnosis of a dangerous misfit,” Avakov wrote, according to one account. He called Trump “dangerous for Ukraine and Pindostan” and noted:
Yanukovych fled to Russia, through Crimea. Where would Manafort lead Trump? (by implication, through Yanukovich to Russia – RB)
Senate Passes New Bill Targeting College Students Who Criticize Israel
Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com, Dec 2 2016
In a move intended to dramatically broaden Dept of Education probes of colleges and universities who tolerate students that criticize Israel, the Senate today unanimously passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which was passed with little debate or fanfare. Senators Bob Casey and Tim Scott presented the bill as targeting a growing number of “religiously motivated hate crimes,” warning that the Dept of Education needed to take “urgent action” to investigate all anti-semitism at school. The bill intends to do this by instructing the Dept of Education to use the State Dept’s definition of anti-semitism, which broadly includes criticism of Israel or attempts to “delegitimize” Israel’s status as a Jewish state, or even “focusing on Israel” for human rights investigations or urging peace. Though it’s unclear how the Dept of Education will ultimately handle this new legislation, the bill is aimed at giving legitimacy to Title VI discrimination complaints against universities related to all of this newly-minted anti-semitism under the broader, State Dept definition.
Political Science’s “Theory of Everything”
David Chibo, Unz.vom, Nov 30 2016
The 7 “Blind” men and the Pindostani Elephant
The famous Indian story of the Blind Men and the Elephant is a metaphor highlighting that while one’s subjective experience can be true, it can also be limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. A similar metaphor can be used to try to explain the hidden forces guiding the Pindostani Government. From 1975 to 1976, the Church Committee in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House attempted unsuccessfully to curtail the power of Pindostani intelligence agencies. The CIA in particular was investigated to see if it was a “rogue elephant” or under strict control of the President and the executive branch. However, besides some damning revelations outlined in the “whitewashed” report and some minor oversight changes, the “rogue elephant” was allowed to roam free. Contemporary main-stream pundits now openly describe these hidden forces as a “shadow government,” a “corporatocracy” or a “deep state” controlling Pindostani politics. None however can do justice to what truly is an amorphous, complex and intricate web of overlapping entities. All who have tried to define who really governs Pindostan have essentially behaved as “blind” men.
The first “blind” man was the Sociologist Professor C Wright Mills. His book The Power Elite, which was published in 1956, was the first full-scale study of the structure and distribution of power in Pindostan. Mills examined how the concentration of power had pooled within three main hierarchies. He wrote:
There are a few thousand people in Pindostan that control almost all aspects of society. These few thousand individuals hold leadership posts in the political, military, and economic spheres. An extremely high percentage of these individuals were educated in the same schools, come from upper-class families, belong to the same public clubs, and often the same secret societies. The members of this ruling group hold the same interests and values. And this group self-selects the majority of its members.
According to Mills the three hierarchies of power in Pindostan, political, military and economic, are interlocking and form a ruling class whose members at the time could generally be grouped into one of the following six distinct groups: the Social Register (today replaced by the Forbes 500 rich list), the Celebrities, the Chief Executives, the Corporate Rich, the Warlords and the Political Directorate. The people at the highest levels of these institutions see each other socially and look after one another by doing each other favours because they not only serve together on the boards of directors of corporations, charitable organisations and other bodies, but they also share a mutuality of life experiences, educational backgrounds and economic situations. This self-interest is of course to the detriment of the Pindo creeple, whom they derogatively refer to as the masses. Mills highlights the “revolving door” between government, military and corporations that helps maintain the power elite’s dominance over Pindostani life. He explains that when cabinet members, senators, and top generals and other military officials retire, they usually become corporate executives while conversely corporate executives often become cabinet members and other key political appointees. The power elite use the conglomerate media to broadcast their opinions to the masses,which believe, and regurgitate what the conglomerate media run by the elites, feed them. The masses are merely easily manipulated spectators led to believe that they are making the decisions:
This is why there won’t be change in the values and course of direction of Pindostan. One of the biggest myths of Pindosi society is that the middle class has influence on which direction and course our society takes. The Pindosi middle class does not have interests or values in common with the power elites that control and run Pindo society.
A 19th century Cassandra, Mills’ dire omen on how the power elite would gradually but collusively gain control of every aspect of life was an amazingly accurate analysis of the true nature of power and privilege in Pindostan.
The Law Enforcer
The second “blind” man was former FBI agent Dan Smoot. His self-published book, The Invisible Government, which was omitted from the NYT Best Sellers List of 1962, sold over 1 million copies. Smoot’s book charts the gradual infiltration of the Pindosi government by the secret society known as the CFR. The CFR was established in 1921 by Colonel House, who had links to “international bankers in New York” as well as “great financial institutions.” Smoot explains that the secret society’s key aim was to push the American government into foreign entanglements.
The purpose of the CFR was to create (and condition the Pindo sheeple to accept) what House called a ‘positive’ foreign policy for Pindostan, to replace the traditional ‘negative’ foreign policy which had kept Pindostan out of the endless turmoil of old-world politics and had permitted the Pindo creeple to develop their great nation in freedom and independence from the rest of the world.
By 1927, the Rockefeller family’s Rockefeller Foundations and Funds, along with the Carnegie Foundations and later the Ford Foundation, began to finance the CFR and its principal publication, the quarterly magazine Foreign Affairs. Many CFR members had come to occupy important positions in government, education, the press, the broadcasting industry, business and finance or in multi-million-dollar tax-exempt foundations. Smoot explains how by 1945 the CFR, and various foundations and other organisations interlocked with it, had virtually infiltrated and taken over the US State Dept. By 1962, when Smoot published The Invisible Government”
(The CFR was) boasting among its members presidents (Hoover, Eisenhower, and Kennedy), secretaries of state and many other high officials, both civilian and military.
The corporations were also funding other global secret societies. Smoot explicitly cites the corporate links behind the Bilderberg Group:
The group consists of influential Western businessmen, diplomats and high governmental officials. Their meetings, conducted in secrecy and in a hugger-mugger atmosphere, are held about every six months at various places throughout the world. His Royal Highness Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands, has presided at every known meeting of the Bilderberg Group. Prince Bernhard is known to be an influential member of the Societé Generale de Belgique, a mysterious organization which seems to be an association of large corporate interests from many countries. Pindosi firms associated with the society are said to be among the large corporations whose officers are members of the CFR and related organizations.
The third “blind” man was retired USAF Col Fletcher Prouty, who was an early critic of the CIA that stood at the head of the then-founded security state. In his book The Secret Team, published in 1973, he charts the birth of the modern security state through Pres Harry Truman, who in late 1947 signed into law the National Security Act. He explains:
In addition to establishing the Dept of Defense (DoD) with a single Secretary at its head and with three equal and independent services, Army, Navy and Air Force, this seminal document also provided for a NSC and the CIA.
