Blog Archives

Ukraine’s Right Sector paramilitary battalion is illegal – Judge Advocate General

The volunteer battalion of the ultra-nationalist Ukrainian Right Sector group is illegal, according to Ukraine’s Judge Advocate General, who slammed the group for its failure to integrate into Ukraine’s military.

Members of Right Sector (Gleb Garanich, Reuters)

Members of Right Sector (Gleb Garanich, Reuters)

The Right Sector battalion has over the past two years failed to decide whether it wanted to join the ranks of Ukraine’s army or of National Guards, the Judge Advocate General said in an interview. “According to all juridical norms and practices, and to the Ukrainian Constitution, speaking in meager legal terms, the Right Sector volunteer battalion is an illegal armed group,” Judge Advocate General Anatoly Matios told Ukraine’s Public Radio.

Matios has condemned certain incidents when the Right Sector volunteer battalion militants violated Ukrainian legislation.

“It is unacceptable that a [military] unit, even acting under the slogans of patriotism, should be lurking well-armed in rearward areas, playing firing on police checkpoints. Whether police is right or wrong is a question of law and its application,” Matios said.

In July 2015 the Right Sector militants clashed with police in western Ukraine’s Mukachevo. Kiev called the incident an “act of terror,” while the group said its forces would stand against the authorities across the country. The incident left four civilians and three police officers injured. One civilian was killed by Right Sector gunmen. The ultranationalist group said two of its fighters were killed and four injured in the incident.

If Ukrainian authorities go on with covering up general crime with patriotism, “chaos will devour Ukraine,” Matios said.

He however described Right Sector as “extreme patriots of the state” and their fallen fighters as “heroes, the country’s elite”.

Members of the Right Sector group took an active role in events on Maidan which resulted in a government coup in Ukraine in 2013 that led to the deposition of President Viktor Yanukovich.

In Russia the group’s activities were banned under a Supreme Court decision in January 2015. In addition, Russia’s Investigative Committee started criminal cases against several members of the radical Ukrainian group over charges of fighting against the Russian military in the Chechen wars of the 1990s.

On January 19 Ukrainian nationalists, largely represented by Right Sector, marched through the center of the Ukrainian capital of Kiev to commemorate the two year anniversary of Ukraine’s Euromaidan events. The crowd marched with Ukrainian flags and the flags of the far-right Right Sector group and gathered piles of tires setting them ablaze in front of the governmental buildings.

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

 

Advertisements

Gladio B and the Battle for Eurasia

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=12947

‘Operation Gladio B’–the continuation of the old NATO Gladio program–covers a tangled web of covert operatives, billionaire Imams, drug running, prison breaks and terror strikes. Its goal: the destabilization of Central Asia and the Caucasus. In this presentation to Studium Generale in Groningen on November 19, 2014, James Corbett lifts the lid on this operation, its covert operatives, and the secret battle for the Eurasian heartland.

How Big Oil Conquered the World

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=16888

From farm to pharmaceutical, diesel truck to dinner plate, pipeline to plastic product, it is impossible to think of an area of our modern-day lives that is not affected by the oil industry. The story of oil is the story of the modern world. And this is the story of those who helped shape that world, and how the oil-igarchy they created is on the verge of monopolizing life itself.

Noam Chomsky: US, Terrorism, (2015)

Noam Chomsky 2015 Videos 2015 Noam chomsky conference 2015 noam chomsky debate 2015 noam chomsky conversation 2015 noam chomsky interview
Noam Chomsky: America (US) is The Biggest Terrorist in the world (2015) https://youtu.be/272vNvH0-jc
Noam Chomsky: “The Emerging New World Order (NWO) : its roots, our legacy” (2015)
https://youtu.be/6ccNt4Dzyfg
Noam Chomsky 2015 on Communism, Revolutionary Violence, the American Left and Zizek (2015)
https://youtu.be/SPsCWhb7zW4
Noam Chomsky 2015 in new conversation with Jonathan Freedland (2015)
https://youtu.be/iPI__zs88EU

“The Emerging, New, World Order, its roots, our legacy”