Prouty served from 1955 to 1964 as the focal point for contacts between the CIA and the DoD on matters pertaining to “special operations,” official language for covert activities. In this capacity Prouty worked directly with DCI Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles, who was then Sec State, and also with several different Secs Def, Joint Chiefs, and many other officials. Prouty had become disillusioned with the CIA after witnessing that they “had been diverted” from the original assignment that he and the legislators who drafted the Act had so carefully planned. In his book Prouty debunks the CIA’s most important “cover story” which is that of an “Intelligence” agency. Prouty affirms that while the CIA does make use of “intelligence” and “intelligence gathering”, this is largely a front for its primary interest, which is clandestine operations. Prouty quotes:
Truman explained that the CIA had gone into clandestine operations, had been injected into peacetime cloak-and-dagger operations and had thus become far removed from its intended role. This was attributable to the growing and secret pressures of some other power source. It had become a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue. The CIA is the center of a vast and amorphous mechanism that specializes in Covert Operations, or as Allen Dulles always called it, ’Peacetime Operations.’ In this sense, the CIA is the willing tool of a higher level High Cabal, that may include representatives and highly skilled agents of the CIA and other instrumentalities of the government, certain cells of the business and professional world and almost always foreign participation. Within this unique position, the CIA can prod the other arms of government into doing its bidding. The CIA’s greatest strength derives from its ability to activate various parts of the government, usually the DoD, with minor inputs designed to create reaction. The CIA did not begin as a Secret Team, as a series of tiny but powerful cabals, as the invisible government, or as members of the secret elite, but before long it became a bit of all of these. At the heart of the Team, of course, are a handful of top executives of the CIA and of the NSC, most notably the chief White House adviser to the President on foreign policy affairs. Around them revolves a sort of inner ring of Presidential officials, civilians, and military men from the Pentagon, and career professionals of the intelligence community.
It is often quite difficult to tell exactly who many of these men really are, because some may wear a uniform and the rank of general and really be with the CIA and others may be as inconspicuous as the executive assistant to some Cabinet officer’s chief deputy. Out beyond this ring is an extensive and intricate network of government officials with responsibility for or expertise in some specific field that touches on national security or foreign affairs: ‘Think Tank’ analysts, businessmen who travel a lot or whose businesses (e.g. import-export or cargo airline operations) are useful, academic experts in this or that technical subject or geographic region, and quite importantly, alumni of the intelligence community, a service from which there are no unconditional resignations. All true members of the Team remain in the power center whether in office with the incumbent administration or out of office with the hard-core set. They simply rotate to and from official jobs and the business world or the pleasant haven of academe. On the basis of security, he [Dulles] would place people in all areas of the government and then he would move them up and deeper into their cover jobs until they began to take a very active part in the role of their own cover organizations. The global power of the secret team comes from its vast intra-governmental undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with great private industries, mutual funds and investment houses, universities, and the news media, including foreign and domestic publishing houses. The Secret Team has very close affiliations with elements of power in more than three score foreign countries and is able when it chooses to topple governments, to create governments, and to influence governments almost anywhere in the world.
The fourth “blind” man is Professor of Economics Jeffrey Sachs, the pioneer of what Naomi Klein called Shock Therapy, a free market fundamentalism of privatization, deregulation and cutting of government subsidies, accompanied by debt relief and foreign aid, better known in the developing world as the infamous Washington Consensus. In his NYT-listed book, The Price of Civilization: Reawakening Pindostani Virtue and Prosperity, published in 2011, he laments that political power has been usurped by four powerful corporate interest groups he labels a “corporatocracy” that have mired the country in a feedback loop:
Corporate wealth translates into political power through campaign financing, corporate lobbying and the revolving door of jobs between government and industry; and political power translates into further wealth through tax cuts, deregulation and sweetheart contracts between government and industry. Wealth begets power, and power begets wealth.
The most notorious of these corporate lobbies is identified by Sachs as the military-industrial complex, a term first coined by Eisenhower in his farewell speech on Jan 17 1961, when he warned:
The linkage of the military and private industry created a political power so pervasive that America has been condemned to militarisation, useless wars and fiscal waste on a scale of many tens of trillions of dollars since then.
The second corporate lobby, according to Sachs, is the Wall Street–Washington complex, which consists of politically powerful Wall Street firms, notably Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and a handful of other financial firms. Sachs describes how these banks gradually managed to wrest control of the financial system from the government:
The close ties of finance and Washington paved the way for the 2008 financial crisis and the mega bailouts that followed, through reckless deregulation followed by an almost complete lack of oversight by government. Wall Street firms have provided the top economic policy makers in Washington during several administrations, including the likes of Donald Regan (Merrill Lynch) under Reagan, Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs) under Clinton, Hank Paulson (Goldman Sachs) under Bush Jr., and several Wall Street–connected senior officials under Obama (including William Daley, Larry Summers, Gene Sperling, and Jack Lew).
He defines the third corporate lobby as the Big Oil-transport-military complex, which he explains has put the US on the trajectory of heavy oil-imports dependence and ever deepening military entrapment in the Middle East:
Since the days of J D Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Trust a century ago, Big Oil has loomed large in Pindo politics and foreign policy. Big Oil teamed up with the automobile industry to steer Pindostan away from mass transit and toward gas-guzzling vehicles driving on a nationally financed highway system. Big Oil has consistently and successfully fought the intrusion of competition from non-oil energy sources, including nuclear, wind, and solar power…. Pindostan defends the sea-lanes to the Persian Gulf, in effect ensuring a $100b+/yr subsidy for a fuel that is otherwise dangerous for national security. And Big Oil has played a notorious role in the fight to keep climate change off the agenda. Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, and others in the sector have underwritten a generation of antiscientific propaganda to confuse the Pindo sheeple.
The fourth of the great industry-government tie-ups has been the health care industry, Pindostan’s single largest industry today, absorbing no less than 17 percent of GDP. According to Sachs, what began as government partnering with business to refund costs has morphed into a lobby with little systematic oversight and control:
Pharmaceutical firms set sky-high prices protected by patent rights; Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers reimburse doctors and hospitals on a cost-plus basis; and the American Medical Association restricts the supply of new doctors through the control of placements at Pindostani medical schools. The result of this pseudo–market system is sky-high costs, large profits for the private health care sector, and no political will to reform.
Sachs is equally scathing of the government for turning “the levers of power over to the corporate lobbies.” Sachs explains:
A healthy economy is a mixed economy, in which government and the marketplace both play their role. Yet the federal government has neglected its role for three decades.
The fifth “blind” man is Professor of Economics and proud member of the CFR, Michael Glennon. In his book National Security and Double Government, he debunks the myth that security policy is still forged by America’s visible, “Madisonian institutions,” the President, Congress and the Courts, writing:
Their roles … have become largely illusory. Presidential control is now nominal, congressional oversight is dysfunctional and judicial review is negligible.
Glennon’s book details the gradual shift in power that has occurred as the Madisonian institutions gradually became “hollowed out” and their impermanent custodians were gradually replaced by a concealed, non-elected perpetual Trumanite network. Glennon traces the rise of this double government to the seemingly innocent reorganization of the national security structure established by the Truman administration. Glennon sees the media as critical in reinforcing the illusion that the public institutions of US government are actually in charge. He writes:
The National Security Act of 1947, which unified the military under a new secretary of defense, set up the CIA, created the modern Joint Chiefs of Staff, and established the National Security Council. Also secretly established and not revealed until many years later, was the NSA, which was intended at the time to monitor communications abroad. This network, mostly immune from constitutional and electoral restraints, consists of the several hundred executive officials who sit atop the military, intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement departments and agencies that have as their mission the protection of Pindostan’s international and internal security. They contain elements mainly from the NSA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the State Dept, law enforcement, intelligence and the military entities of the government. National security policy is in fact conducted by a shadow government of bureaucrats and a supporting network of think tanks, media insiders, and ambitious policy wonks. For double government to work, the Madisonian institutions must seem in charge, for the Trumanites’ power flows from the legitimacy of those institutions.
Casting some of the blame on “Pindostan’s pervasive civic ignorance,” Glennon’s solution to the unchecked double government is a more informed and engaged electorate, without which the restoration of accountability in the formulation and execution of national security policy will be impossible.