Noam Chomsky: Conference “The Emerging New World Order system (NWO) : its roots, our legacy” (2015)
https://youtu.be/6ccNt4Dzyfg
Noam Chomsky 2015 : USA Terrorism NWO propaganda (2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=272vN…
Noam Chomsky, Free Market Fantasies, Capitalism, In The Real World 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE12m…
Noam Chomsky 2015 on Communism, Revolutionary Violence, the American Left and Zizek (2015)
http://adf.ly/1IKTNe
Noam Chomsky 2015 in conversation with Jonathan Freedland (2015)
http://adf.ly/1IKTQE

Noam Chomsky 2015 Israel and Palestine [FULL] (2015)
http://adf.ly/1IKTXy

Austerity and Neoliberalism in Greece with Richard Wolff and Barry Herman

Development, Thought and Policy Lecture Series: Austerity and Neoliberalism in Greece, sponsored by the Julien J. Studley Graduate Program in International Affairs (http://www.newschool.edu/public-engag…), at the Milano School of International Affairs, Management, and Urban Policy (http://www.newschool.edu/milano). GPIA Professors Richard Wolff and Barry Herman share their insights, led by chair and moderator Achilles Kallergie, PhD Candidate in the GPIA program.

What austerity is about is shifting the burden of an economic crisis from one part of the population to another. The mass of Greek people did not force Andreas Papandreou to borrow money. The mass of the Greek people didn’t know about or have much to do with fiscal policy at the national level. In fact, governments, bankers, leading industrialists, ship builders, the major players of the Greek economy, got together, as their counterparts did elsewhere, to produce the decisions that then, in the wake of the international collapse of capitalism, became unsustainable, producing a crisis in Greece. Once that had happened, there was only one question left: Who was going to pay the cost of all the debt Greece has run up or all the production decisions made that have left Greece without the capacity to export, with a dependence on imports etc.? And at that point, as has happened in every country – Greece is in no way unique – the wealthy and the business community went to work, with their resources and their business connections, to make sure that they didn’t pay the price.

Putin Destroy 60 Minutes News

The entire interview here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/president-putin-part-one/

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/president-putin-part-two/

Charlie Rose told lie after lie for his CIA masters!  If you see nothing else go to the 6:53 mark in the interview and watch Putin absolutely DESTROY Charlie Rose and the Fake News outlet 60 Minutes on the issue of Ukraine! Charlie Rose actually has the gall to ask Putin if he believes the US had something to do with the coup!  This has been admitted by George Soros who said we paid $5 billion to take out Ukraine!  There have been releases of telephone conversations from US puppets in Ukraine bragging about it!

Go to 6:53 to see Putin destroy the lies of the fake news!  He hints about the US doing an illegal coups in Ukraine and other countries.  At which point, disgusting Rose says  ”You believe the US had something to do with the ousting of Yanukovch?”

Putin responds with

“We Know Who and Where, When, Who Exactly Met with Someone and worked with those that ousted Yanukovch, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in what countries and who those instructors were, we know everything!”   (at this point Charlie has to insert that for the record the lying US government denies any involvement!)  (what a joke!)

 

 

The problem of Greece is not only a tragedy. It is a lie. – by John Pilger

JohnsPhotoThe true nature of Syriza has been seldom examined and explained. To the foreign media it is no more than “leftist” or “far left” or “hardline” – the usual misleading spray. Some of Syriza’s international supporters have reached, at times, levels of cheer leading reminiscent of the rise of Barack Obama. Few have asked: Who are these “radicals”? What do they believe in?

greece3.jpg

An historic betrayal has consumed Greece. Having set aside the mandate of the Greek electorate, the Syriza government has willfully ignored last week’s landslide “No” vote and secretly agreed a raft of repressive, impoverishing measures in return for a “bailout” that means sinister foreign control and a warning to the world.

Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has pushed through parliament a proposal to cut at least 13 billion euros from the public purse – 4 billion euros more than the “austerity” figure rejected overwhelmingly by the majority of the Greek population in a referendum on 5 July.

These reportedly include a 50 per cent increase in the cost of healthcare for pensioners, almost 40 per cent of whom live in poverty; deep cuts in public sector wages; the complete privatization of public facilities such as airports and ports; a rise in value added tax to 23 per cent, now applied to the Greek islands where people struggle to eke out a living. There is more to come.

“Anti-austerity party sweeps to stunning victory”, declared a Guardian headline on January 25. “Radical leftists” the paper called Tsipras and his impressively-educated comrades. They wore open neck shirts, and the finance minister rode a motorbike and was described as a “rock star of economics”. It was a façade. They were not radical in any sense of that cliched label, neither were they “anti austerity”.