The sixth “blind” man is Professor Peter Dale Scott, a Canadian-born Professor of English, poet and diplomat. His book titled The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on Democracy, depicts a fundamentally schizophrenic Pindo government. Scott, considered the father of “deep politics”, highlights the two levels of government in Pindostan, and stresses the strong corporate-beltway-government tether through the effortless way with which officials move between these levels:
The more familiar level is the law-enacting government, consisting of a Senate, House of Representatives and President. The hidden government operates on a deeper level and is composed of the national security apparatus, intelligence agencies and the armed forces, including the Beltway agencies of the shadow government like the CIA and NSA, which have been instituted by the public state and now overshadow it, but also including private corporations like Booz Allen Hamilton and SAIC. Its corporate arm is made up of the much older power of Wall Street, referring to the powerful banks and law firms located there, but also to the cartels and other corporate alliances established there, and Wall Street’s think tank, the CFR. Top-level Treasury officials, CIA officers and Wall Street bankers and lawyers think much alike because of the revolving door by which they pass easily from private to public service and back.
However even the familiar law-enacting government has not been immune from the deep state’s subversion. Scott charts the history of FEMA’s deep state unconstitutional plans to take over the Pindo government:
Known more recently (and misleadingly) as ‘Continuity of Government’ (COG) planning, the Doomsday project, under the guiding hands in the 1980s of Oliver North, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and others, on 9/11 became the vehicle for a significant change of government.
It was under their tenure in 1988 that COG’s apocalyptic scope was enlarged to not only prepare for an atomic attack, but to also plan for the effective suspension of the American Constitution in the face of any emergency:
This change in 1988 allowed COG to be implemented in 2001.
With its access and control of a high-level secret communications channel, not under government control, the project planners gradually gained the power to reach deeply into the US social structure and implement a program in direct opposition to official government policy. This open conspiracy was even acknowledged in the mainstream media. Scott explains:
A decade before 9/11, it’s far-reaching arrangements were expanding the groundwork of Oliver North, to create what CNN in 1991 already described as a ‘shadow government … about which you know nothing.’
The 9/11 attack was a pivotal day in US history that permanently changed America and suspended Constitutional rights. This transformation, according to Scott, was based on the decades old COG plans that went into effect on that fateful day:
By this time, the Doomsday Project had developed into what the WaPost called ‘a shadow government that evolved based on long standing ‘continuity of operations plans.’
The Judicial branch of the American government is also not immune. According to Scott:
This parallel government is guided in surveillance matters by its own Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the ‘FISA Court,’ which according to the NYT ‘has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court.’ Thanks largely to Edward Snowden, it is now clear that the FISA court has permitted this deep state to expand surveillance beyond the tiny number of known and suspected Islamic terrorists, to any incipient protest movement that might challenge the policies of the Pindo war machine.
The Congressional Insider
The seventh “blind” man is former Republican congressional aide Mike Lofgren whose 2016 book titled The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government describes the deep state as a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies, hiding in plain sight:
The Dept of Defense, the Dept of State, the Dept of Homeland Security, the CIA and the Justice Dept are all part of the Deep State. We also include the Dept of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its extensive bureaucracy devoted to enforcing international economic sanctions, and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street.
Lofgren sees the deep state’s foundation as ultimately built on Wall Street because of the incredible amount of money it generates, allowing it to provide comfortable retirement jobs to those within the government and military. Lofgren details how this amorphous deep state and all of these agencies “are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council.” Even the visible government is not immune:
Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court), whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted.
The deep state’s government agencies have a symbiotic relationship with private enterprise, which Lofgren specifically designates as the “military-industrial complex, Wall Street and Silicon Valley.” The CIA and NSA are especially dependent on Silicon Valley. Lofgren explains:
After Edward Snowden’s revelations about the extent and depth of surveillance by the NSA, it has become publicly evident that Silicon Valley is a vital node of the Deep State as well.
The deep state has also grown to control Congress, its leadership and some of the members of the Defense and Intelligence committees. Lofgren describes the deep state and its neoliberal policies as follows:
(This is) the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism and the militarization of foreign policy, the financialization and deindustrialization of the Pindo economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure that has given us the most unequal society in almost a century and the political dysfunction that has paralyzed day-to-day governance.
The Pindostani Elephant
While numerous political pundits have over the years ventured to analyse and describe the Pindostani “elephant”, the seven “blind” men all were only flawed in that they failed to account for other truths. The seven “blind” men were specifically chosen not just for their multi-faceted perspective of the Pindostani “elephant” but also for that view over their respective time periods. The table below summarises each “blind” man’s description of the Pindostani “elephant” and attempts to map the totality of truth.
|1.The Sociologist||Prof. C. Wright Mills||The Power Elite, 1956||The power elite||corporations, media (Includes Social Register, Celebrities and Chief Executives)||Government, military (Includes, Corporate Rich, Warlords and Political Directorate)||1956|
|2. The FBI Agent||Dan Smoot||The Invisible Government, 1962||The secret societies , The CFR||Council on Foreign Relations*, Bilderberg Group, Foundations, Wall Street||State Dept.*||1913-1961|
|3. The Warlord||Col. L. Fletcher Prouty||The Secret Team, 1973||The security state, The CIA||media, Universities.||DoD (Pentagon), Central Intelligence Agency*, NSA, NSC, State Dept., Director of Central Intelligence. Foreign Intelligence Agencies.||1955 -1964.|
|4. The Economist||Prof. Jeffrey Sachs||The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity, 2011||Corporatocracy: The four corporate lobbies||military-industrial complex, Wall Street-Washington complex, Big Oil-transport-military complex, healthcare industry||Washington||2007-2011|
|5. The Lawyer||Prof. Michael J. Glennon||National Security and Double Government, 2014||Double Government||media, think tanks||NSC, NSA, FBI, DoD (Joint Chiefs of Staff), State Dept., CIA||2014|
|6. The Diplomat||Prof. Peter Dale Scott||The American Deep State, 2014||The Deep State||Wall St, Big Oil, military-industrial complex (Booz Allen Hamilton, SAIC), Council on Foreign Relations||FEMA (COG*), CIA, NSA, Dept. of Treasury & the FISA Court||2014|
|7. The Congressional Insider||Mike Lofgren||The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government, 2016||The Deep State/Shadow Government||Wall Street*, military-industrial complex, Silicon Valley||DoD, State Dept., Dept. Homeland Security, CIA, Justice Dept., Dept. of the Treasury, Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council*. FISA Court, a handful of federal trial courts & Defense and Intelligence committees||2016|
The entity that each “blind” man sees as the locus of power
Lofgren’s description of the deep state is the most tangible way to visualise what is essentially an amorphous entity: “There is the visible United States government, situated in imposing neoclassical buildings around the Mall in Washington, D.C., and there is another, more shadowy and indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is the tip of an iceberg that is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg operates on its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.” Scott cautions against Lofgren’s metaphor of the deep state as an iceberg which “risks suggesting a too solid or structural relationship to that overworld.”
Lofgren’s visible government, which can be represented with a publicly available organisational chart of the government, can now be accurately mapped at both the deep state level as well as Sach’s corporatocracy level. The disparate corporate and government entities within those levels can also be interconnected. The corporate and government entities can then use Glennon’s Trumanite-Madisonian spectrum as an index to chart the level of deep state influence within the deep state and visible government levels. The Madisonian pure white scale moves up through three shades of grey spectrum, each representing more and more Trumanite influence, to a purely black scale, representing the purely corporate-Trumanite interests.
The power elite
The power elite, identified by Mills, form the ruling class and have direct control or influence on all levels of the visible-invisible government; the visible government (political), the deep state (military) and the corporatocracy (economic). Members of the power elite are present as board members or executives within the corporatocracy level; as military leaders or powerful businessmen at the deep state level or as politicians or committee chairmen within the public state level. Their main goal is to maintain and constantly increase their invisible power (political and military) and profit (corporatocracy). Their power and influence allows them to almost seamlessly transition from one level to another using the corporate-government “revolving door.”