For six months Tsipras and the recently discarded finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, shuttled between Athens and Brussels, Berlin and the other centres of European money power. Instead of social justice for Greece, they achieved a new indebtedness, a deeper impoverishment that would merely replace a systemic rottenness based on the theft of tax revenue by the Greek super-wealthy – in accordance with European “neo-liberal” values – and cheap, highly profitable loans from those now seeking Greece’s scalp.

Greece’s debt, reports an audit by the Greek parliament, “is illegal, illegitimate and odious”. Proportionally, it is less than 30 per cent that of the debit of Germany, its major creditor. It is less than the debt of European banks whose “bailout” in 2007-8 was barely controversial and unpunished.

For a small country such as Greece, the euro is a colonial currency: a tether to a capitalist ideology so extreme that even the Pope pronounces it “intolerable” and “the dung of the devil”. The euro is to Greece what the US dollar is to remote territories in the Pacific, whose poverty and servility is guaranteed by their dependency.

In their travels to the court of the mighty in Brussels and Berlin, Tsipras and Varoufakis presented themselves neither as radicals nor “leftists” nor even honest social democrats, but as two slightly upstart supplicants in their pleas and demands. Without underestimating the hostility they faced, it is fair to say they displayed no political courage. More than once, the Greek people found out about their “secret austerity plans” in leaks to the media: such as a 30 June letter published in the Financial Times, in which Tsipras promised the heads of the EU, the European Central Bank and the IMF to accept their basic, most vicious demands – which he has now accepted.

When the Greek electorate voted “no” on 5 July to this very kind of rotten deal, Tsipras said, “Come Monday and the Greek government will be at the negotiating table after the referendum with better terms for the Greek people”. Greeks had not voted for “better terms”. They had voted for justice and for sovereignty, as they had done on January 25.

The day after the January election a truly democratic and, yes, radical government would have stopped every euro leaving the country, repudiated the “illegal and odious” debt – as Argentina did successfully – and expedited a plan to leave the crippling Eurozone. But there was no plan. There was only a willingness to be “at the table” seeking “better terms”.

The true nature of Syriza has been seldom examined and explained. To the foreign media it is no more than “leftist” or “far left” or “hardline” – the usual misleading spray. Some of Syriza’s international supporters have reached, at times, levels of cheer leading reminiscent of the rise of Barack Obama. Few have asked: Who are these “radicals”? What do they believe in?

In 2013, Yanis Varoufakis wrote: “Should we welcome this crisis of European capitalism as an opportunity to replace it with a better system? Or should we be so worried about it as to embark upon a campaign for stabilising capitalism? To me, the answer is clear. Europe’s crisis is far less likely to give birth to a better alternative to capitalism… I bow to the criticism that I have campaigned on an agenda founded on the assumption that the left was, and remains, squarely defeated… Yes, I would love to put forward [a] radical agenda. But, no, I am not prepared to commit the [error of the British Labour Party following Thatcher’s victory]… What good did we achieve in Britain in the early 1980s by promoting an agenda of socialist change that British society scorned while falling headlong into Thatcher’s neoliberal trip? Precisely none. What good will it do today to call for a dismantling of the Eurozone, of the European Union itself…?”

Varoufakis omits all mention of the Social Democratic Party that split the Labour vote and led to Blairism. In suggesting people in Britain “scorned socialist change” – when they were given no real opportunity to bring about that change – he echoes Blair.

The leaders of Syriza are revolutionaries of a kind – but their revolution is the perverse, familiar appropriation of social democratic and parliamentary movements by liberals groomed to comply with neo-liberal drivel and a social engineering whose authentic face is that of Wolfgang Schauble, Germany’s finance minister, an imperial thug. Like the Labour Party in Britain and its equivalents among former social democratic parties such as the Labor Party in Australia, still describing themselves as “liberal” or even “left”,  Syriza is the product of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, “schooled in postmodernism”, as Alex Lantier wrote.

For them, class is the unmentionable, let alone an enduring struggle, regardless of the reality of the lives of most human beings. Syriza’s luminaries are well-groomed; they lead not the resistance that ordinary people crave, as the Greek electorate has so bravely demonstrated, but “better terms” of a venal status quo that corrals and punishes the poor. When merged with “identity politics” and its insidious distractions, the consequence is not resistance, but subservience. “Mainstream” political life in Britain exemplifies this.