The corporatocracy level, consisting of the five main lobbies depicted in the diagram, represents the biggest and most influential of lobbies including Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, the Healthcare Industry and, more recently, Silicon Valley. Sachs’ four lobbies, his corporatocracy, along with Lofgren’s Silicon Valley lobby, effectively behave as the invisible federal executive departments, outlining policies within the visible government. ‘Other Lobbies’ omitted from the corporatocracy by Sachs and Lofgren include Big Agriculture (led by the infamous Monsanto), Big Tobacco, Organised Labor and various others which have a much smaller degree of influence over the visible government. The oldest and most influential lobby is the Wall Street lobby. Lofgren highlights how it is the cornerstone of the deep state due to the sheer amount of fiat money it generates, allowing it undue influence over the deep state (military) and the visible government (political).
The deep state
The Truman national security state cloaked in secrecy was set up by the corporatocracy to behave as a Trojan horse and gradually infiltrate and subvert the visible government. Prouty’s CIA which stands at the heart of the national security state and with its direct link to Wall Street behaves as the central nervous system of the security state. Over time, by either taking advantage of or orchestrating what Scott calls structural deep events, the national security state has managed to metastasize and gradually subvert the government departments and entities and grow into what today can be labelled a deep state, staffed predominantly by Glennon’s Trumanites. The deep state level behaves as the scaffolding by which the corporatocracy has managed to influence and eventually control the visible government. The corporate influenced groups within the deep state level include Political Action Committees (PACs), think tanks, secret societies, universities, the mainstream media and non-government organisations (NGOs). These entities are supposed to play the part of impartial groups that stand independent of moneyed interests but to some extent they either co-ordinate (secret societies and PACs), legislate (lobbyists, universities and think tanks) and disseminate (media and NGOs) the skewed views of their corporate sponsors. Either knowingly or unknowingly they behave as independent fronts influencing and guiding the visible government’s policies in order to fulfil the wishes of the corporatocracy. These groups directly link to the various federal government departments and entities that mostly make up the financial and security state. The level of corporate-to-public control of these entities and hence corporate influence varies considerably. The Federal Reserve is 100% corporate controlled, and Lofgren gives the example of how 70% of the intelligence budget goes to corporate contractors.
The public state
The visible portion of the public state is made up of the three branches of government and their various government departments. The government departments that are tethered to the secretive security state most dominated by the Trumanites are shaded in black. The other cabinet departments vary in influence and are depicted in various shades of grey. The three branches of the visible federal government were formally established by the Constitution to serve as checks on the instruments of state security ensuring that no single branch could dominate the other. Yet even at this level it becomes clear that Glennon’s deep state Trumanites have managed to heavily influence the Executive branch of government and even dominate the NSC, which was created as a civilian advisory group to the President in 1947, but has instead been overwhelmed by Trumanites and gradually become another spoke in the deep state, co-ordinating secretive covert operations run by the Presidency. Meanwhile the Judicial branch has also been overrun by the Trumanites who have managed to control the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Finally the Legislative branch’s Madisionian Congress, Senate and House of Representatives, although not totally subverted, appear to be heavily influenced by the deep state’s Trumanites and their various deep state entities.
At the top of the chart is the visible portion of the public state that, according to the Constitution, is supposedly controlled by the democratic will of what the power elite have derogatively labelled the masses. Many members of the masses work within the corporate and public entities identified within the system. If the 7 “blind” men were unable to see the overall structure there is little hope for the masses, groups and even entities within all layers of the system, who are compartmentalised and given limited “need to know” information that precludes them from seeing the greater picture. This however does not stop an adept player who will be aware of the contours, and can adeptly game the system’s political, military and corporate entities to get ahead and personally profit.
System or conspiracy?
In 1967, the deep state’s CIA created the label “Conspiracy Theorists” to attack anyone challenging the “Official” narrative. None of the “blind” men could see the elephant in its entirety and so their perspectives on whether the elephant is a system or conspiracy will be mixed as they can only reference the entities and level at which they saw the elephant. Smoot bluntly describes specific entities within the deep state level as conspiring to gradually infiltrate and subvert the visible government institutions from within:
I am convinced that the CFR, together with a great number of other associated tax-exempt organizations, constitutes the invisible government which sets the major policies of the federal government; exercises controlling influence on governmental officials who implement the policies; and, through massive and skilful propaganda, influences Congress and the public to support the policies.
Similarily, Sach’s description of the corporate lobbies emphasises the clear corporate-government links that exist. Sachs sees a corporate conspiracy he calls The Rigged Game in which the political system has come to be controlled by powerful corporate interest groups, the “corporatocracy” who dominate the policy agenda. In contrast, Prouty, Glennon, Scott and Lofgren are adamant that at their level there is no conspiratorial cabal. Prouty’s interpretation of the deep state or what he calls “the secret team” is of a self-serving unguided system rather than a grand strategic conspiracy. He describes it as an “automatic system, much like a nervous system or an electrical system.” Prouty elaborates:
It is big business, big government, big money, big pressure, and headless, all operating in self-centered, utterly self-serving security and secrecy.
Glennon, who admits that he is the quintessential double government insider, is also adamant that there is no conspiracy theory at the deep state level. The Trumanite network is a diverse and amorphous group, with no leader and no formal structure that has come to direct the formation of security state policy, bypassing Congress, the Presidency and the Courts. Glennon’s book and theory absolves the bureaucrats within the Trumanite network, whose natural instincts are to both survive and expand their always-insufficient power. Scott also resolutely states that there can be no conspiracy and refers instead to a self-serving system because:
Unlike the state, the deep state is not a structure but a system, as difficult to define but also as real and powerful as a weather system.
Lofgren’s deep state also operates in broad daylight and cannot be attributed to a planned conspiracy but rather due to disconnected, self-serving, bureaucratic people who have evolved into these roles by looking after their best interests:
Those who seek a grand conspiracy theory to explain the phenomenon will be disappointed. My analysis of the Deep State is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal. Logic, facts, and experience do not sustain belief in overarching conspiracies and expertly organized cover-ups that keep those conspiracies successfully hidden for decades.
A more nuanced view is provided by Mills who states:
The rise of the elite, as we have already made clear, was not and could not have been caused by a plot; and the tenability of the conception does not rest upon the existence of any secret or any publicly known organization.
However Mills does see how the power elite, once in power, would eventually conspire to maintain it:
But once the conjunction of structural trend and of the personal will to utilize it gave rise to the power elite, then plans and programs did occur to its members and indeed it is not possible to interpret many events and official policies …..without reference to the power elite.
|deep state||neo-liberalism/exceptionalism||Smoot, Prouty, Glennon, Scott & Lofgren||system|
|corporatocracy||Predatory and Disaster Capitalism||Sachs||conspiracy|
|power elite||Monetary Hegemony (Gold and Petrodollar Hegemony)||Mills||conspiracy|
The table above summarises the perspectives of the “blind” men and the prevailing behavior at the visible-invisible government levels. The first and most visible government levels is the well publicised viewpoint highlighted by the corporate owned media who portray the visible government as guided by the democratic will of the people (masses). The visible government then merges with the partly visible deep state whose strategy is to guide the visible government via neoliberalism at home and exceptionalism abroad. This is followed by the corporatocracy level which uses predatory and Naomi Klein’s aptly named disaster capitalism to maintain and expand their power and profit. And finally the power elite are able to maintain their control over most of the layers of the visible-invisible government via a conspiracy known as monetary hegemony. While it comes as no surprise that the power elite and corporatocracy are active in planning and conspiring to maximise profit and power, through the undue influence of the visible government, what is surprising is that four out of five “blind” men affirm that there is no conspiracy at the deep state level. Therefore using the analogy of Scott’s deep state behaving as a weather system we can confidently state that although the power elite and corporatocracy do not directly control the deep state or the visible government, to which they are clearly tethered, they do exercise inordinate influence over their decision making and policies through the neo-liberal “cloud-seeding” of the deep state, the corporate out sourcing of entities and the “revolving door” hiring of neoliberal ideologues into visible government roles. This hybrid of a naturally evolving and self-serving system maintained by a conspiracy gives it both its strength through the plausible deniability of its loyal participants, and its weakness through the dismantling of the system via revelation to the very same indoctrinated participants, a goal this very paper has been written to achieve.
Monetary hegemony strategy
Monetary hegemony is bestowed upon the nation that holds the world’s leading central bank reserve currency, and is the main pillar of Pindo hegemony since the end of WW2. The second pillar is world military supremacy, which is dependent on monetary hegemony. The ability of Daschingstein to hold the lead reserve currency role is a strategic priority for the government and the corporatocracy’s Wall Street lobby allowing it to control the international monetary system. Monetary hegemony benefits Mill’s three hierarchies of power, simultaneously allowing the political hierarchy to finance the welfare state, the military hierarchy to finance the warfare state, and the corporate hierarchy to internationally expand and reap stupendous profits. Though appearing haphazard, this has been a consistent long-term strategy pointing to a high-level conspiracy by some elements of the power elite.
Under Woodrow Wilson, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 first allowed the corporatocracy’s Wall Street lobby to infiltrate the visible government and control the nation’s money supply. Pindosi economic dominance through monetary hegemony and the rise of Wall Street was preordained in the aftermath of WW2 as Pindostan controlled two-thirds of the world’s gold, allowing it to establish the 1947 Bretton Woods system which gave it monetary hegemony through its gold-backed dollar. Wall Street was then joined by the military-industrial complex, which helped expand the security state under Truman in 1947. After WW2 the military-industrial complex squandered US blood and treasure in multiple wars and interventions, culminating in unsustainable gold outflows. And at the height of the Vietnam War in 1971, on advice from the Wall Street lobby, Nixon ended dollar convertibility to gold to prevent a run on the dollar. The ingenious geopolitical and economic petrodollar recycling strategy was first discussed in May 1971 at the Bilderberg meeting in Saltsjoebaden, Sweden. According to William Engdhal, it was presented by Pindosi Bilderbergers.
The petrodollar recycling strategy was then implemented in 1973 and saw Pindo monetary hegemony transition from a stable gold-backed dollar to a floating oil-backed dollar or ‘petrodollar.’ With the majority of the oil reserves that it needs to back its dollar sourced from the Middle East, the plan became dependent on the continued control of the Middle Eastern oil producers and petrodollar recycling (investment) of Middle Eastern oil surpluses into the Pindosi Treasury, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. Without the constraints imposed by a rigid low inflation gold-dollar, the Pindo monetary base could be grown at exponential rates. At home, the petrodollar standard resulted in the financialisation of the Pindo economy and the gutting of the industrial economy and the ‘middle class’. Internationally, the new petrodollar economic system elevated Pindostan to a global economic super empire with the world’s nations forced to use the petrodollar and pay inflationary tribute or face security state intervention. Although all corporations within the corporatocracy benefit from the strategic maintenance of the Pindo monetary hegemony, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and Big Oil in particular are deeply intertwined in the self-reinforcing petrodollar recycling plan. These lobbies gain power and profit through a death spiral that sees them printing the fiat petrodollars to finance the wars, selling the armaments to fight the wars, and the securing of oil fields to maintain the petrodollar. The maintenance of monetary hegemony by the power elite through the petrodollar is proportional to the symptoms it has created: the economy (global financial crisis), the empire (Middle Eastern “War on Terror”) and the environment (climate change).
A 2011 study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities entitled Testing Theories of Pindostani Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens affirmed Mill’s view that the Pindo government does not represent the interests of the majority of the masses, but instead represents the interests of the rich and powerful. A high-level breakdown of the policies advocated by the masses versus the neolib policies advocated by the corporatocracy neatly highlights what has been called the democratic deficit and clearly shows which group’s policies prevail and which constituents are truly being served.
|Government departments||Masses’ Policies||Neo-Liberal Policies||Corporatocracy lobbies|
|The masses||Dept. of State||Establishment of friendly relations with other nations.||Maintenance of the petrodollar through the support of compliant authoritarian nations or covert funding of unstable extremists to overthrow non-compliant natios||Wall Street-Washington complex||The power elite|
|Dept. of the Treasury||Lower and fairer tax system that incentivises workers and savers||Financialisation, corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and overseas tax havens.|
|Dept. of Commerce||Open trade and protection of key industries||“Free” trade Agreements (Inc. TTP & TTIP), Economic sanctions|
|Dept. of Justice||Universal human rights, equal justice and fair trials||Non-prosecution of criminal bank leaders, with prosecution of deep state whistle blowers.|
|Dept. of Housing & Urban Development||Affordable and easily accessible housing.||Financialisation, housing speculation and homelessness.|
|Dept. of Defense||Security and Defense of citizens against foreign enemies||Maintenance of the petrodollar, full spectrum dominance, exceptionalism, war on terrorism and the militarization of foreign policy .||military-industrial complex|
|Dept. of Veterans Affairs||Support and subsidies for veterans||Cheap outsourced care facilities and abandoned veterans.|
|Dept. of Transport||Electric vehicles, subsidised transport and easily accessible transportation grid.||Subsidised car-centric policies and urban planning.||Big Oil-transport-military complex|
|Dept. of Energy||Environmental protection, reliable and nationalised mostly renewable energy supply.||Subsidised fossil fuel energy dependence and debunking of climate change.|
|Dept. of the Interior||Management and conservation federal land and natural resources.||Waiving of environmental protection, access for sea lanes, pipelines, mining and resource extraction.|
|Dept. of Health & Human Services||Subsidised and universal Healthcare.||mandatory healthcare and privatisation.||Healthcare industry|
|Dept. of Homeland Security||Security and Privacy.||Mass Surveillance and copyright enforcement.||Silicon Valley|
|Dept. of Agriculture||Healthy, nutritious and affordable food.||Food monopolisation and dependence through patented GMOs.||Big Ag (Monsanto)|
|Dept. of Education||Subsidised and universal education.||Class-based privatisation and outsourcing.||Organised Labor|
|Dept. of Labor||Jobs and decent wages.||Outsourcing, mass immigration to lower wages, commodification of Labor, deregulation, deindustrialisation, under employment and unemployment.||All lobbies|
The corporate-deep-state unified political science theory
The government of the people, for the people, no longer exists, but with the help of the 7 “blind” men the shadow government can be illuminated. The invisible government can now be discerned and the double government can now be identified. The totality of truths is that the Pindostani “elephant” consists of a power elite hierarchy overseeing a corporatocracy, directing a deep state that has gradually subverted the visible government and taken over the “levers of power.” Henceforth in stark contrast to Scott and Lofgren, it shall not be known as the disparate deep state, nor as Sachs’ corporatocracy, but more aptly as the amalgamated, corporate deep state. The corporate deep state theory builds on the work of the giants called “blind” men in this paper, delving deeper into what Lofgren calls the red thread that runs throughout the past 40 years of Pindosi government and politics. Pindostan’s founding fathers went to great lengths in their Constitution to separate the powers between the three visible branches of the federal government, ensuring that no single branch could dominate. What they failed to ensure was the separation of corporations and state, a failure highlighted by Woodrow Wilson in 1913, under whose leadership the corporate Pandora’s box was first opened with the establishment of the Federal Reserve:
We are at the parting of the ways. We have, not one or two or three, but many, established and formidable monopolies in Pindostan. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.
Tell the WaPo, smearing is not reporting
Roots Action, inst
Please sign this petition to Martin Baron, Executive Editor, WaPo:
Smearing is not reporting. The Washington Post’s recent descent into McCarthyism, promoting anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools of the Russian government, violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article and apologize for publishing it.