This is not inevitable, a done deal, if we wake up from the long, postmodern coma and reject the myths and deceptions of those who claim to represent us, and fight.

 

John Pilger

The Radical Reconfiguration of Southern European Politics: The Rise of the Non Leftist Left

petras

Introduction: Over the past decade fundamental changes have taken place in Southern Europe, which have broken with previous political alignments, resulting in the virtual disappearance of traditional leftist ’parties, the decline of trade unions and the emergence of ‘middle class radicalism’.

New political movements, purportedly on the left, no longer are based on class conscious workers nor are they embedded in the class struggle. Likewise on the right, greater attention is paid to escalating the repressive capacity of the state instead of state intervention in pursuit of economic markets.

Radicalization of the right, including massive cutbacks in social spending, has demolished welfare programs. The dispossession of households has uprooted cohesive neighborhood-based social organizations.

In place of the class based traditional left, ‘non-leftist left’ movements have emerged. Their leaders embrace ‘participatory democracy’ but engage in vertical political practice.

On the right, politics no longer revolve around conserving national economic privileges. Rightwing leaders willingly subordinate their economies and society to imperial led crusades, which empty national sovereignty of any meaning while pillaging the national treasury.

This essay will proceed to discuss these complex changes and their meaning.

The ‘Non-Leftist Left’ in Southern Europe

The economic crisis, in particular the imposition of severe cuts in wages, pensions and other social welfare programs by rightwing and social democratic governments have led to widespread discontent, which the traditional workplace based leftist parties have been unable to address and mobilize the people. Prolonged and deepening unemployment and the growth of temporary employment have affected over 50% of the labor force.

Union representation has declined precipitously, further weakening the presence of traditional leftist parties in factories.

Large-scale evictions, foreclosure of mortgages and accompanying job losses have led to neighborhood-based anti-eviction movements and struggles. Millions of young workers now depend on their grandparents’ pensions and remain with two older generations in their parents’ home. For the young workers, the degradation of everyday life, the loss of personal autonomy and the inability to live independently have led to revolts for ‘dignity’.

The traditional left parties and trade unions have failed (or not attempted) to organize the unemployed. They have failed to attract the young and the downwardly mobile temporary workers in anything resembling class-based, class struggle-oriented movements.

Paradoxically despite the deepening crisis among most workers, the traditional left has declined. Its workplace orientation and its language of class struggle do not resonate with those without jobs or prospects. For the radicalized middle class the traditional left is too radical in seeking to overturn capitalism and too distant from power to realize changes.

The radicalized middle class includes public employees, professionals and self-employed private contractors who aspire to, and until recently, experienced upward mobility but have now found their path blocked by the austerity programs imposed by rightwing, as well as, social democratic parties.

Frustrated by the social democrats’ betrayal and facing downward mobility, the radicalized middle class are disoriented and fragmented. Many have joined amorphous street protests; some have even embraced, temporarily in most cases, the alternative traditional rightwing parties only to encounter even more brutal job cuts, insecurity and downward mobility.

The middle classes deeply resent being denied the opportunity for upward mobility for themselves and their children. They resent their formerly ‘moderately progressive’ Social Democratic leaders’ betrayal of their interests. Their radicalism is directed toward restoring their past access to social advancement. Their deep-seated hostility to the authorities is rooted in the loss of their previous status as a result of the crisis.

Middle class radicalism is tempered by nostalgia for the past. This radicalism is rooted in the struggle to restore the European Union’s social subsidies and growth policies. They remember a recent past of rising living standards and “social inclusion”, now denied their own children. This vision guides the rhetoric that the progressive middle class had earned and enjoyed theirrising incomes as a result of their own ‘merit’.

Today the radicalized middle class looks for practical, specifically defined and government-sponsored policies that can restore their past prosperity. They do not aim to ‘level the playing field’ for everyone but to prevent their proletariazation. They reject the politics of the traditional left parties because class struggle and worker-centered ideologies do not promote their own social aspirations.

For most radicalized middle class activists the culprits are ‘austerity’, the mega-bank swindlers and the political kleptocrats. They seek parties that can reform or moralize capitalism and restore ‘individual dignity’. They want to kick out corrupt officials. They demand ‘participatory democracy’ rather than the traditional left’s goal of public ownership under worker control.