>> The Washington Post: Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread “Fake News” During Election, Experts Say
>> The New Yorker: The Propaganda About Russian Propaganda
>> The Intercept: WaPo Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group
>> AlterNet: WaPo Promotes Shadowy Website That Accuses 200 Publications of Being Russian Propaganda Plants
>> Common Dreams: Journalists Denounce WaPo Fake News as Red Scare Redux
>> Rolling Stone: The Wapo “Blacklist” Story Is Shameful and Disgusting
>> Consortium News: The Orwellian War on Skepticism
>> The Nation: The WaPo Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist
>> FAIR.org: Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited “Fake News” Blacklist?
UK Media Watch’s suggestion that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in GB. is ‘compromised by extremism’ takes up and runs with a myth that that has recently been promoted by a ragbag of Conservative Parliamentarians, Labour Friends of Israel, and assorted Zionists on the basis that if you repeat a lie often enough it sticks. Far from being extremist PSC is a broad alliance including Methodists, Quakers, Labourites, liberals and non-aligned campaigners united in the pursuit of justice for Palestinians. What upsets Zionist media watch fanatics is that Salah Ajamah’s article dares to remind the world that the Occupation of Palestine did not begin in 1967 and is not solely about the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. He states quite rightly that his family and many others in Aida refugee camp near Bethlehem have been there since 1948 when they were forcibly expelled from their villages by Zionist militias- so much for the nonsense that past generations were fed in the West about ‘a land without a people.’ The Settler/Colonialist mentality will of course do all that it can to keep the spotlight away from any mention of what it inflicted on Palestinians in 1948, but with centenary of the Balfour Declaration coming over the hill next year it will be impossible for them to keep the lid on history. The Electronic Intifada, Asa Winstanley, and the Bristol (UK) based alternative newsite ‘The Canary’ are to be thanked for bringing this sordid little incident to light. Mike French.
New Statesman censors Palestine articles
Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada, Nov 30 2016
— UK Media Watch (@UKMediaWatch) November 29, 2016
The New Statesman has deleted two articles about Palestine after complaints from pro-Israel groups. On Tuesday UK Media Watch claimed credit for having one of the articles censored by the London-based magazine. The article had been sponsored by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and published on the New Statesman’s website on Nov 18. It had urged governments to pressure Israel “into meeting its obligations under international law.” It also advocated that the trade in goods from Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank should be halted. A New Statesman spox told EI:
We removed the advertorial in question because it conflicts with the New Statesman’s editorial independence. As a publication we are committed to producing analytical and skeptical journalism.
The magazine did not respond when asked if the article contained any factual inaccuracies. No correction has been issued, and the article links now display blank pages with error messages. A PSC spox told EI on Wednesday that neither they nor the articles’ authors had been contacted before deletion. On Wednesday evening PSC called for its supporters to contact the magazine’s editors, demanding that the article be restored. The PSC spox said they noticed that the article, written by Salah Ajarma, director of the Lajee Cultural Center in Beit Lehem’s Aida
refugee concentration camp, had been removed on Nov 23. Two days earlier, UK Media Watch had published a blog post, alleging that the PSC was “compromised by links to extremism.” The post tried to justify Israel’s frequent military raids on Aida, one of the topics addressed in Ajarma’s article, by describing them as “anti-terror operations.” Furthermore, it tried to provide excuses for the killing of a 13-year-old boy by Israel’s forces of occupation. UK Media Watch is an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA) in Pindostan. A number of tweets about Ajarma’s article had been issued by UK Media Watch. Some of these were directed at the New Statesman, including its deputy editor Helen Lewis.
— UK Media Watch (@UKMediaWatch) November 21, 2016
UK Media Watch is led by Adam Levick,an inhabitant of Modiin with dual (USraeli) citizenship. Levick wrote the blog post complaining about Ajarma’s article. The day after UK Media Watch, a similar blog post was published by HonestReporting, a pro-Israel group whose managing editor once worked in the IOF spox unit. As second Palestine-related article was deleted by the New Statesman on Wednesday. Originally published on 15 September, it too was sponsored by the PSC. Again, the PSC was given no warning before the deletion occurred, a spokesperson for the campaign group stated. “Israel is building Palestine out of existence, using settlements as a weapon,” the article stated. It was written by Hugh Lanning, the PSC’s chair. Lanning called for the UK government to “use the levers at its disposal to stop the building of any more illegal settlements.” As of this writing, three other articles from 2015 sponsored by the PSC remain online.
Keith Ellison’s Erstwhile Writings
Zaid Jilani, The Intercept, Dec 1 2016
Ellison being arrested on Oct 8 2013 in Faschingstein (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty)
Minnesota Rep Keith Ellison’s bid to lead the DNC has set off a flurry of articles noting his affinity, in his younger years, for the Nation of Islam, whose former leader Louis Farrakhan frequently engaged in (so-called) ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘anti-White speech’. Ellison has been reticent to talk about the topic, even canceling a NYT interview after reporters asked him about it. But those wishing to learn more about Ellison’s views as a young man, not long after he converted to Islam and 16 years before he became the first Muslim elected to Congress, can look to columns that he wrote as a law student at the University of Minnesota in 1989 and 1990 for the university’s student newspaper. They provide insight into why he was drawn to Black nationalism and the Nation of Islam. They show a younger and angrier Ellison, who denounced White supremacy and the policies of the state of Israel. And while they show either a willful or naive ignorance of the Nation of Islam’s bigotry (at least to liberal Nazis paid by the CIA, like this author – RB) , they also show him expressing sympathy for the plight of underprivileged Whites and making clear that he was not antagonistic toward Jews. When Ellison ran for Congress in 2006, he told the WaPo that he was initially drawn to Farrakhan because he saw him standing up for Black Pindosis, but that he didn’t approve of bigotry against Jews or others. He told the WaPo:
My perspective was a tunnel vision. I was mostly concerned about the welfare of the African-American community. I never said anything that was anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic in any way.
But he also admitted to being slow to pick up on the hatred espoused by Farrakhan (really – RB). The student newspaper columns he wrote as a law student seem to confirm his story. They also help illustrate a serious, lifelong commitment to social justice. World Net Daily and Daily Caller recently ran articles decrying Ellison, who used the pen name “Keith Hakim” for one particular column they read as advocacy for a separate nation for Black Pindosis, which is indeed an extreme policy proposal. But that call was part of a longer, thoughtful discussion of the failures of affirmative action. In the Feb 2 1990 column titled Affirmative action does not make up for past injustice, he argued that Pindostan’s social programs were failing to truly address injustices committed against Black Pindosis, while also unfairly burdening working-class White Pindosis. This brought him to propose not a genuine alternative, but a thought experiment of sorts. He wrote:
Conservatives have a point concerning affirmative action. Why should marginally qualified White college students and blue-collar workers shoulder over 400 years of white supremacy alone? … Let’s face it, liberal social programs, including but not limited to affirmative action, foist the burden of brutal White savagery onto the most marginally qualified Whites, usually students or the White working class. … I have a challenge for all fair-minded middle- and working-class White people: I will urge black people to abandon White-dominated, integration-oriented, give-away programs if you urge White people to justly compensate Black people for 250 years of slavery, 90 years of Jim Crow and 25 years of neo-Jim Crow.
In that scenario, he suggested reparations in the form of cash compensation and giving Blacks “the option of choosing their own land base or remaining in Pindostan.” Five states in the Deep South would become “the Black state,” although neither Whites nor Blacks would be compelled to move, he explained. It was more satire than a serious call to secede.