Under the specific conditions generated by the current social crisis, a non-leftist left (NLL) has emerged throughout Europe. Spontaneous, amorphous, ‘anarchic’, extra-institutional and ‘street-centered’, the NLL has adopted an irreverent style. The NLL, in its origins, rejected political parties, well-defined programs and disciplined cadres in favor of spontaneity and irreverence toward institutions.

As the appeal of the NLL grew, the unemployed, the temporary workers, the insecure and unprotected non-unionized workers and the radicalized middle class joined demonstrations and found safety in the crowds. They were attracted by the appeals from ‘the street’ to oust the incumbent kleptocrats.

Emerging from this movement aimed at the downwardly mobile middle class’ anger, Podemosin Spain, Syriza in Greece and Five Stars in Italy have appealed to all the people disconnected from power, by promising a restoration of ‘dignity and respect.’ They made amorphous appeals to ‘end austerity’ with only a vague promise that they would create jobs.

The NLL leadership, however, is most clearly influenced by the non-radical resentments of the downwardly mobile middle class.

They never engaged in class struggles and have rejected class ideology. For the NLL leaders, social polarization is mostly a vehicle for building an electoral base. Their participation in small-scale local struggles was presented as ‘proof’ that the NLL leaders spoke to authentic popular aspirations.

The Non-Leftist Left’s Transition: From Street to Public Office

From the street, the NLL moved swiftly to elections and from elections they proceeded to form coalitions with traditional parties. Strategic decisions were taken by a small coterie of personalistic leaders: They redefined ‘participatory democracy’ to refer only to local neighborhood activism and issues – not national issues, which were the realm of ‘experts’.

Syriza, the first NLL to reach power, reflected the immense gap between the radical posturingof its leaders in opposition and their cringing conformity before Established Power (the Troika: IMF, European Commission, Central Bank) once elected to government.

Syriza embodied middle class resentment toward the Euro-technocratic elite in Brussels whom they blamed for their loss of past prosperity and job security and for the ongoing degradation of everyday life. Syriza denounced the Troika while it remained under its tutelage. It excoriatedthe EU elite in the highest moral tones for doing what its elite class interests dictated, that is, defend the EU bankers, extract debt payments and threaten their underlings. In practice,Syriza never applied any class analysis to the Troika’s policy as it continued to refer to their ‘EU partners’. ..even as they imposed brutall demands.

Once in power the Syriza leaders never mobilized a single mass protest and never even threatened a general strike in the face of EU colonial dictates.

Syriza’s personalist leader, Alexis Tsipra,s appointed right wingers from former regimes to key posts. He negotiated with the Troika and caved on all strategic issues dealing with debt payments, austerity and privatizations. Syriza never considered ‘going to the people’. Syriza’smoral crusade’ against capitalism ended by their embracing capitalism and the colonial Eurozone system.

Syriza’s lack of class analysis, class struggle and class mobilization and its total commitment to working within a moralized capitalism and the Eurozone to restore middle class status and security has resulted in the most abject conformity and surrender – punctuated by shameless buffoonery on the part of some leaders.

In the end, Syriza surrendered to the dictates of higher powers of the Troika ad their Eurozone acolytes, but not until it had emptied the Greek Treasury. The leaders have combined the worst of all worlds: a bankrupt national economy, a ‘protesting’ but fundamentally colonial regime and a disenchanted electorate.

Where Syriza wildly succeeded was in marginalizing the traditional left (the Greek Communist Party). It reaffirmed the historic pattern: free floating movements of the moment end up being run by personalistic leaders who presume to speak for “the people” while bending over to their overseas overlords.

NLL in Spain and Italy: Podemos and Five Stars

Podemos in Spain and Five Stars in Italy are ready to follow Syriza’s path of colonial subservience. They rejected and successfully marginalized the traditional left. They have gained mass support, organized mass protests and loudly rejected austerity and the dictates of the Troika.

While Podemos leaders talk of ‘participatory democracy’, a handful of leaders make all policy pronouncements, decide which candidates to support in the elections and determine what kind of post-election coalition governments they will join.

What gives Podemos and Five Stars their radical appearance is their opposition to the governing parties, their rejection of ‘austerity’, their criticism of neoliberalism – and their support for ‘micro-politics’ of local grassroots direct-action.

At no time or place have they counterpoised an alternative to capitalism. Nor have they repudiated illicit debts or supported the expropriation of the banks responsible for the pillage their economies.