The columns do not endorse Farrakhan’s conspiratorial theories about Jews or his broadsides against all White people (about which few thinking beings give a shit – RB). Instead, they cite the group’s advocacy for social empowerment of Black people, as well as its charitable work and economic programs. He wrote in a Nov 27 1989 column titled Minister Farrakhan never claimed to be Malcolm X, defending an invitation to Farrakhan to speak at the school:
The single most distinguishing characteristic of the Nation of Islam, from a Black perspective, is the Nation’s message of economic self-determination. Considering the Power Program, the bean pies and the fish stores, the Black community knows the Nation to have a definite economic thrust.
Ellison did not endorse racism or bigotry, but he also failed to even recognize the extremism in Farrakhan’s politics (tsk tsk – RB). He concluded that the hatred Farrakhan provoked was a reaction against his attempt to disrupt White supremacy, writing in the same column:
Racism has very definite characteristics. It means subjugation of one racial class by another. For Farrakhan to be a racist he would have to be, at least, preaching subjugation of Whites. Farrakhan, however, preaches cultural pluralism and repatriation, as opposed to integration.
The school columns also provide insight into how Ellison distinguished between being opposed to Israeli imperialism and being anti-Semitic. In 1990, Black students at the University of Minnesota invited Kwame Ture, the former leader of the SNCC more commonly known as Stokely Carmichael, to address the school. Ture was under fire for comments he made disparaging Zionism. University president Nils Hasselmo defended Ture’s right to speak, but exclaimed that he found Ture’s views to be “deeply offensive.” Ellison perceived Hasselmo’s comments as an attack on Black students’ right to free speech, responding with a column titled Blacks struggle for freedom of speech. In that column, Ellison defended the invitation to Ture, but also separated criticisms of Zionism from those of the Jewish people, writing:
If Zionism is nationalism and not religion, then it is necessarily a political matter. Political matters are always subject to debate, which means support or criticism. Those who opt to criticize Israel are not necessarily anti-Jewish.
Keith Ellison’s column, Blacks struggle for freedom of speech, published in the University of Minnesota’s student newspaper.
Later in his life, Ellison left the angry and sectarian politics of the Nation of Islam behind and grew to recognize that extreme political speech and tactics were not the way to achieve his social goals (yes Bwana – RB). For example, he is an outspoken supporter of Black Lives Matter, but also believes that engaging in tactics that turn people away rather than build coalitions is the wrong approach to create justice. Last December, when a group of Minneapolis Black Lives Matter protesters camped outside a police building, he supported their goal, an investigation into the shooting of Jamar Clark, a Black man killed by police. His own son joined the protesters and had a weapon pointed at him by police.
Photo is agonizing for me to see. My son is PEACEFULLY protesting w/ hands up; officer is shouldering gun. Why? https://t.co/TTUBR0fxtS
— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) November 19, 2015
— CallMeWin (@WintanaMN) November 19, 2015
But as the encampment dragged on, there was increasing concern about public safety. Someone fired a gun amidst the demonstrators. Ellison called for the protests to end. Black Lives Matter protesters reacted with scorn.
— Black Lives MPLS (@BlackLivesMpls) December 1, 2015
Ellison insisted that he supported their goals, but that disrupting public life was not helpful.
— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) December 1, 2015
It was as if Ellison was arguing with a younger version of himself.
ADL is leading ‘witchhunt’ against Keith Ellison, says Ben-Ami
Philip Weiss, MondoWeiss, Dec 2 2016
Jewish groups are conducting a “witchhunt” against Keith Ellison, and it exposes “a very bad tendency” of the Jewish community to drive anyone who has criticized Israel out of public position, Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street said last night to a Jewish audience in New York. Ben-Ami was responding to reports yesterday that Ellison, who wants to be the next chair of the DNC, had said in 2010 that Pindosi foreign policy for the entire Middle East is “governed by” what is in Israel’s interests because of the “Pindosis who trace their roots back to there,” ie Pindosi Jews. The ADL promptly said that Ellison was disqualified for the DNC position. Ben-Ami spoke at a Jewish forum on Israel at B’nai Jeshurun, a synagogue on NY’s Upper West Side. Jane Eisner of the Forward said that the Keith Ellison statement that had “bubbled up” that afternoon was “awful” and that he has a “rather troubling record” on Israel. But she said she might be willing to dismiss things he had said “off-handedly,” the same way the Jewish community can dismiss the fact that Pentagon pick Gen J Mattis once said Israel is headed for “apartheid.” Ben-Ami responded:
I just have to jump in for his defense. I think that there’s nothing troubling about his record. I think that the witchhunt that is going on on Keith Ellison is reminiscent of the witch hunt that goes on every single time somebody who has dared to criticize the policies of the government of Israel steps forward and has a potential to hold position in this country. And the ADL and other organizations come after them until they’re driven out of the competition for that job and I think it’s a very bad tendency of our community. (I have no preference for Democrat party chair, but Keith Ellison must be allowed to be critical of Israel.) I have traveled with Keith to Israel. I’ve gone to Sderot and talked with the Israeli victims of the rockets from Gaza. We have met with Israelis and Palestinians together. There is no one more committed to a two state solution for the sake of Israel’s security than Keith Ellison. I do have a stake in the dynamic in Pindostan where people like Keith who are critical of Israeli policy end up cast as having a “troubling” record on Israel. It’s not a troubling record. He’s critical of the policies of the government of Israel. And he is calling out the fact that the voices that push for policies here are very very powerful. And the quote that was quoted was him speaking to Arab Pindosis, saying, If you want to have a say, then you have to learn the way the Jewish Pindosis do it. I say that to the Arab Pindosi leaders. You have to be organized. Look at what the Jewish community has done for the last 50, 60 years. I’m proud of it. I’m proud of AIPAC. I’m proud of what we’ve done to build the USrael relationship. You do the same! Get a PAC! Get a lobby! Get organized!
Michael Makovsky of JINSA then said that Ellison was no James Mattis! The panel was all Zionists! No Jewish anti-Zionists! Don’t you worry about that! Obviously reading from talking points, Makovsky said that Ellison had been a “member of Farrakhan’s organization, the Nation of Islam,” that in 2007 he compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire as a conspiracy to gain political power, and that in 2014 he was one of eight House members who voted against giving Israel $225m for military batteries depleted after its assault on Gaza. Again, Ben-Ami leapt to Ellison’s defense, and lumped Makovsky in with the Jewish community’s witchhunt:
First, Ellison apologized for the 2007 remark. Second, he has voted for military aid to Israel across the board. He didn’t do so in 2014 on procedural grounds. He is a staunch supporter of Israel’s security. To go on this kind of witchhunt, where you continue to throw things out about him, to imply something about him that isn’t true, is what’s wrong with the way we discuss Israel in this community. We slander the reputation and name of a good man who is a friend of Israel and is looking to achieve peace and security, not just for Israel but for the Palestinian people.
So pro-Israel organizations are turning on one another. Are we finally going to have an honest conversation about the power of the Israel lobby? Maybe yes, maybe no. One truth is clear. The most unforgiveable thing about what Walt and Mearsheimer wrote ten years ago, when they had to publish in London, was that they weren’t Jewish. Another interesting exchange occurred when Makovsky, whose political outlook is that Pindostan must have an aggressive foreign policy to project strength and support Israel, all but accused Obama and Jackass of anti-Semitism for remarks they made about Israel’s lobbying against the Iran deal. He referred to Obama’s complaint about pressure on him from lobbyists on the Iran deal, and a comment by Jackass that Netanyahu would be calling him and saying it’s time to bomb Iran if Congress rejected the deal, at this Senate hearing. Makovsky said the rhetoric was reminiscent of Pat Buchanan and the Republican Party in the 1990s, before Bill Kristol led the purge of “the Arabists” that he bragged in this same Jewish space. Makovsky said:
I think the Jewish community let some things pass that they shouldn’t have!