Podemos and Five Stars deliberately obscure their politics: They are whatever any of their affiliates’ claim to be…

The leaders raise populist demands and speak about ‘dignity’, employment and punishment of corrupt officials. They call for an end to authoritarian measures, but avoid any real commitments to institutional change, especially of the repressive courts, police or armed forces.

Podemos and Five Stars criticize the EU’s austerity programs while staying in the EU as subordinate members of an organization dominated by German bankers. They promote popular mobilizations which they have turned into vote-gathering machines for electing their members to office.

The NLLs contradictory politics of populist gestures and institutional commitments reflect the politics of a frustrated and blocked middle class demanding a restoration of its past status and security. Podemos and Five Stars leaders put on the grand show of thumbing their noses at the establishment to promote limited middle class demands. On a much broader front, the leaders of the NLL have not organized any mass protests – let alone formed a mass movement which would seriously challenge the imperialist powers, NATO, the Middle East wars and US-EU sanctions against Russia.

Since most of their supporters are anti NATO, in favor of Palestinian independence and critical of the Kiev regime the popular base of the NLL will act on their own but will have no real impact on the current national leadership.

The reason for the disparity between leaders and followers is clear: The NLL leaders intend to form post-electoral coalitions with the corrupt and reactionary ‘center left’ parties so despised and rejected by their own electorate.

Following the nationwide Spanish municipal and regional elections, Podemos allied with corrupt Socialist Party (PSOE). In the municipality of Madrid, Podemos supported the left-center coalition Ahora Madrid (Madrid Now), which in turn has allied with the center-right Socialists to elect the ‘progressive’ mayoral candidate, Manuela Carmena.

While the entire ‘progressive camp’ celebrates the defeat of the hard-right Popular Party candidate –little has been said about consequential changes in the municipal and regional budgets, structures of economic power and class relations.

Five Stars’,( Movimento Cinque Stelle or M5S), Italy’s non-leftist left is dominated by a single ‘anti-leader’, Beppe Grillo, he defines the party’s programs and affiliations. He is known for making clownish, provocative gestures against the authorities, calling for a “Fuck the Parliament Day”.

It is Beppe who selects the candidates to run for Parliament. While in opposition, M5S loudly opposed all NATO wars in the Middle East, US military interventions in Latin America and free trade agreements. But now ensconced in the European Parliament, Beppe has aligned with the Libertarian Right.

Five Stars (M5S) central demands revolve around ‘direct democracy’ and ‘sustainable development’. It has captured the electoral support of the majority of the lower middle classgaining 26% of the vote (9 million voters) in the 2013 general elections.

While Beppe and his colleagues engage in fist fights within the Parliament, make radical gestures and spout belligerent rhetoric, ‘M5S’ has not supported a workers general strike. It participates in each and every election, but has stayed away from factory struggles.

Radicalism, as grand ‘gesture politics’, is an entertaining, non-threatening response to capitalism since there is no concerted effort to form class alliances with workers engaged in workplace struggles.

M5S’, like Podemos and Syriza, expresses the disorganized radicalism of the young, frustrated lower middle class raging against their downward mobility, while refusing to breakwith the EU .They rail against the concentration of power in the hands of the banks, but refuse to pursue their nationalization. M5S mobilized 800,000 people in Rome recently but led them nowhere. ‘Five Stars’ convokes crowds to meet and cheer its leaders and to ridicule the power brokers. Afterwards they all go home.

Conclusion

While the ‘NLL’ movements capture the support of the ‘indignant’, the mass of unemployed workers and the evicted householders, their leaders do not articulate a serious plan of action capable of challenging the economic power structures: they raise popular expectations via demands for ‘change’. However, these vague and deceptive slogans allow the NLL leaders to join in a medley of opportunist electoral coalitions and governmental alliances, with decidedly establishment personalities and parties.

In Greece, Italy and Spain the traditional left has either disappeared, or shrunk to a marginal force. With little or no base outside of the workplace and trade unions, they barely secure five percent of the votes.

The NLL has deepened the isolation of the traditional left and has even attracted a part of its social base. NLL’s rejection of the traditional left’s tight organization and top down leadership and its pluralistic rhetoric appeals to the young. Moreover, as the left trade unions have sought compromises with the bosses to save the jobs of employed workers and ignored the unemployed, the latter has looked to the ‘open and spontaneous’ NLL to express their opposition. In Spain’s municipal elections, the United Left, a Communist-led electoral formation, joined with Podemos to elect Manuela Carmena, the ‘insurgent mayor’ of Madrid.

While the Euro-US academic left has rightly celebrated the emergence of mass opposition to the rightist regimes in Southern Europe, they have failed to understand the internal dynamicswithin the NLL movements: the limitations of middle class radicalism and their conformists’ goals.

The example of Syriza in Greece is a warning of the fatal consequences of middle class leaders trying to realize radical changes, within the neo-liberal framework imposed by the EU.

Epilogue

Currently, the best example of the opportunism and bankruptcy of the NLL is found in the successful Mayor-elect of Madrid, Manuela Carmena, whose victory was hailed by Podemos as the ‘great victory for the people’ at recent celebration.

For her part, Mayor-elect Carmena has wasted no time repudiating all ‘five basic emergency reforms’ promised during the elections. In a press conference, the so-called ‘progressive Mayor of Madrid’ announced (with a cynical grin) that ‘promise number one’ – a public bank – was no longer needed because she was satisfied to work with the private banking oligarchy. She refused to pursue ‘promise number two’ – to provide subsidies for electricity, water and gas for poor families cut off from those services, claiming such support was too early and could wait until winter

Regarding Podemos ‘promise number three’ – a debt moratorium, Carmena insisted that “we will keep paying, for now”. On ‘promise number four’ favoring public over private contractors for municipal contracts, Carmena reversed the position: “We can’t change right away”.

Carmena even repudiated ‘promise number five’ – to immediately implement a summer meals program for poor children, insisting that she would rely on the inadequate programs of far right predecessor.

Moreover, Mayor-elect Carmena went even further, staffing her administration with far-right holdovers from the previous government to strategic policy-making positions. For example, sheappointed Carmen Roman, a former Director General of the far right Prime Minister Aznar, as Senior Executive of Madrid. She defended these reactionary decisions claiming that she was looking for “technocrats who are the best professional administrations”. Indeed, Carmen Roman had implemented mass firing of public workers and the dismantling of social programs in the ‘best professional’ manner possible!

Carmena further betrayed her Podemos electorate by insisting she looked forward to working with the hard right Prime Minister Rajoy and flatly rejected the idea of promoting a progressive alternative!

In less than one week, the euphoria over the victory of Podemos backed candidates has been dissipated by these acts of cynical opportunism: the non-leftist left has betrayed its electorate, from the very start!

“Color revolutions” – and relevant Institutions and Brands

This post contains:

  • Brief information about color revolutions 
  • Relevant institution
  • Color revolutions brands
  • Other posts on this topic

_________________________________________________

Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. Should the reader wonder what a “color revolution” is, keep reading.

Let us first begin with the Wikipedia definition. That website introduces the concept by stating the following:

Color revolution(s) is a term used by the media to describe related [political] movements that developed in several societies in the CIS (former USSR) and Balkan states during the early 2000’s. Some observers have called the events a revolutionary wave.

“Participants in the color revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance, also called civil resistance. Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have been [used to] protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements all adopted a specific color or flower as their symbol. The color revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organizing creative non-violent resistance.

“These movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution(2004), in Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005), in Kuwait’s Blue Revolution (2005), in Iraq’s Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution (1989), but failed in Iran’s Green Revolution (2009–2010) . Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections or request of fair elections and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian.”

“Color revolutions” are foreign funded psycho-social operations of deception

What the Wikipedia article fails to mention is the massive foreign funding (State Department, Private corporations and affiliated “NGO’s”), and at least a notion that color revolutions are clear psycho-social operations of deception.

It’s a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) 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, one can argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks.

https://athenianvoice.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/b4208-iranprotestor.jpg?w=480

The secret ingredient is a sophisticated science used to manipulate emotions and circumvent critical thinking. History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov’s dogs. These days the manipulation is so pervasive, so subtle, so effective, that even critical individuals at times must necessarily fail to recognize how often – or in what context – they have fallen prey.

Of course fear is the most obvious emotion played upon to effect massive social change. One need only to reflect upon the last fourteen years, since 9/11, to know that fear is a primary instrument used to initiate and justify dangerous shifts in public policy.