Eisner responded that Israel brought the criticism on itself with its overreach in the matter of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress bypassing the White House in Mar 2015, saying:
It is really surprising to me that there wasn’t more retaliation against that. I can’t imagine the leader of any other country, any other country in the world, having the chutzpah to do that.
Dying to Be Heard: Reporting Syria’s War | almost unbearable to watch, which is why you must. https://t.co/QNsykc0Aym
— Lisa Goldman (@lisang) December 1, 2016
Fascism is inspiring the New Yorker. pic.twitter.com/2yYOgev2Dl
— Lisa Goldman (@lisang) December 1, 2016
— Lisa Goldman (@lisang) December 1, 2016
I watch this and I am beside myself with anxiety. https://t.co/3lPJs0FfVf
— Lisa Goldman (@lisang) December 1, 2016
— Lisa Goldman (@lisang) December 1, 2016
I was surprised, too. And horrified. https://t.co/wfRpuhkAVp
— Lisa Goldman (@lisang) December 1, 2016
Senate Responds to Trump-Inspired Anti-Semitism By Targeting Students Who Criticize Israel
Alex Emmons, Intercept, Dec 2 2016
After Donald Trump’s election emboldened white supremacists and inspired a wave of anti-Semitic hate incidents across the country, the Senate on Thursday took action by passing a bill aimed at limiting the free-speech rights of college students who express support for Palestinians. By unanimous consent, the Senate quietly passed the so-called Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, only two days after it was introduced by Senators Bob Casey and Tim Scott. A draft of the bill obtained by The Intercept encourages the Dept of Education to use the State Dept’s broad, widely criticized definition of anti-Semitism when investigating schools. That definition, from a 2010 memo, includes as examples of anti-Semitism “delegitimizing” Israel, “demonizing” Israel, “applying double standards” to Israel, and “focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations.” Critics have pointed out that those are political positions, not racist ones, they are shared by a significant number of Jews, and they qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. According to the draft, the bill does not adopt the definition as a formal legal standard, it only directs the State Dept to “take into consideration” the definition when investigating schools for anti-Semitic discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The memo’s definition, which is widely supported by Israeli advocacy groups, was intended for identifying anti-Semitic groups overseas. Even then, it came with caveats. Criticisms of Israel are only examples of possible anti-Semitism “taking into account the overall context,” and the memo concludes:
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
Attempts to adopt the definition as a standard for campus censorship have drawn criticism from civil rights groups, free speech advocates, newspapers, hundreds of academics, and even one of the definition’s crafters, who wrote a column last year arguing it should not be applied to campuses. The bill approved by the Senate on Thursday was supported by AIPAC, the Jewish Federations of North America, and the ADL. Liz Jackson, an attorney with the group Palestine Legal, said:
The definition will have a severe chilling effect on campuses, and that is the explicit goal of the Israel advocacy organizations who promote it. Student activists for Palestinian rights already operate in a repressive environment. If this bill passes, they will face the specter of federal investigation simply for engaging in criticism of the Israeli government’s abusive policies.
Campus activists are being subject to an increasingly broad censorship effort by Israeli-allied groups. Each year, Palestine Legal documents hundreds of instances of obstruction, censorship, or punishment of pro-Palestinian activism at colleges and universities. In Dec 2015, for example, one student at George Washington University was ordered by campus police to remove a Palestinian flag from her window, and threatened with further disciplinary action. At other campuses, students have been suspended or threatened with expulsion for demonstrating against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. The University of Illinois in 2014 fired a tenure-track professor for tweeting about Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Filing complaints with the Dept of Education has been a favored tactic of groups including the ZOA and the Brandeis Center, which have written letters to the department alleging that events like demonstrations and film screenings amount to “harassment” or “intimidation,” and create a “hostile environment on the basis of national origin” for Jewish students on campus. The Dept of Education has investigated and dismissed four such cases, against UC Irvine, UC Santa Cruz, UC Berkeley, and Rutgers University, ruling that “robust and discordant” expression is to be expected on a college campus, and that the events described “do not constitute actionable harassment.” The investigations nonetheless amount to public relations victories for Israeli advocacy groups, who can circulate articles about how pro-Palestinian activists are under investigation for anti-Semitism, while the activists have to deal with the months-long burden of being under government investigation. Civil rights groups are confident that if the Dept of Education actually did use the State Department’s standard, the courts would quickly find it unconstitutional. Jackason said:
If the Department of Education were to enforce this definition by restricting student speech critical of Israel, it would violate the First Amendment. The right to criticize a government, wthere Pindosi, Israeli or any other government, is an enshrined constitutional freedom in our country. The Senate can’t legislate that away.
Jewish groups opposed to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank were quick to denounce the bill. Tali Ben Daniel of JVP said in a statement:
Instead of fighting the anti-Semitism entering the White House, this bill will go after 19-year-old students carrying protest signs against human rights abuses. This is not how to fight anti-Semitism, this is a recipe for restricting civil liberties like the right to criticize a government for its policies.
It is unclear when the House will consider a counterpart bill.
Taming Trump: From Faux Left to Faux Right Populism
Jack Rasmus, Counterpunch, Dec 2 2016
… The other major Trump policy area that still remains vague is foreign policy. It is not clear as yet what Trump’s true positions will be on NATO and China. But the Pindo elite are intent on bringing him around to their positions and will exert extreme pressure on Trump in order to do so. They have already begun to do so. They will not let up on the pressure. Trump’s intent is to become more militarily aggressive against Daesh in the middle east, and possibly ‘partnering’ with Russia to do so. That latter possibility is currently causing fits with Daesh elites behind the scene. Backing off from NATO military deployment provocations in eastern Europe, the Pindo-NATO previous and still current policy, while continuing economic sanctions against Russia, may also become Trump policy. Whether that foreign policy redirection occurs under Trump is now playing out in backroom maneuverings within the Trump administration with regard to key Trump cabinet appointments involving departments of State, Defense, and remaining national security positions. The elite want Romney. Populist right forces in the Trump camp do not. And behind the appointment issue is whether a Sec State position under Trump becomes a mere figurehead to Trump foreign policy decided in the White House by Trump and his close aides like General Flynn and others. The Pindo elite want Romney and they are demanding the Sec State have independence. Should Romney get the appointment here, it will signal they have prevailed. The result will be a bifurcation on foreign policy directions in the Trump administration which will ultimately break down at some point. Obama’s recent ‘tour’ of NATO countries should be viewed as an effort by Pindo elites to try to ensure NATO allies that Trump’s campaign proposals targeting NATO will not be the final position of the Trump regime. The Obama tour was in part at least to hold NATO allies’ hands and ask them to be patient, while the elite will bring Trump around to reality. Be patient. We will eventually ‘tame’ Trump is no doubt the message. The other key appointment, Sec Def, also factors into ‘taming Trump’ on foreign policy. Will Trump be able to appoint his own man, likely some Trump supporter general like Mattis or other? Or will a mainstream elite figure like Petraeus end up in the position? Who gets appointed will further signal whether a Trump administration redirects Pindo foreign policy on NATO, Russia, or in Asia, or whether the elites get their man to ensure continuation of prior policies with minimal adjustments to Trump ‘right populism.’
I intend to complete the hebrew textfile for the whole book and unify it, so that it will be available as one big file to hebrew-reading students on a permanent basis, or as long as the blog lasts, which will ensure its survival and distribution.
Copyright on the hebrew text still belongs to the Magnes Press, I assume. But the date of publication was 1942, and there were no subsequent reprints of this seminal work. Copyright may have lapsed after 70 years, I really don’t know.
Tishby, Preface & Introduction
Tishby, Part One
Tishby, Part Two
Tishby, Part Three (in progress)