But as humanity has been physiologically equipped with a range of emotions, and is not merely arrested and controlled by fear alone, a strata of behavioral and political science also found it useful to master the flip-side of the emotional spectrum, and by that we mean desire. All that, drives groups of individuals to act, even in the face of fear, in pursuit of something worthwhile.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSow3A-zQZ-D2cT51yFoeowNVIar_UxaEMQuEhqtTdxMsWre-kX

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, often times even subconscious.

https://i1.wp.com/bmpr.com/chip_martin/blogs/images/chip_martin/Skyyad5.jpg

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 (a situation in which a leader is removed from power by the people who have worked with him or her) 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.

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.

A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy – only a tool – the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ. It follows that understanding geopolitical context (and motive) is necessary to understand the purpose of the color revolution.

The rest of this post highlights specific institutions of power

“Never utter these words: ‘I do not know this, therefore it is false.’ One must study to know; know to understand; understand to judge.” – Apothegm of Narada

_________________________________________________

SCROLL DOWN FOR LINKS TO RELEVANT INSTITUTIONS AND FURTHER DOWN FOR COLOR REVOLUTION BRANDS

The following institutions are central to the topics addressed here. (click on image to visit their home sites):

 _________________________________________________

National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

International Republican Institute (IRI)

International Republican Institute (IRI)

National Democratic Institute (NDI)

National Democratic Institute (NDI)

Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE)

Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE)

Solidarity Center of the AFL-CIO

Solidarity Center of the AFL-CIO

World Movement for Democracy

World Movement for Democracy

United States Institute of Peace (USIP)

United States Institute of Peace (USIP)

US Agency for International Development (USAID)

US Agency for International Development (USAID)

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Brookings Institution

Brookings Institution

American Enterprise Institute

American Enterprise Institute

The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Freedom House

Freedom House

International Crisis Group (ICG)

International Crisis Group (ICG)

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

International Coalition for Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

International Coalition for Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

Amnesty International

Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch

The Arlington Institute

The Arlington Institute

RAND Corporation

RAND Corporation

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

Eurasia Foundation

Eurasia Foundation

Open Society Institute

Open Society Institute

Internews

Internews

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)

Reporters Without Borders

Reporters Without Borders

Voice of America

Voice of America

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC)

International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC)

Albert Einstein Institution(AEI)

Albert Einstein Institution(AEI)

Center for Applied Nonviolent Actions Strategies (CANVAS)

Center for Applied Nonviolent Actions Strategies (CANVAS)

Movements.org

Movements.org

Color Revolution Brands:

OTPOR! (Serbia), 2000

OTPOR! (Serbia), 2000

ZUBR! (Belarus), ongoing

ZUBR! (Belarus), ongoing

KMARA! (Georgia), 2003

KMARA! (Georgia), 2003

PORA! (Ukraine), 2004

PORA! (Ukraine), 2004

Cedar Revolution (Lebanon), 2005

Cedar Revolution (Lebanon), 2005

KelKel (Kyrgyzstan), 2005

KelKel (Kyrgyzstan), 2005

Obama Campaign (United States), 2008

Obama Campaign (United States), 2008

Jasmine Revolution (Tunisia), 2011

Jasmine Revolution (Tunisia), 2011

April 6th Movement (Egypt), 2011

April 6th Movement (Egypt), 2011

National League for Democracy (Myanmar), ongoing

National League for Democracy (Myanmar), ongoing

Green Movement (Iran), ongoing

Green Movement (Iran), ongoing

Girifna (Sudan), Ongoing

Girifna (Sudan), Ongoing

Oborona (Russia), ongoing

Oborona (Russia), ongoing

Red Shirt Movement (Thailand), ongoing

Red Shirt Movement (Thailand), ongoing

Bersih (Malaysia), ongoing

Bersih (Malaysia), ongoing

Movement for Democratic Change (Zimbabwe), ongoing

Movement for Democratic Change (Zimbabwe), ongoing

Local Coordination Committees (Syria), ongoing

Local Coordination Committees (Syria), ongoing

MJAFT! (Albania), ongoing

MJAFT! (Albania), ongoing

White Ribbon Movement (Russia), ongoing

White Ribbon Movement (Russia), ongoing

Occupy Movement (United States), ongoing

Occupy Movement (United States), ongoing

Free Pussy Riot! (PR Stunt)

Free Pussy Riot! (PR Stunt)
%d bloggers like this: